Hekia Parata's legacy of shame- South End school update:

Continuing the saga of the dysfunction at the South End school in Carterton and the Ministry of Education.  Following the receipt of the slanderous and defamatory letter from the Board of Trustees complaints were made to the Board of Trustees, the Ministry of Education, the Minister, the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsmen, etc.

I have documented the manner in which the matter has been dealt with to evidence the dysfunction, which continues,almost eight years later.

It all started when I received this letter from the Board:

I have never been charged with an offence involving a child in my life, I had informed the Deputy Principal, referred to as "Dallas" in the emails below, of that fact several weeks prior to receivig the letter, and informed the school of that immediately on receipt of the letter.

The Board insisted that the NZ Police had informed them that I had been charged by Police with an offence involving a child, which is blatantly untrue, it is a complete lie.

I requested all information from the school and the Ministry, who both tried to evade the legislation and refused to provide the information.  Below is the letter from the Ministry showing their attempts to limit the information released.

On 7 August 2012 I sent this email to the school:

I am writing to again to request a meeting with the Board of Trustees and the IPCA regarding the orchestrated litany of lies being spread throughout the community, Courts, Privacy Commissioner's office, and far and wide, regarding me, by local police and their  mates - better work stories indeed!  I refer to a letter from the Board of Trustees of the South End School sacking me from my job at the school 

1. This all began when Deputy Principal of the South End School Dallas Powell came and told me about the conversation she'd had with the Staff representative on the Board of Trustees regarding the notes of a Board meeting in early 2009 at which Rod O'Leary and Gavin Kennedy and others, including the police, had lied to the Board in telling them that I had been charged with "an offence involving a child".
2. Dallas told me that a decision had been made at that meeting to send me the letter which I later received, sacking me over the false allegation.  Blatantly, dishonestly, corruptly.
3. I told Dallas Powell that the allegation was untrue, and requested an immediate meeting with the Board.
4. There was no response to that request for a meeting.  
5. My protest that the allegation was untrue was completely ignored.
6. I then received the letter containing the slanderous, libelous, allegation, in writing!
7. I again requested a meeting with the Board, the request has been totally ignored completely, arrogantly, corruptly.
8. i went to the school and told o'Leary I had never been charged with any such offence, and asked for an apology and reinstatement.
9. O'Leary and Kennedy responded by issuing me with a trespass notice.
10. I requested police recover all our property from the school, garden tools, plants and other equipment, etc, as the continued retention of it, and issuing of the trespass notice, was effectively theft.
11. O'Leary and Kennedy lied to the Privacy Commissioner's office, regarding several issues, firstly claiming that no infomation existed about the source of the infomation because I told them I had recently been charged with such an offence and this was the first they had heard of it, when I told them - an obvious and blatant lie of enormous magnitude!
12. O'Leary and Kennedy lied to the Privacy Commissioner's office, regarding several complaints from parents regarding the manner in which I have been treated by the Board, and certain staff members.
13. I REQUEST AN URGENT MEETING BE CALLED IMMEDIATELY TO DISCUSS THIS IN LIGHT OF THE SLANDEROUS LIES AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ME CONTAINED IN THE LETTER TO THE ARMSTRONG FAMILY DATED 30 APRIL 2010, AND THE LIES TOLD TO A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT THESE MATTERS, BY STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS, FOR OVER A YEAR.
14. WE WANT ALL OUR PROPERTY AND PLANTS RETURNED TO US IMMEDIATELY.

__________________________________-

School secretary Elaine Scully and statutory manager Ken Wilson then sent the following emails - Scully is a liar - I DID have a job at the school, as evidenced by the letter from the Board, and correspondence from the Minister of Education Louise Upston, and as can be seen from my email, I did not call her ANY names under the sun - her allegations of abuse are LIES.  Like her allegations to police that I stole correspondence between the school and another sacked staff member from the letterbox of a Board member - Scully gave it to the wrong child to take home to mummy!  Elaine Scully is the main problem at the South End school, she is a liability, she should have been sacked long ago!

The Privacy Commissioner's tax payer funded 'investigator' Dawn Swan proved to be nothing but an overpaid liar, she insisted that I must have told the Board that I had recently been charged by Police with an offence involving a child, which defies belief.

I complained to the Ombudsmen.  They backed the Privacy Commissioner initially.

Local politician Kelvyn Alp then wrote to the Ombudsmen demanding that they reopen their so called investigation as it was clearly flawed.

The Ombudsmen capitulated and reopened the investigation, this time deciding that the Board had acquired the defamatory gossip on which they based their letter to me "via a local kindergarten" and other ridiculous statements which will never stand up in a Court of law in any way shape or form

So the latest procrastination from the Ministry of Education, in line with their evidence policy of delay, deny, defer, is the following letter received from the Ministry dated 22 February 2017.  This says that the Minister of Education Hekia Parata has asked Katrina Casey to reply to my concerns.  These include concerns about the Ministry I might add, as the Minister is well aware.

This letter says that the Ministry has conferred with the Board of Trustees, and they have confirmed that they would consider my latest correspondence under its formal complaints procedure at its meeting on 15 February and then communicate back to me.  It's now nearing the end of April, two months later and there has been no communication, as usual.

What makes the Ministry's response even more ridiculous is the fact that it is evident from a notice published in the Gazette that a Statutory Manager was appointed on 26 January 2017.  It can be seen from the notice that the Board would be acting ultra vires in considering my concerns, they should be dealt with by the Statutory Manager.

This is the second time in recent years that a Statutory Manager has been appointed to run the school, the first being Ken Wilson, author of the email above - another overpaid civil servant who should be charged with perverting the course of justice and failing in his fiduciary duties.

It is also clearly evident that representatives of the South End school have lied through their teeth from 2009 to the present day, including the information they provided to the Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioner.  The significant failings of the offices of the Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioner are evident in the fact that the Ombudsmen were forced to reopen the investigation and the evidence which directly contradicts statements made in the reports.

This is the second time the Board have done this, they sacked another staff member while the previous Statutory Manager was supposed to be in control.

We are still trying to obtain legal assistance to apply for judicial review and will proceed to lodge an application without legal assistance if necessary.  An example of why we can't get legal assistance is illustrated below:

"In respect of complaining about the IPCA, there is no process I know of short of the High Court in litigation.

However a new Authority is about to be appointed Sir David Carruthers previously Parole Board Chairperson, and before that Chief District Court Judge.  (sic)

You could complain to him that his staff have not done their job, as a new broom he might be interested. 

Other matters
Given . . .  changes in Legal Aid funding I should advise you I am not going to be able to take your case on legal aid. 

I have been doing criminal legal aid files for some time, but with the introduction of fixed fees and the associated administrative burden now required for legal aid, in order to make a living I am forced to reduce the amount of legal aid cases I can do.
Partly as  result of this tightening in the year ended March 2011 , i.e. 12 months ago and that I had my worst year ever earning less than the average wage, $50,000, as a result I have been forced me to reconsider the number of cases on legal aid I can take. 

In the civil area, where your case falls, the paperwork required from the Legal Services Agency is onerous.

It is does not surprise me that of 4000 lawyers willing to take legal aid prior to 31 December 2011 now only about 2000 will.

I regret given the time delay and still not having all your files,  and the new legal aid regime that trying to take on your case requires more time than I have. 
Regrettably the payment offered form civil legal aid (which you of course are likely to be required to repay) does not provide a fair reward for work done.
Whilst I do not like to reduce the decision to a financial one, I regret having to be more selective in taking legal aid cases, and have turned down 10 in the last month, your potential case is not even ready to be considered and in addition to financial considerations I regret I don't have the time.

I will return your files.

Tony Ellis."

I wrote to several members of parliament about this matter, hardly any bothered to even reply, Andrew Little's pathetic response is below:

 

Disgust at bleating about disgraced ex cop Bruce Hutton:

In the latest insult to Rochelle Crewe, sole survivor of the murders that killed her parents Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, Erin O'Neill, the daughter of disgraced ex police officer Bruce Hutton was gifted the front page of the national newspapers to grandstand and spread further propaganda regarding Hutton - who was found to have perverted the course of justice regarding the framing of Arthur Allan Thomas for the murders of the Crewes.

In response to this shameful display by the biased main stream media, who also gave oxygen to recent comments by Police officers Mike Bush and Peter Marshall, here's a letter to Hutton from Keith Hunter, who has been methodically following the matters involving the framing of Scott Watson for two murders - despite the fact that there is no evidence of any murders - no bodies, no witnesses, nothing, apart from two missing persons, but no CREDIBLE evidence whatsoever to connect the missing persons with Scott Watson.

Here's Mr Hunter's letter to Mr Hutton:

HUNTER PRODUCTIONS LTD

Keith Hunter, Director.

P.O. BOX 46 115 HERNE BAY AUCKLAND 1147 NEW ZEALAND

TELEPHONE: (64-9) 360 5020; FAX: (64 -9) 360 5022; MOBILE: (0274) 747 333; Email: keith@hunterproductions.co.nz

27 April 2012

Former Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton
60 Longford Park Drive
Takanini

Dear Former Detective Inspector Hutton,

I understand that the New Zealand Herald informed you on 13 April of the imminent publication of my book, The Case of the Missing Bloodstain. You reportedly responded with a promise to take action for defamation when you learned the book accused you of planting an axle in the Crewes case.

The Herald was influenced by your response and so did not publish the story it had intended for the following day, a front page lead story on the book and its claims. However the book has been published and has been available throughout the country since 16 April. As its author and publisher I have taken part in media interviews about it, both live and recorded, on both radio and television. I am sure you will be aware of that and that you will have acquired a copy in order to ascertain whether or not damage has been done to your reputation. You will have found that the book unquestionably defames you.

I have awaited your legal action but I have heard nothing from you. This letter is the result. I’d like to move things along in the public interest. I look forward to your suit. Please sue me.

You were told by the Herald that I claim that you planted an axle in the Waikato River and then ensured it could be used as evidence against Arthur Thomas. The book also claims that you knew he was innocent of the crimes you would arrest him for. You will also now know of the book’s claims that as leader of the inquiry team investigating the 1970 Crewe murders you continually and unconscionably deceived your team, the courts, the Royal Commission of Inquiry and the country at large. You will know that you are branded a liar in the book and that this is verified on page 12 and repeatedly elsewhere. Obviously you are aware that the Royal Commission of Inquiry found that you also planted a cartridge case against Thomas. The book supports that finding.

I urge you to take action for several reasons, many of them favouring my case in reply.

* While you dither, any damage you might allege is being done to your reputation must be increasing in severity. At the same time, I suggest, your tardy response must already be reducing your chances in court. If it were important to you, you should have acted immediately the book was published.

* Matters relating to the Crewes case and your part in it have awaited a hearing since 1980 but our Justice System has repeatedly refused to address them. My estimation of the reasons for that are described in the book’s epilogue.

* This is your chance to absolve yourself and recreate a reputation, and the country’s best opportunity to have the Royal Commission’s findings that you are a perjurer and planter of evidence investigated, clarified and decided at last – by the justice system.

* Your failure to take action while at the same time you threaten the press has unquestionably suppressed the book, its message and its information. This constitutes a profound attack on freedom of speech in New Zealand, especially on an apparently timid press;

* Your threat’s success in intimidating the Herald has drastically reduced the public awareness the book might otherwise have gained and this has had a profoundly negative influence on its effectiveness and on my income.

* Putting aside your inquiry’s corruptness, I would like to expose its incompetence as widely as possible, so as to inform young policemen who might otherwise follow in your footsteps.

For both your and your lawyer’s information I advise that my case in defence will include the following lines (the list is not necessarily exclusive):

* The claims of the book are my honest opinion;

* The causes of the opinion are clearly set out in the book;

* While you are undoubtedly defamed in the book this has caused no damage to your reputation because you do not have a reputation that can be damaged, both in general and in this particular context. That is, the accusation in a book that a man who is known as the policeman who planted evidence in the Crewe case planted evidence in the Crewe case cannot cause his reputation damage.

* Your actions must be seen characteristically to match your words, and you are an easily demonstrated liar whose word can have no value;

* My opinion is published in the book in the public interest.

There are several specific issues that should encourage you to act:

* Should you worry that taking action against me can promise little or no return to you, I advise that in general terms I have no legal protection against a defamation suit, and that my house is valued at $1,050,000, is but modestly mortgaged, and is held in my sole name;

* I expect to seek advice but perhaps not representation in court, so your legal counsel may well be opposed by a layman.

* I will copy this letter to the entire New Zealand press, to all of my personal and professional contacts, and to everyone I know to have read my book, with a plea that they all copy it to all of their contacts, and that those contacts copy it to their contacts and so on, in the public interest. This process might well cause everyone in the country to know of the new claims against you. Please consider the effect this could have on your reputation, if you are found to have one.

* I understand that the then Minister of Justice, Jim McLay, protected the Royal Commissioners from defamation suits by tabling their report in Parliament before it was released publically. I have yet to put my book before any parliamentarian with that in mind. However if I find that the same action can protect the press today, I will forward copies of the book to a selection of MPs with a request that they table it as cause for the Crewes Case to be re-opened and to make it available for public discussion. If that occurs before you take action against me it may be that you will be unable to do so at all.

You will need to hurry. I expect to seek parliamentary support during the coming week beginning 30 April.

Yours Faithfully

Keith Hunter
Author and Publisher of The Case of the Missing Bloodstain.


Nothing's changed since Hutton planted the cartridge case, NZ Police are incompetent and corrupt, local officers in the Wairarapa are actively enabling organised paedophilia and the distribution of methamphetamine, etc, and covering up for recidivist violent offenders - abusing victims and enabling offenders - and the so called inquiry into the deliberate cover up of the child abuse has been going on since 2007 and has NOT EVEN INTERVIEWED the main offenders - who have been actually PROMOTED instead of IMPRISONED!