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.
:

Official Information Act request regarding the unlawful taking of my DNA by force:

Taking DNA by force (and unlawfully)

Katherine Raue made this Official Information Act request to New Zealand Police

Currently waiting for a response from New Zealand Police, they must respond promptly and normally no later than 9 May 2013 (details).

From: Katherine Raue

10 April 2013

Dear New Zealand Police,

I am a New Zealand resident living in Carterton and my address is well known to local Police because they harass me here at every opportunity.

I request the following information:

1   How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted in 1995 have the NZ Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order (monthly figures please).

2   How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted have the Wairarapa Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order(monthly figures please).

3  How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted have the Wellington Area Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order(monthly figures please).

4 With regard to sections 22 and 23 of the Act, I request all information specified in section 22 regarding the matter of Police taking DNA by force without a Judge's authorisation, and taken
under section 24J of the Criminal Investigations Bodily Samples Act.

5 Regarding section 23, I request all information regarding the decision to take my DNA by force at the Masterton Police station on 2nd day of December 2012, on the basis of allegations by Constable
David Gallagher that he and his commanding officers knew to be false at the time and were proven to be false when the Prosecutor refused to allow Gallagher to be called to give evidence and
withdrew the charge which Gallagher used as the stated "triggering offence" and the Judge threw out the other charge after I had to defend myself in the Court!

6. I request all information regarding the reason for the decision  to hold me in custody, without access to legislation or proper legal advice and take my DNA by force without a Judge's
authorisation please. I would appreciate it if you would accord this request priority in the interests of justice. I am appalled that this gross violation of hujman rights can go on in a supposedly civilised country.

Yours faithfully,

Katherine Raue

- The background of this matter - which involves a serious breach of human rights and which is very much in the public interest to be informed about - can be found at this link:

Arthur Allan Thomas evidence of the extent of NZ Police corruption:

Speaking to the media this morning Arthur Allan Thomas, 75, said he called the press conference to address police tributes paid to Hutton.

Over the years Hutton remained resolute that Thomas was the killer and that the shell case was genuine evidence, insisting "it was not planted".

Following his death earlier this month, police paid tribute to a dedicated officer who had "integrity beyond reproach".

Today Thomas, who has avoided the limelight since his release from prison, said it was these statements which prompted him to step into the public eye.

"That's why I'm having this meeting, to tell the people of New Zealand what sort of a man he was," he said at the press conference in Pukekawa this morning.

"He criminalised the police, right at the top, that we still have police officers now covering up for the man. He was a corrupt police officer. An innocent man went to prison," he added pointing to himself.

Asked what he thought of Hutton, Thomas said: "I'd better not say it shall I, it wouldn't be very nice."

However, he did describe the former detective as "pretty smooth".

"He got around me alright," Thomas said.

"I had faith in him that he was going to find out who done it, I couldn't believe when it started to come out about the shell case."

He called on the police to set up a fresh investigation into the Crewe murders, of which no-one has been charged since his pardon and release from prison.

"I was pardoned, I'm innocent, but I want to find out who done it. Rochelle Crewe wants that for her mother and father," he said.

"I might be wrong if I mention people's names, all I know is that I didn't do it and where I was when the murders happened. The evidence is there for them to look at."

He also said he would be in favour of police officers who contributed to the planting of evidence, and who colluded in his framing for the murder, being charged with perverting the course of justice.

"We have a system now of officers who don't want to look at who done it, they're protecting their own, covering up for their own. And this is New Zealand, and it's a shame we have this system of cover up," he said.

Thomas said he had found the investigation and time since his pardon "very frustrating", and said it had wider implications for New Zealand and its citizens.

"The problem here is with young police officers joining the ranks today, they read the Crewe murder inquiry and think, 'well Hutton got away with that, the next time I suspect someone I might dirty up some evidence, and if I get caught out, the boss will cover up for me'. This is breeding young officers to do the wrong thing," he said.

Speaking about a fresh police review, due to begin shortly, into the investigation of the Crewe murders, Thomas said it would amount to "a waste of taxpayers' money", and predicted it to be a "whitewash".

"We don't want police looking after police by having their own investigations," he said. "An inquiry has got to be independent, otherwise it's just a coverup."

Asked what would have to happen for him to accept such a review, he said: "They'd have to admit that they fabricated evidence, and I expect them to apologise to me, in writing. But they won't do that, I know that."

Police rules regarding filming and audio recording of operations and events:

Source - NZ OIA request, via http://fyi.org.nz
    
     Summary
This chapter outlines:
·    Police policies relating to covert and open and observable video and audio recording by police of Police operations and events
·    approval requirements before operations and events may be recorded, including the need for approved equipment to be used
·    the circumstances in which privately owned mobile phone' recording applications and cameras may be used for Police purposes
·    the circumstances in which Police-issued Smartphones may be used to record photographic and video images
·    requirements for ensuring any images taken will be accepted by the court as reliable evidence.

     Recording equipment must be Police-issued and approved
Where visual or audio recording is approved for particular operations or events, (see Covert body worn cameras and video recording devices and Open and observable use of cameras and recording devices above), it should only be carried out using Police issued and approved equipment following standard purchasing practices. 

All covert recording equipment must be supplied and approved by the TSU. Except for cameras used by Police photographers and investigators for forensic or investigative purposes, any other equipment to be used to record Police operations and events must be approved by the National Manager Operations. 

The requirements outlined in this chapter do not affect existing policies around the approval and use of cameras and recording equipment by specialist groups such as Police photographers, CIB, STG, or Road Policing for authorised purposes.

     Benefits for Police of recording operations and events
Police routinely use cameras and video recordings in watchhouses, front counters, for investigations and in public places for road policing purposes. It is also normal practice for Police to record calls to its' Communications Centres.

Photographs, video and audio recordings of Police operations and events can also be valuable resources for briefings, orders groups, debriefings and subsequent enquiries. Video recordings are particularly useful for recording instructions or 'cease and desist' orders by operation commanders to counter subsequent complaints against Police employees. 

Police photographers using still or video cameras may also be approved for deployment by the operation commander at demonstrations in some situations. (See the "Operation commander" section of the Demonstrations chapter for more information).

     Media filming of Police operations and activities
See the Media filming of Police operations Police Manual chapter for information about when media accompanying police may film Police operations or policing activities. 

     Approval required for wearing body worn cameras or recording devices
You must have approval before:
·    using any body worn camera or recording device (see the sections on covert and open and observable use below)
·    fitting any video recording devices to Police vehicles.

     Covert body worn cameras and other video recording devices
Covert body worn cameras, or other covert video recording devices or equipment can only be used to record policing activities with the prior approval of the Manager: Covert Operations Group at PNHQ.

Improper or unauthorised use of any covert recording equipment may compromise the effectiveness of other operations and the safety of Police involved in authorised covert policing activities. (See Covert backstopping in the Police Manual for more information about using covert resources).

Specialist units such as the STG and AOS have authority to obtain and use covert equipment specific to their area of policing.

     Open and observable use of body worn cameras and recording devices
Employees must not be overtly equipped with or use body worn cameras or other video recording devices (which may also include audio) to record policing activities without prior authorisation from the National Manager: Operations.

Authorisation may only be given if the National Manager: Operations is satisfied that the use of the camera or recording device is for a legitimate policing purpose and that there are strict controls and adequate safeguards in place to avoid breaching the Information Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and other relevant legislation.

It is expected that any authorisation given will be an individual exception and for a strictly limited period. This includes projects, trials and evaluations.

(See also Equipment used is to be Police-issued and approved below).

     Fitting devices to vehicles
Fitting of overt or covert video recording devices (which may also include audio) or other equipment to Police vehicles requires additional written approval (to that of the National Manager: Operations) from the National Advisor Operational Policy and Standards, Road Policing Support, PNHQ.

     Use of Police-issued Smartphones
Police-approved Smartphones are being increasingly issued and used for Police purposes as part of the Policing Excellence Mobility initiative. This chapter does not impose any additional approval requirements for their issue. However, the guidance in this chapter for the use of the phone's recording applications applies.

While Smartphones have photographic, video and voice recording applications, your first option for the collection of photographic or video evidence should always be the standard Police procedures, i.e. using the Police photographer or a Police-issued digital camera. However, if there is an urgent and identifiable need to record the evidence and a photographer or Police-issued camera is not available, images may be recorded on the Smartphone using the camera App within the secure environment.

Follow the procedures for Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones if you take any images on a Smartphone. Note however, that there may be limitations on using these images for evidential purposes later because of the difficulty of maintaining their original format during the process of downloading/ securing them.

     Use of TASER cameras (Tasercam)
The ECD device approved for use by the New Zealand Police is the "TASER" X26 and its' complementary Tasercam records video and audio.

Under no circumstances must the TASER and Tasercam be employed or used in situations where the sole purpose of the deployment is the gathering of digital video and audio evidence. (See the TASER (Electronic Control Devices) Police Manual chapter for more information).

     Privately owned mobile telephones and cameras should not be used
Images should not be taken for Police purposes using non-Police issued equipment, unless there is an urgent and identifiable need to do so, e.g. where vital evidence would be lost or inclement weather would intervene before a Police owned camera or other recording device would be available.

Follow the procedures for Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones if any images are taken on privately owned devices. Note however, that there may be limitations on using these images later for evidential purposes because of the difficulty of maintaining their original format during the process of downloading/ securing them. 

     What can be recorded or filmed?
Where approval is given, it is permissible to video record (may include audio) everything in a public place, or on private property when lawfully present, so long as the employee records only what they personally see and hear (i.e. you can not leave a camera recording while you move to another place on private premises out of sight or hearing of the camera). The video recording may be done overtly or covertly, and with or without the other party's permission.
    
     Audio recording of interactions with the public
As a general principle, employees should not make audio / voice recordings of interactions with the public in a public place, however one off exceptional circumstances may exist to do so, and should only be done if authorised by their District Commander, National manager or the National Manager: Operations.  An example may be where it is necessary to visit a person who is a recidivist complainant about police who often distorts what is said. In this circumstance the person should be advised that the conversation will be recorded to ensure that an accurate record is kept. It is permissible to lawfully make audio recordings without warrant, so long as one party consents.  (This is normal permissible practice for the Police Communications Centres and the like).

     Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones
Images / recordings taken as evidence on Police Smartphones or personal cell phones are subject to disclosure. It is therefore critical that all images / recordings taken are downloaded and secured as soon as possible in accordance with the Police Digital imaging guidelines.

This is to ensure the images / recordings:
·    are associated with the appropriate case file and will be disposed of when no longer required for legitimate policing purposes
·    will be accepted by courts as reliable evidence and to minimise the risk of legal challenges around whether they could have been compromised.

Evidential images / recordings must not be retained on Police Smartphones or personal cell phones or used for purposes other than for what they were intended.

     Procedures for downloading and securing images 
Step:     Action:
1    Record details (date, time and location) of the images / recordings in your notebook.

2    Email or download all images / recordings to a Police computer as soon as possible after being taken. Ensure the images are saved according to your local standard operating procedures.

Do not email or download images / recordings taken as evidence to a personal computer. 

The way in which the image should be downloaded will vary depending on the type of device. Follow the guidance on downloading and securing captured images to computer in the Digital imaging guidelines section of the Photography (Forensic imaging) chapter where applicable. However, be aware that generally, downloading from Smartphones or cell phones will alter the format and resolution of the image. These issues relating to evidential quality and reliability may limit the later use of the image for evidential purposes. 

If you are unsure of what to do in any case, seek advice immediately from your local Photography section.

3    Delete the images from the Police issued Smartphone or privately-owned cell phone or recording device once they have been downloaded to a Police computer.

4    Any evidential images taken that are no longer required for legitimate policing purposes must be disposed of as soon as practicable. The standard retention and disposal periods apply in cases where the images are retained as part of Police files.

Source - http://fyi.org.nz/request/601/response/3221/attach/3/Police filming and audio recording of operations and events.doc

South End school Garden update - 8 April 2013:

After all the work and all the money that was put into establishing a garden to feed the children at the South End school, and teach them self sustainability, support at risk and vulnerable children, deliver our powerful and effective suicide prevention strategy, and other vital social services, the latest actions of the Board of Trustees of the South End school continue to destroy the efforts of so many people for the profit of one or two.  Members of the small nasty spiteful and vindictive group running the school have now put two sheep into our garden to destroy the few remaining plants left there and cheat the reopened Ombudsmen's inquiry!  

These photos were taken on 7th April 2013 after we received more complaints from parents of children at the South End school about the ongoing bullying and general dysfunction of the governance and administration of the school.  We found these sheep locked in the garden - heartbreaking and grossly insulting for the children and adults who worked so hard to establish a great vegetable garden, with three big peach trees, raspberry bushes and many other edible plants - destroyed by people like Ray Craig - new chairman of the BoT apparently - a local farmer who thinks grazing a couple of sheep is more important than allowing Friends of the Gardens to resume teaching the children gardening, self sufficiency, confidence, the value of consistency and hard work, good nutrition, numeracy and literacy, music, swimming, first aid, and so many other things.  Behind the sheep can be seen the compost bin which is never used, another waste of money.  Trees and other plants dead because nobody bothered to look after them.  What a waste of time and money.  It is in the public interest for the community to be informed of these matters, and for the individuals involved to be held accountable, and the organisations involved, such as the Board of Trustees of the South End school, and the Carterton District

Council, scrutinised transparently, and that they also held accountable.  The South End school, like the Carterton Community Centre Gardens, obtained a lot of funding from government and corporate sources as well as private trusts etc, and it has all been wasted and ripped off - AGAIN.  The previous Community Garden was the subject of a community petitions calling for an inquiry into the fraud of the funds from the ten bank accounts being controlled by the committee of the former Carterton Community Centre, a group of people mainly associated with the Carterton District Council.   It's all very well to start a school garden or a community garden, it's easy to apply for a lot of funding and then waste it all or quietly rip it off, leaving the children with nothing but a lot of weeds, locks on the gates, slanderous letters, serious breaches of privacy, etc.

When the small group involved in the illegal take over of the Carterton Community Centre by violence and illegal activity (such as theft of the mail, and funds and assets of the Centre) wound up the affairs of the CCC in the High Court they claimed that the reason given for their application to wind up the Carterton Community Centre Inc was because:    "The Society has since its creation in 1991 been the provider of social services to the Carterton Community.  However in recent times the Society's role in the Community has changed as a result of the changes to the way the Government delivers social services.  Many of the ociety's traditional activities are now undertaken by other organisations and as a result there has been less need and interest i the Society by the community in recent times."

This isn't social services, this is a rip off.  The Carterton Community Centre was replaced with the Carterton Event Centre, in order to further indoctrinate the public with political propaganda, and the same sort of politically aspiring bullies are continuing to unlawfully bully those who ARE providing the social services!

The Board of Trustees needs to honour the final paragraph of this letter!

There never were any charges involving a child!  This website is full of evidence of a corrupt campaign of harassment and blatant criminal attempts to pervert the course of justice by certain members of the NZ Police, Court staff, etc.

According to the final paragraph of this letter from the Board of Trustees, if the charges are withdrawn or I am found not guilty this would "remove [the Board's] problem" and the Board hopes to be in a position to resume my work at the school in the near future because they appreciate the work and enthusiasm I have brought to the school garden.

What nonsense this is - that FOUR YEARS LATER this bullying is STILL going on and the Board refuses to admit they were wrong and honour this letter and give me back my job at the school, while all these taxpayer funded 'investigative' organisations are covering up incompetence and corruption on a massive scale!  No wonder we have such high rates of suicide locally!

The two latest ERO reports on the South End School also document the dysfunction and poor governance.  It's all very well to talk about feeding the kids - the FOCKCers are teaching them to grow their own kai (food) and other vital life skills, including the virtues program and important suicide prevention programs like Let's Get Growing, Circle of Love, and other initiatives with proven success.  Why are these sheep in our garden?  They are destroying the raspberries, peach trees, rhubarb (which is poisonous), etc.

Meanwhile, here's the fob off from the Ministry of Education - which is utter nonsense because as we've informed them, the school and the BoT simply ignores any attempts to communicate with them, correspondence is ignored and phone calls result in the phone being abruptly hung up as soon as I identify myself - other parents of children at the school have complained about these matters and been fobbed off in similar fashion - it has to stop - this is a clear indication of the intention of the Minister of Education to abdicate all responsibility for the governance of schools and give up any last pretence of holding school Boards of Trustees accountable.

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.

Review of public prosecution services:

This is a report regarding an inquiry into Police prosecution services and the prosecution services of other government departments.  It shows that there are no checks or balances on this process, and it shows why corrupt Police prosecutors like Garry Wilson of the Masterton Police - lover/partner of Masterton Court registrar Liz Harpleton - conspire to pervert the course of justice and get away with it so often: