The rip offs at the Carterton Community Centre:

Here's the letter from Mark Hinton, of Wollerman Cooke and McClure (now trading as WCM Legal) to local Police - Hinton and Jock Blathwayt and the others at Wollerman Cooke and McClure knew FULL WELL that the group the firm was "acting for" had NO legal authority WHATSOEVER to instruct the solicitors of the Carterton Community Centre Inc!  Hinton was corruptly acting on behalf of a small group of local residents who had been robbing the Community Centre blind for years - a group which included WCM's clerk Colleen Fafieta's husband - local Post Office manager - who was guilty of theft of the CCC mail when he illegally changed the lock on the postbox - in total breach of the Postal Services Act!  Colleen Fafieta was one of several women involved in this sordid affair who was having it off with local Police Constable Stephen Wakefield - which is why Police turned a blind eye to the blatant fraud and other criminal offences!:

I had every right to possession of the keys of the society - Post Office manager Paul Fafieta had no authority whatsoever to change the locks of the postbox and Police must charge him with theft of the mail without further delay!

 

 And here's the response of Sgt G N Reid of the NZ Police - he agrees with me!  Unfortunately "his superiors" didn't like this, and Sgt Reid left the NZ Police not long after writing this letter.  He has remained in the local community, he works as a security guard and is held in high regard in the community for his integrity, ethics and honesty.  I told him that I had a legal right to possession of the property of the Carterton Community Centre and that the group instructing Wollerman Cooke and McClure were acting ultra vires (without lawful authority) and should be charged with theft of the property belonging to the Incorporated Society that THEY held!:

Compare the response above with the one below, from Rod Drew - Drew should have been sacked years ago!  This is a blatant cover up!

Corrupt Police Area Commander Rod Drew was well paid to declare that "Because Georgina Beyer and the Mayor of Carterton have had discussions around issues regarding the Centre it is most unlikely that any Criminal Law (sic) has been broken" - what utter lies!  Drew knew perfectly well that there had been serious criminal offences committed by Beyer and 'her' mates on the Council!  That's why they were forced to wind it up in the High Court (the Carterton Community Centre Inc) and that's why all the funding stopped - we wrote to the funders and showed them where their money had gone!

Then we wrote to the Companies Office and advised them that the 'group' who had taken over the Centre did not have the support of any more than eight people in the community and as such was in breach of the Incorporated Societies Act.

The group, headed by John Crawford, and made up mainly of people associated with the Carterton District Council, had to admit to the High Court that it was true - they only had eight supporters- only EIGHT people in this community supported these thieving liars - and the minimum number of members required to operate as an incorporated society is fifteen.

Police and IPCA regularly use the excuse that they can't see any evidence of any "Criminal Law" being "breached" - what rubbish!  The financial reports at this link clearly and indisputably show that thousands of dollars was stolen from half a dozen different bank accounts to pay a so called "personal grievance" which was nothing but a blatant theft!  There is also evidence that this was one of TWO such payments being made in this manner at the same time!

Then Wollerman Cooke and McClure wrote this letter:

"We refer to our telephone conversation and while the writer is still awaiting formal instruction from the Society in response to your communication, it is our belief that mediation can only proceed if your client releases to the Committee the material which she removed from the Society's offices so that the duly elected Officers of the Society could consult and then consider her claim relative to the Society's financial and administrative records.

We would obtain instructions that, subject to receipt of, and reasonable time to consider those records), the Committee would meet Ms Raue at mediation regarding her alleged personal grievance. We believe this view is consistent with what would be ordered if the matter went to the Employment Court.

We suggest that the material and records be available at your offices, for the writer or a member of his staff to collect.

Yours faithfully

Mark Hinton - Wollerman Cooke and McClure"

 

What a joke! I instructed my lawyer, Kamil Lakshman of Ainslie Hewton's law firm to instruct the writer forthwith that he was taking instructions from people who were not authorised to issue them and his letter would be treated with the contempt it deserved!  The Employment Relations Service had sent me the following letter on 16 May 2001 advising me that the group Hinton was acting for had refused my request for mediation weeks earlier!:

 

 

 

 On the second page of the letter from Sgt Reid it states that "on the 5th June a representative of the Carterton Community Centre (Elaine Brazendale) advised Senior Constable Wakefield that the Carterton Community Centre had declined to meet with Raue." More accurately, they declined to meet with, or even appoint, an auditor. Because of the FRAUD and gross malfeasance! 

It was proposed by the group to appoint R G Thompson - so I contacted Mr Thompson, and presented him with information regarding the affairs of the Community Centre, including the two 'personal grievance' payments.

This is the "refusal to meet with Raue" referred to in Sgt Reid's letter - I offered to meet with R G Thompson and a representative of the Council group who took it over illegally, in order to hand over the information we both held, and Elaine Brazendale refused, because I'd already discussed it with R G Thompson, who had advised of the likely outcome of an audit - Brazendale and her mates would likely be charged with fraud!

David Raue didn't commit suicide or die of a drug overdose:

This is how my brother David loved to live his life (above).  

This is how he died (below).  

Dave loved surfing, having fun, making people laugh, and enjoying life.  He used to make me laugh a lot, he used to make a lot of people laugh.  

The story of his death is deeply disturbing. It can be seen from the documents below that police simply accepted the word of a woman called Tessa Knowles, who used to go out with him until 3 or 4 months before he died, who told them he had overdosed on drugs, had HIV (which he did not, this appears to be a ruse to prevent police examining his body too closely) and allegedly committed suicide.  It's incredible to see how the police simply accepted what she told them without question, until it was too late and all the evidence had been destroyed.

After I obtained the file on his death from the police I noticed a couple of things.  Firstly, despite the initial pages of the file listing the subject as "Suicide", it changed to "Suspicious death" and later "Unexplained death" after I started asking questions.  If I hadn't, it would still be generally accepted that my beloved brother committed suicide by drug overdose, which he didn't.  Despite the insistence of Dave's ex-girlfriend Tessa Knowles that it was a drug overdose, the post mortem report showed there were no drugs in his body apart from the proper dose of a prescription medicine he was on at the time, and he certainly didn't overdose on anything.  

The documents (and other evidence, which will be put up soon) show there were no drugs present in his body, and no evidence whatsoever of drug overdose OR suicide.  This woman tells police that he was a hard drug user, but he wasn't.  She was.  Tessa Knowles has a very well documented history of serious drug abuse.  She told them he was likely to have herpes and HIV, etc which he didn't, in an apparent attempt to discourage investigators from examining the body too much.  It worked, his clothing, etc, was destroyed on the strength of her lies about him having HIV, with no attempt made apparently to see if this slanderous claim was true or not.

Click on the images below to enlarge them, the final document is the police report documenting how the pathologist tells the police "I am not prepared to say that this man died of unascertainable natural causes because he didn't."  And the notes of the ambulance officers who said "We thought this death was a bit odd because the girlfriend was so cool, calm, and collected while we were there but went into being hysterical when the police arrived."  Before going on to suggest the possible scenario that had occurred to them at the time.

This theory was supported by the fact that I noticed as soon as I read the post mortem report that there was a needle mark on each inner elbow.  Ambulance officers confirmed that they had only put a needle into one arm, which left the second needle mark unexplained.  

After further communication with the pathologist he responded "I am still a bit uneasy about this one - it's possible he may have been injected with a biological substance such as insulin, which would not show up in the ESR tests.  I would suggest that someone has another chat to the girlfriend to see if she changes her story."

How often does this happen?  Detective Tomlinson at least had the decency to admit his mistake honestly as soon as he became aware of it, and try his best to find out what really happened as soon as he became aware of the errors, after I contacted him.  I will always be very grateful to Detective Inspector Harry Quinn also, without whose assistance evidence regarding this miscarriage of justice involving my brother would never have come to light.  Harry Quinn has always been a great asset to the New Zealand Police, and I only wish there were more officers with his common sense and integrity.  I wish him happiness and good health in his retirement, and am grateful for his fair treatment of me and my family over many, many years.

Det Sgt Tomlinson reinterviewed the ex girlfriend and the flatmate several times, but by the time he realised it wasn't as he'd been led to believe, it was too late.  The statements of their interviews are damning to say the least, This post may be updated  in the future, and the witness statements and more information added.  Tessa Knowles accuses a number of individuals of injecting David with drugs, I'm sure they'd like to know who they are and what Tessa has to say about them - seeing as she's basically accusing them of manslaughter or murder . . . 

My brother didn't commit suicide, and he didn't die of an accidental, or self administered, drug overdose, it appears very likely that he was deliberately injected with something like insulin, or that someone was involved in interfering with evidence, because none was found at the scene.   The police are now fairly sure that someone else was involved in causing his death, which is why they interviewed Tessa Knowles and Geoffrey John Gordon so many times, the actions of both of those people were very suspicious indeed - why did Geoff Gordon not call an ambulance when he discovered Dave's body, instead of calling Tessa Knowles - whose relationship with my brother had ended months before?  Tessa Knowles and Geoff Gordon were both heavy drug users, both had extensive experience using intravenous illegal drugs, and both conspired to conceal evidence about how David Raue died.  It appears they may have got away with murder.

How often does this happen?  How often do people accept the word of murderers that a death was by suicide?  If Knowles and Gordon were innocent they would have called an ambulance immediately.

An example of a Notice of Claim under the Judicature Amendment Act:

Filed at: Wellington                                                     File reference number:

Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

In the matter of an Application for a Declaration, for Relief, and for Orders of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition.

Between: Katherine Jane Raue, plaintiff

and Board of Trustees of the South End school, Carterton

and New Zealand Police

and Ministry of Education

and Minister of Education

and Privacy Commissioner

and Office of the Ombudsmen

and Attorney General

Address for service: [xxx] Bidwills Cutting Road, Greytown
__________________________________________________________________________________

May it please the Court:

I, Katherine Raue, wish to make an urgent application according to the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 for a judicial inquiry regarding the actions of the Board of Trustees of the South End school, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Education, the Minister of Education, the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsmen.

I appeal to the Court to make a Declaration or Declarations regarding these matters, also to grant relief to me regarding these matters, and issue Orders of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition.

The facts on which this claim for relief is made:

1. In April 2009 I received a letter from the Board of Trustees of the South End school in Carterton, where I worked establishing gardens at the school with the students, teaching the children to grow their own food (and cook it, store it and trade it) instead of relying on the handout mentality, teaching them basic life skills, as well as a very successful holiday program teaching a wider range of skills, as well as delivering a very effective suicide prevention program.
2. The letter from the Board of Trustees states that the Board had recently received information that I had been recently charged by the Police with an offence involving a child, and it requests that I cease my work at the school on the basis of that allegation, which is false.
3. I believe that the fabrication and dissemination of the false allegation is deliberately malicious, and that attempts to defeat justice regarding this matter amount to serious corruption. This view is shared by a number of senior professionals who have been involved or consulted in regard to these matters, including a number of lawyers and health professionals, who have expressed their concerns in writing.
4. The letter further states that should the charge – the non existent charge – be withdrawn, or should I be acquitted of it, the Board would be happy to reinstate me.
5. I was most surprised to receive this letter because I had received a visit from the Deputy Principal, Dallas Powell, several weeks earlier. Ms Powell and I were
   friends prior to her involvement in this matter, and the purpose of her visit to me was to discuss the fact that the Police had provided information to the school about me which Ms Powell believed to be untrue – which I confirmed.
6. During this visit Ms Powell stated to me that this allegation was being discussed among staff and members of the Board of Trustees at the school, and in the community apparently, following information provided directly by local Police officers – FALSE information – namely, that I had recently been charged with an offence involving a child.
7. I have never been charged with an offence involving a child in my life and I can certainly prove that, and have the evidence to do so, and I told Dallas Powell that very clearly during this visit, which was prior to me actually receiving the letter.
8. In fact, I decided to check, and in Ms Powells's presence I rang the Masterton Police Station Prosecution section and asked whether there was something they hadn't told me and whether in fact they thought they HAD charged me “with an offence involving a child”, or whether they had any plans to do so. They confirmed that I was correct and that no such charge existed.
9. The letter from the Board of Trustees was delivered to my letterbox without a stamp on the envelope, several weeks after it was dated. There had been no other communication between the school and me during the time between the visit from Dallas Powell and the receipt of the letter and Dallas Powell clearly understood that the allegation which she put to me verbally was totally untrue and that I had NOT been charged with an offence involving a child EVER, let alone “recently”. She told me that she would pass on what I had said to the Board and staff at the school, and I assumed that was the last I would hear of the false allegation, until I received the letter.
10. There is evidence of communication between the Police and other key parties involved in these matters, there is indisputable evidence that the Police gave that false information to the Board of Trustees, not me.
11. Dawn Swan of the Privacy Commissioners Office alleges that I told the ex Principal of the school that I had been recently charged with an offence involving a child – which is arrant nonsense and nobody in their right mind would believe her preposterous suggestion!
12. Dawn Swan's corrupt cover up of this matter amounts to a deliberate attempt to defeat justice and pervert the course of justice!
13. Both Dawn Swan and the parties representing the South End School have been deliberately lying regarding the source of the information in the face of the indisputable evidence that it came from someone other than me.
14. There is considerable evidence that I have been unfairly and unjustly persecuted, and slandered and defamed in a corrupt and unlawful manner by the parties to this matter, and that the respondents have deliberately conspired to defeat the course of justice regarding these matters and that certain parties to these proceedings have obtained a pecuniary advantage from the ongoing and corrupt investigations into these matters. The fact that a representative of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is lying to this extent is a matter of extreme concern!
15. Immediately upon receiving the letter dated 25 March 2009 I went to the school and informed the Principal and the school Secretary that the allegation was untrue, requested a meeting with the Board as soon as possible, and requested that this information be corrected, and that the specific source of the information be disclosed to me as well as the manner of its communication to the Board, and I made requests under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act for all information regarding the matter, and requested information on the school's policies and procedures, and stated that I wished to make a formal complaint about the decision to send the letter and the manner in which the Board had dealt with this matter.
16. The requests under the Official Information Act and Privacy Act resulted in very limited information being provided. The school has attempted to evade all requests for information and has repeatedly denied the existence of information which they have later been forced to provide after being confronted with evidence proving its existence.
17. The school claimed that any Minutes or notes regarding any meeting or discussion or communication between the Board and the source of the information regarding the allegation, or indeed any discussions or communications or notes or Minutes at all regarding this matter, had been destroyed or did not exist. This is BLATANT corruption! It is beyond the bounds of belief that any evidence of discussion by the Board regarding the letter I received does not exist and if it has been destroyed for the purposes of perverting the course of justice – as certainly appears to be the case according to the EVIDENCE – those responsible must be charged with that immediately!
18. There was also certainly no evidence whatsoever of any 'incident reports' for example, regarding any concerns about me – none whatsoever.
19. My good relationship with the school was certainly confirmed in the final paragraph of the letter, which states that the Board would be happy to give me my job back if the charges are dealt with in my favour, and other evidence such as the annual thank you notes, and invitations to judge the Pet Parade, attend the morning tea held annually to thank the staff and volunteers at the school, etc.
20. The final paragraph – and other parts – of the letter confirm that I was a valued member of staff and that my contribution to the school was much appreciated by all concerned, and that the Board looked forward to resuming my employment if the charges were withdrawn or I was acquitted. The non existent charges.
21. Despite this the Principal, Rod O'Leary – who has since left not only the South End school, but the teaching profession entirely and is now mowing lawns for a living instead – asked me not to come to the school “until the matter is sorted out” and began a campaign of bullying and threatening me when I went to the school.
22. I continued to request that a meeting be arranged between myself and the Board as soon as possible.
23. The Board has consistently refused to meet with me or engage in any constructive manner whatsoever regarding this matter.
24. Mr O'Leary's manner became aggressive and hostile shortly after I asked for the information to be corrected and requested a meeting with the Board.
25. Further hostile and aggressive action was directed at me from the ex-groundsman, Thomas Smith (another well-known local bully) when I subsequently visited the school after my written communication was ignored. I was physically intimidated and threatened by both men – both have since left the school after other complaints about their bullying and dishonesty, and the failure of their Court case against me.
26. I informed the school of my intention to take the matter to the Employment Tribunal, although I received legal advice that I should take action in the High Court instead as this is more than a simple employment dispute – this is a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice by the Privacy Commissioner and others – including the NZ Police, who started this trouble in the first place by spreading malicious and slanderous lies about me, and the Ombudsmen, who were forced to reopen their “investigation” after complaints from the public and politicians about this matter, which is CLEARLY an attempt to pervert the course of justice!
27. Mr O'Leary and Mr Smith complained to Police that I called them “thieving crooks” in 2010 but both Mr O'Leary and Mr Smith failed to turn up to Court on the day of the hearing – because they knew full well that the charges were corrupt and without foundation - so I was acquitted when Police announced that they had no evidence to offer.
28. Police acted corruptly in even laying the charge let alone proceeding with it – as they have done regarding a number of charges since I arrived in the Wairarapa. Calling anyone a “thieving crook” is not illegal and it was not even inappropriate under the circumstances, which is why none of the parties dared to show up for the Court hearing – for which they should be charged with contempt of Court!
29. There has only ever been one meeting between myself and the Board regarding this matter and that was on 17^th December 2013, I was invited to this meeting by a member of the Board, Greg Sandall, but was ordered to leave upon arrival by Elaine Scully, the school secretary, and the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Logan Bathurst. No reason was given
30. On 17 December 2013 Elaine Scully made yet another untrue allegation against me at the Board meeting, alleging that I had not turned up to Court on the day of a hearing – the Principal and groundsman are the ones who didn't turn up to Court which is one of the reasons I was acquitted – so Elaine Scully needs to correct this information, acknowledge that she was in error – again – and apologise without delay!
31. She also alleged at this meeting that I hadn't turned up to a hearing involving the local Mobil garage (who defrauded my bank account of $60) – she needs to apologise for that allegation as well, because my appeal was successful, on the grounds that I was denied a fair hearing because nobody informed me or any of the other people affected when the Masterton Court moved from the Council building to the site of an old supermarket and that was why we 'didn't attend Court' because they moved the Court and didn't tell anyone. The Judge also ruled that there should not be a rehearing because I was obviously innocent!
32. That matter was none of Elaine Scully's business anyway and it was extremely inappropriate that she refer to it in the manner that she did – or at all for that matter – it was a further attempt to slander and defame me to members of the Board!
33. Elaine Scully, (the school Secretary, and the Principal) Rod O'Leary, then added insult to injury by unjustly sacking the former community garden manager Wayne Rogers, who had been working as an unpaid assistant to the paid groundsman, the aforementioned Thomas Smith, until Mr Rogers was unceremoniously sacked in a manner similar to the manner in which I had been treated.
34. Elaine Scully then made this matter worse by giving a bundle of correspondence regarding the matter to the wrong child to take home to their mother, whereupon the correspondence ended up in the hands of a total stranger – which was a gross breach of Wayne Rogers' privacy and he was rightly outraged when he found out.
35. The correspondence was given to the wrong child to take home to their mother by none other than Elaine Scully the school secretary. The mother who received it spoke to me about it, I told her that I had previously employed Wayne Rogers at the Community Gardens, I consider him a friend, and I offered to return the correspondence to him and explain to him how the wrong person had been given it.
36. Wayne Rogers thanked me for returning the correspondence to him, and authorised me to copy it and make formal complaints to the Board of Trustees on his behalf regarding the manner in which he was sacked and the manner in which his privacy was breached, which I did.
37. Elaine Scully actually complained to the Police that I had stolen the correspondence from Emily Brown's letterbox which is an outrageous accusation – I can produce the witness whose child was handed it by Elaine Scully! This is one of many false and defamatory allegations made against me by Elaine Scully, who has also been involved in other complaints from students and their families, she has been forced to apologise for her actions previously – the latest false accusation she made in December about me not turning up for Court is another example – it was the Principal and the groundsman who didn't turn up! - Because they knew the allegations were nothing short of PERJURY and a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice with a vexatious and malicious prosecution!
38. Since 2009 the Board – and the Statutory Manager who was appointed by the Ministry of Education (Ken Wilson) – have refused to engage with me in any constructive manner whatsoever to resolve this matter, people associated with the Board and certain staff members – in particular the school Secretary Elaine Scully – have been spreading untrue and defamatory and slanderous allegations about me in the community, and this matter was at the foundation of the Application for Judicial Inquiry I filed in the High Court in 2010 – which was apparently discontinued WITHOUT my consent which was a serious miscarriage of justice. Repeated requests for Mr Wilson's email address were ignored.
39. Elaine Scully and Board member Emily Brown are continuing to spread a number of other false, slanderous and defamatory statements about me – including the most recent incident, which occurred at the meeting on the 17^th December 2013.
40. Since 2009 I have exhausted every effort to resolve this matter, including appealing to the Minister of Education, the Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman.
41. Dawn Swan of the Privacy Commissioners office continues to deliberately lie in her so called 'investigation' of my complaints – she claimed that there was evidence that I provided the information (that I had been recently charged by Police with an offence involving a child) to the school, which is a deliberate lie – there is no such evidence as Dawn Swan knows perfectly well! And that is because I didn't tell the school that the Police had recently charged me with an offence involving a child – there is absolutely no logical reason that I would do that and no right thinking person could examine the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that Dawn Swan reached. The evidence indisputably shows that is a deliberate lie, fabricated to defeat justice!
42. The Police told the school that they had recently charged me with an offence involving a child and it is part of an ongoing politically motivated persecution against me by the local Police and others which is supported by a large amount of evidence and professionals opinions which will be produced to the Court in due course.
43. The claim of Dawn Swan of the Office of the Privacy Commission that there was any meeting between and the Principal prior to me receiving the letter at which I allegedly told the Principal I'd been recently charged by Police with an offence involving a child is a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice – no such meeting and no such conversation – or anything remotely like it – ever occurred – and the evidence shows indisputable that the information was given to the Board by the Police themselves in an attempt to discredit me and conspire with others in the community to have me unlawfully dismissed from my work at the South End School and have the charitable program I run there shut down!
44. The only communication of any kind regarding this matter prior to me receiving the letter from the Board was the visit I received from Dallas Powell prior to receiving the letter and there was no misunderstanding between Ms Powell and I – Ms Powell understood that I was telling her very clearly that I had most definitely never been charged with an offence involving a child in my life never mind recently, and that if I had been I would certainly know it and I was prepared to make a sworn statement to that effect if necessary and obtain any other proof that may be required. She confirmed that the Police had provided the information to the school, as does considerable other indisputable evidence.
45. The Privacy Commissioners Office refuses to address the obvious evidence that Dawn Swan is lying in her assertion that I told the school I had recently been charged by Police with an offence involving a child and repeatedly my complaints to the Privacy Commissioner about the corrupt actions of Dawn Swan are responded to with a letter from Dawn Swan, who continues to corruptly waste tax payer's money – and criminally offending – by deliberately making a statement that she knows to be false, then simply fobbing me off in a manner that is simply blatant and deliberate taxpayer funded corruption.
46. The Office of the Ombudsmen are continuing to do the same. Correspondence shows a lack of good faith in their 'investigation' of these matters and a refusal to engage constructively and the evidence and correspondence shows that they also are attempting to pervert the course of justice – they were forced to re-open the so called investigation after receiving a letter from a politician but are now indicating an intention to further pervert the course of justice in the latest letter regarding these matters from their office.
47. The Minister of Education wrote a letter referring me to the Ministry of Education. Repeated phone calls to explain the futility of that and complain about the abdication of responsibility have been ignored.
48. The Ministry of Education wrote a vague and totally inadequate letter which doesn't even begin to address the problem. Repeated communications to explain the futility of that and complain about the abdication of responsibility have been ignored.
49. The Respondents continue to deliberately lie regarding this matter and to pervert the course of justice. Their actions are indisputably corrupt and this is confirmed by a number of appropriate professionals, and very well documented.
50. The remedy sought:
51. I seek immediate reinstatement according to the final paragraph of the letter from the Board – I have been acquitted of ALL charges since the date of that letter. The work I was doing at the school was vital to the health of our children and our community – there is currently a Bill before parliament to “feed the kids” - well I was teaching and helping the “kids” to grow their OWN food – alleviating hunger, building self esteem, teaching so much more than just gardening – children learn maths, science and a lot of other things in a garden – and delivering a very effective suicide prevention program – there have never been any complaints or concerns regarding my work apart from the ones I have been acquitted of and that is evidenced by information provided by the school, and on the contrary, the evidence shows that my contribution to the school was highly valued. There is also currently a lot of talk about bullying – well THIS is bullying and it must stop.
52. I seek a full written apology for the lies told by the respondents in this matter and the humiliation and distress I have suffered and the damage to my reputation and standing in the community, and a correction of the information – including a letter to the Armstrong family – who the Principal wrote to about their complaint regarding this matter - I seek full written acknowledgement that it was NOT me who told anyone I'd been “recently charged with an offence involving a child” - it was a group of corrupt local LIARS including Police officers!
53. I seek a full investigation and a judicial inquiry into this corrupt conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the Privacy Commissioner's representative, Dawn Swan, and others who have been involved in the deliberately false allegations regarding the so called investigations into this matter, in particular staff at the Ministry of Education. This matter was used to corruptly incarcerate me in a mental health institution accused of having “Delusional Disorder” after a barely qualified crackpot of a doctor made reference to it in her “reports” - which have been soundly discredited.
54. A senior psychiatrist wrote a report upholding my beliefs and totally refuting the false allegations made by the junior “doctor” - whoever made up the allegation that I had ever been charged with an offence involving a child was either delusional or a very corrupt liar! I insist that the Judicial Inquiry I filed in the High Court regarding that matter is reinstated without delay because I did NOT consent to it being “discontinued” and that was clearly witnessed! The only reason that it was “discontinued” - by corrupt lawyers - was to further pervert the course of justice!
55. I seek payment of appropriate compensation for damage to my reputation, humiliation, distress, loss of standing in the community, vilification and hostility I have received in the community as a result of the allegations made against me by staff at the school – mainly the Secretary – and members of the Board of Trustees, and others including Dawn Swan in particular. Dawn Swan knows perfectly well that I did not tell anyone I'd been charged with an offence involving a child and is deliberately lying in order to pervert the course of justice!

Katherine Raue.

Constable Glenn Arthur McKibbin:

Here's the report into the fatal shooting of Terence Thompson, who was shot by Police only metres from where I used to live, and metres from where my best friend and her children were living.

Thompson had shot and killed one of the best Police officers I ever met, Glenn Arthur McKibbin, on 21 April 1996.  Eight days later my brother died.  They were both lovely men.

Constable Glenn Arthur McKibbin.

Constable McKibbin of Hastings was shot in Flaxmere while standing beside his patrol car.

After an extensive search, the suspect was located in an orchard in Havelock North.  Thompson, a former soldier, was shot in a standoff with Police.

Constable McKibbin left a wife, and a young son, they can be very proud of Glenn McKibbin, he was a fine Police officer and a good, honest and fair man.

The report is embedded below, but is also available at this link.

Rest in peace Glenn McKibbin, a gentleman, a fair and honest man, and the rarest thing, the greatest asset to any society or community - a good cop. Up there with Harry Quin in terms of integrity and honour.

Operation Satanic - death of the Rainbow Warrior:

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Opération Satanique,^[1] was an operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE), carried out on 10 July 1985. During the operation, two operatives sank the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior in the port of Auckland, New Zealand. The French government wanted to prevent the ship from interfering with a planned nuclear test in Moruroa.
Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship. Two French agents were arrested by the New Zealand Police on passport fraud and immigration charges. They were charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As part of a plea bargain, they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years in prison, of which they served just over two. The resulting scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu.

Contents

• 1 Sinking of the ship
• 2 France implicated
• 3 Aftermath
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 Further reading
• 7 External links

Sinking of the ship

French agents posing as interested supporters or tourists toured the ship while it was open to public viewing. DGSE agent Christine Cabon, posing as environmentalist Frederique Bonlieu, volunteered to work in the Greenpeace office in Auckland. Cabon secretly monitored communications from the Rainbow Warrior, collected maps, and investigated underwater equipment, in order to provide information crucial to the sinking.
After the necessary information had been gathered two DGSE divers attached two limpet mines to the Rainbow Warrior berthed at Marsden Wharf and detonated them 10 minutes apart. The first bomb went off 11:38 p.m., creating a large hole about the size of an average car. Agents intended the first mine to cripple the ship so that it would be evacuated safely by the time the second mine was detonated. However, the crew did not react to the first explosion as the agents had expected. While the ship was initially evacuated, some of the crew returned to the ship to investigate and film the damage. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, returned below decks to fetch his camera equipment. At 11:45 p.m., the second bomb went off. Pereira drowned in the rapid flooding that followed, and the other ten crew members either safely abandoned ship on the order of Captain Peter Willcox or were thrown into the water by the second explosion. The Rainbow Warrior sank four minutes later.

France implicated

Operation Satanique was a public relations disaster. France, being an ally of New Zealand, initially denied involvement and joined in condemning what it described as a terrorist act. The French Embassy in Wellington denied involvement, stating that "the French Government does not deal with its opponents in such ways".^[2]
After the bombing, the New Zealand Police started one of the country's largest police investigations. Most of the agents on the team escaped New Zealand, but two, Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart were identified as possible suspects. Posing as a married couple, Sophie and Alain Turenge, were identified with the help of a Neighborhood Watch group, and were arrested. Both were questioned and investigated. While carrying Swiss passports, their true identities were discovered, along with the French government's responsibility.
Three other agents, Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty Officer Gérard Andries, who sailed to New Zealand on the yacht Ouvéa, were arrested by Australian police on Norfolk Island, but released as Australian law did not allow them to be held until the results of forensic tests came back. They were then picked up by the French submarine Rubis, which scuttled the Ouvéa.
A sixth agent, Louis-Pierre Dillais, commander of the operation, was never captured and never faced charges. He acknowledged his involvement in an interview with New Zealand State broadcaster TVNZ in 2005.^[3]
Prieur and Mafart pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on 22 November 1985. France threatened an economic embargo of New Zealand's exports to the European Economic Community if the pair were not released.^[4] Such an action would have crippled the New Zealand economy, which was dependent on agricultural exports to Britain.

In June 1986, in a political deal with Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange, presided over by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (USD$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise, in return for which Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao Atoll for three years. However, the two agents had both returned to France by May 1988, after less than two years on the atoll. Mafart returned to Paris on 14 December 1987 for medical treatment, and was apparently freed after the treatment. He continued in the French Army and was promoted to colonel in 1993. Prieur returned to France on 6 May 1988, because she was pregnant, her husband having been allowed to join her on the atoll. She, too, was freed and later promoted. The removal of the agents from Hao without subsequent return was ruled to be in violation of the 1986 agreement.^[5]
A commission of enquiry headed by Bernard Tricot cleared the French government of any involvement, claiming that the arrested agents, who had not yet pleaded guilty, had merely been spying on Greenpeace. When The Times and Le Monde claimed that President Mitterrand had approved the bombing, Defence Minister Charles Hernu resigned and the head of the DGSE, Admiral Pierre Lacoste, was fired. Eventually, Prime Minister Laurent Fabius admitted the bombing had been a French plot: On 22 September 1985, he summoned journalists to his office to read a 200 word statement in which he said: "The truth is cruel," and acknowledged there had been a cover-up, he went on to say that "Agents of the French secret service sank this boat. They were acting on orders."^[6]

Aftermath

In the wake of the bombing, a flotilla of private New Zealand yachts sailed to Moruroa to protest against the French test.
At that time, French nuclear tests in the Pacific were halted. However, another series of tests was conducted in 1995.^[7] In 1987, under international pressure, the French government paid $8.16 million to Greenpeace.
The Rainbow Warrior was refloated for forensic examination. She was deemed irreparable and scuttled at 34°58′29″S 173°56′06″E / 34.9748°S 173.9349°E in Matauri Bay, near the Cavalli Islands, on 12 December 1987, to serve as a dive wreck and fish sanctuary.^[8] Her masts had been removed and put on display at the Dargaville Maritime Museum.
The failure of Western leaders to condemn this violation of a friendly nation's sovereignty caused a great deal of change in New Zealand's foreign and defence policy.^[9] New Zealand distanced itself from its traditional ally, the United States, and built relationships with small South Pacific nations, while retaining excellent relations with Australia, and to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom.^[10]
In 2005, Le Monde released a 1986 report that said Admiral Pierre Lacoste, head of DGSE at the time, had "personally obtained approval to sink the ship from the late president François Mitterrand." Soon after the publication, former Admiral Lacoste came forward and gave newspaper interviews about the situation, while also admitting the death weighed on his conscience and said the aim of the operation had not been to kill.^[11] He acknowledged the existence of three teams: the crew of the yacht, reconnaissance and logistics (those successfully prosecuted), plus a two-man team that carried out the bombing and whose identities have never been confirmed.^[12]
A 20th anniversary memorial edition of the 1986 book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior,^[13] by New Zealand author David Robie who was on the bombed ship, was published in July 2005. He was interviewed by TVNZ on 8 August 2006 about the Court of Appeal judgement.^[14]
Also on that anniversary, Television New Zealand (TVNZ) sought to access a video record made at the preliminary hearing where the two agents pleaded guilty. The footage had remained sealed on the court record since shortly after conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The two agents opposed release of the footage—despite having both written books on the incident—and have unsuccessfully taken the case to the New Zealand Court of Appeal and, subsequently, the Supreme Court of New Zealand.^[15] On 7 August 2006, judges Hammond, O'Regan and Arnold dismissed the former French agents' appeal^[16] and Television New Zealand broadcast their guilty pleas the same day. However, two days later the judges reversed their ruling, temporarily blocking webcasts^[17] and further broadcasts of the footage.^[14]
In 2006 Antoine Royal revealed that his brother, Gérard Royal, had claimed to be involved in planting the bomb. Their sister is French Socialist Party politician Ségolène Royal who was contesting the French presidential election.^[18][19] Other sources identified Royal as merely a Zodiac pilot,^[20] and the New Zealand government announced there would be no extradition requests since the case was closed.^[21]
Louis-Pierre Dillais is now an executive in the U.S. subsidiary of Belgian arms manufacturer FN Herstal and lives in the U.S. state of Virginia.^[3] Ironically the New Zealand government has been buying arms from FN Herstal.^[22] Greenpeace are still pursuing the extradition of Dillais for his involvement in the act.^[23]
On 14 October 2011, Greenpeace launched a new sailing vessel called Rainbow Warrior III, which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor.^[24]

See also

• Rainbow Warrior (1955)
• New Zealand's nuclear-free zone
• Rainbow Warrior Case (international law)
• The Rainbow Warrior (film)
• Xavier Maniguet
• The Rainbow Warrior Conspiracy (1988)

Further reading

• Michael King, Death of the Rainbow Warrior (Penguin Books, 1986).
• David Robie, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior (Philadelphia: New Society Press, 1987).
• The Sunday Times Insight Team, Rainbow Warrior: The French Attempt to Sink Greenpeace (London: Century Hutchinson Ltd, 1986).

External links

• The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior - impact on New Zealand's international relations.
• greenpeace.org.au
• New Zealand police history
• "French Connections" Transcript of the 1985 investigation by the Australian program Four Corners.
• 2010 documentary by Journeyman Pictures for TVNZ

Films (all are productions for television):

• Internet Movie Database (Australia 1989)
• Internet Movie Database (New Zealand 1992)
• Internet Movie Database (United Kingdom and Netherlands 2005)
• Internet Movie Database (France 2006, concentrating on the experience of French journalists)
• Blowing Up Paradise 2006 BBC Documentary movie by Ben Lewis about French Atomic Testing in Pacific and associated murder of Rainbow Warrior Greenpeace activist by French Secret Service.

Coordinates: 36°50′33″S 174°46′18″E / 36.842405°S 174.771579°E