Having been acquitted of a ‘dodgy’ criminal case, most people would laugh it all off and wander into the sunset happy that they have ‘got off’. Not me. Last week I asked the District Court Judge who issued the acquittal to review his decision, obtained confirmation that the next step in the process is the Court of Appeal and am preparing for a fight that may take a long time, maybe a year or two, perhaps right up to the Supreme Court. While I am 100% sure of my stance, I fully expect to lose all the way because the government simply cannot afford to lose. Their raison d’etre, their credibility, their authority and their very existence depends on their winning. Holy Schmoley, this one is interesting, so let’s get right into it!
There are multiple strands to this case which I try to summarise briefly now:
- A local builder has claimed rightful ownership of some scrap steel. He came onto my property and lodged a verbal claim, stating that the disputed goods were his and that he was going to take them. Apparently he had sold them and the new owner was coming to get them.
- I told him that I didn’t want to fight him, but that they were now mine, and that he should or could come back later to talk about it all when he had calmed down.
- He instead called the Police on 111 right in front of me and then vacated my land.
- Police apparently believed Josh, not me, that the matter was a criminal one not a civil one and a whole bunch of stuff happened over the next week or so – discussions, inquiries, statements made and so on. All this eventuated in the Police issuing a Search Warrant, breaking into my property while I wasn’t there, hooking some of the disputed goods out and giving it back to Josh who then apparently sold it for a couple of grand.
- The Cops then charged me with Obtaining by Deception [CRI-2021-068-00157] and this is the charge that I was acquitted of in the Hamilton District Court, 9 December 2021.
The first strand therefore is a civil matter of who owns the steel. I have always claimed that the matter was a civil matter. I lodged a civil case in the Disputes Tribunal as soon as I could (long before being charged) and all parties knew this. An acquittal shows me that the Police got it wrong to have charged me and I have a gazillion reasons why no crime occurred and that I legitimately own the disputed goods. Whatever. A court will sort it all out in due course I am sure.
Then there is the conduct of the Police in their handling of the matter. I see bad faith conduct on the part of the officers involved, Sam Edwards and Graeme Rumble. They had clearly predetermined my guilt and acted inappropriately in more than one case. I will share more of this in the future.
Then upon being charged, there has arisen two issues of concern for me, even before the charges would be adjudicated – the first is the spelling of my name, which has been incorrectly CAPITALISED. The Police always do this for a good reason. It is though a wrong spelling of my name. The second is a matter of jurisdiction. I have always complied with Police and Judicial instruction however I have never consented to their jurisdiction. I have always refused to consent and have always made it clear that I have only complied ‘under duress’, with an emphasis on these important words ‘under duress’. These two issues are critical to me and represent a gross insult to TPTB as any refusal to consent to the authority of the Queen is tantamount to insurrection – it is an insult and a threat to the power structures that exist over all who reside in or were born in my country of birth, i.e. New Zealand. The judiciary have sworn their allegiance to the Bar which gains its authority from Parliament which gains its authority from the Queen. Parliament gets its authority from the people who voted them into power. I do not ascribe to the principle of democracy where the 51% have their way over the 49%, aka might is right. I also do not vote. I gave my life to a higher authority in February of 1979 and therefore because my word is my bond, compliance with the laws of the land on my part is always voluntary. Refusing consent to an authority other than that I have given previously, is the equivalent of a single finger salute to any authority that claims a greater right. Logic tells me that any authority that legalises homosexuality, pornography or prostitution at their whim holds to a lesser standard than an authority that calls adultery upon one that even looks at his neighbour’s wife askance, but hey, we’re talking the law here, not morality!
For those not familiar with sovereignty arguments, CAPITALISATION of a name is done for a reason – it is no accident. Furthermore consent – gained by sleight of hand, trickery or willingly is required for any authority such as the judiciary. Refusing consent is a serious step for a little guy like me! “Not needed!” the DCJ said. I beg to differ.
Then there are a bunch of issues that the DCJ failed to enumerate either at all or properly in his acquittal. I detail these below one by one.
Lastly there is the core matter of justice being seen to be done as well as actually being done. It is my claim that the Crown Solicitor has deceived the Court in multiple ways; that an acquittal does NOT give me the clearance that I deserve and thus should be revisited. At the point of publication I have no idea when the DCJ will deal with my requests, nor what his response will be. My Memorandum follows with commentary interspersed as quotes and you can also view my supporting Affidavit in PDF form.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
UNDER THE Crimes Act (1961)
IN THE MATTER OF: Obtaining by Deception
BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
AND: Dennis Arthur Smith
Beneficiary of Taumarunui
MEMORANDUM REQUESTING CORRECTIONS & RECONSIDERATION
Dated: 24 December 2021
Filed by: Dennis Arthur Smith, Plaintiff.
Address for Service: email@example.com
4/2a Para St, P O Box 2, Taumarunui, 3946 NZ
May it please the court:
- On 10 December 2021, the Defendant was advised by District Court staff to respond to a judgment by District Court Judge (DCJ) R G Marshall on this matter dated 9 December, 2021 by way of a Memorandum to the DCJ detailing his multiple concerns.
- On or about the same date the Registrar of the Court of Appeal advised the Defendant that he would accept any direct Appeal relating to CRI-2021-0068-00157 under s219(1)(b)(i) and s219(1)(c) of the Senior Courts Act 2016, this matter being a Category 3 Offence with election of trial by jury.
- This is that memorandum.
It is important to me, a self-litigant to get the procedural matters right. I therefore seek court approval prior to any court actions. They don’t always get it right but I don’t want to contribute to errors unnecessarily.
- In Clause 1 (a) of the judgment the the DCJ said, “I have amended his name [to Camel Case] by consent.”1 however the ruling issued still refers to my name using FULL CAPITALS.
- Service Manager – Criminal Jury Case Management & DC, Ian Bullock, has previously explained to me that this requested change of spelling of a charged Defendant is problematic due to technical limitations, “Our system is called CMS (Case Management System) charges are initially entered by Police or Corrections in this CMS system when charges are laid, including the name of the person the charges are laid against. Police will typically differentiate a last name in CAPS, that name and how it is entered is then carried though the system for the entirety of the case. I have enquired about have a changing of your name with our CMS / IT team, but I have been advised that this will need a change to our system. I have escalated your query to our national operations support team to get an official MOJ response, as changing names in our CMS system is not anything my team or myself can do locally”2.
- Would the court please therefore:
- Do the needful to reissue this judgment with my asked for and court-ordered change; or
- Append an amended judgment to the effect requested (i.e. my name spelled correctly [Camel Case]); and/or more simply
- Issue a ruling that there is no legal difference between the two spellings.
I don’t think the DCJ can do the third one but it would be good!
Jurisdiction & Duress
- In pre-ruling discussions the DCJ stated that my lack of consent mattered not to the District Court’s jurisdiction, eventually resulting in the DCJ saying in his ruling, “I have therefore determined that I have jurisdiction”3.
- I asked the DCJ on what basis the court claimed jurisdiction to which he replied that various ‘unidentified’ rulings from other courts had canvassed “that matter” at length, ending with his assessment that the Crimes Act 1961 applied to me and that he had jurisdiction because I was “in New Zealand”4.
- I still did not and have never provided consent to this court’s jurisdiction.
- The DCJ agreed to note however that I proceeded with this matter under duress, “I’ll note that you’re under duress” but this acknowledgement does not appear in the judgment as I asked for and he agreed to.
Moving forward “under duress” is a pragmatic solution to a bigger matter – jurisdiction. I do not consent to their jurisdiction.
- Would the court please:
- Forward me a copy of the File where this word “duress” was noted on 9 December 2021; and
- Update to include or to add the agreed words “under duress” to the judgment and clearly stating that I did not give my consent to this court’s jurisdiction except under duress; and
- Explain the actual basis by which it has jurisdiction to enforce me (without my consent) to be subject to the jurisdiction Crimes Act 1961, considering that as per my attached Affadavit any references to “The Queen”, “Parliament” and “New Zealand Criminal Laws” are to me lack validity and appear to me to be not relevant to the actual basis of jurisdiction when I do not and have not consented.
When the DCJ asked me why I felt the court didn’t have jurisdiction, I instead asked the court to tell me on the basis upon which they claimed jurisdiction. The DCJ didn’t really answer this challenge. “Because I live in NZ” seems to be all that he says. I need more, much more.
- The first issue I addessed in person in regards to the Crown’s application to withdraw related to where the Crown Solicitor got the information from that I was on bail. I asked for this information specifically, “I would like to know where she [the Crown Solicitor] got that information from” and stated that I believed I was at large, “because I’m not on bail. I’m at large I believe”.
- It appears that my question was neither answered nor even addressed, let alone satisfactorily.
- May I please have an answer from the court to this, my first question?
The problem with any judge’s ruling is that if they don’t summarise your position correctly, or deal with a matter raised at all, it then becomes legal fact.
- I then asked the court whether it had received the letter from the Crown Solicitor dated 3 December 2021 to me, “Have you received the letter?”.
- The court said, “No”, that it had not. “Is it your letter, is it?”
- I then asked the court whether I could furnish it with a copy, which I did – I gave the Registrar a copy of this ‘missing’ letter with my analysis, comments and my written request written on it.
- The Crown Solicitor then checked it and approved it for formal submitting it to the court.
- In the Crown Solicitor’s Notice of Application for withdrawal under s146, under the section entitled, ”List the evidence attached to this application:” she states that she has filed with the court a letter saying, “Letter to defendant dated 3 December 2021”.
- As this is a binary issue (either the court had it or the court did not have it) either:
a) the court erred and it did actually have a copy of this so-called ‘missing’ letter; or
b) the Crown Solicitor has misrepresented the facts to the court, perhaps deliberately and to my distinct disadvantage.
- This is a discrepancy that I seek an explanation for please.
- If it be found that the court has a document that it told me that it doesn’t have, then I seek:
- A detailed explanation of this court error, and
- A complete digital copy of my entire court file as at 9 December 2021.
- On the other hand if it be found that the court was indeed deceived by the Crown Solicitor then I seek an explanation of:
- When and how the court found out about this deception;
- What the court has done (and when it did anything) to identify the cause of this deception – i.e. to identify both the person(s) who deceived and the reason(s) for this deception; and
- An explanation of how I can then (without any Crown confession or restitution) be confident that the Crown Solicitor has conducted her investigation and all subsequent matters professionally and without malice from the point that deception of the court was first engaged.
This is an important point that proves an error on the part of the court OR a corrupted Crown Solicitor.
- This ruling includes two partial summaries that while technically correct or apparently immaterial, mischaracterise reality and omit critical factors important to me.
- In Clause 2, of the judgment the DC Judge said of the Crown’s position that, “amendments could be sought”.
- This abbreviation appears to remove any possibility of public clarity that the Crown Solicitor has either erred or conducted herself unprofessionally, which is my distinct conclusion.
- Such abbreviation (especially when seen in comparison to the written record and the extent of my [if proven] ‘damning testimony’ as referred to in my Affadavit) could potentially be seen as a judicial coverup.
- Please detail these amendments in sufficient detail to answer my question posed to the court, “… she wishes to change. I would like to know why”, and that it can be publicly seen that:
- The Crown Solicitor believes that (as she said) “In terms of evidential sufficiency [she considers that] the charge of theft is established”5 i.e. that I did commit the crime of theft, and
- That the Taumarunui Police Prosecutor’s (David Gray) charging of ‘Obtaining by Deception’ was, in her considered opinion after having “review[ed] the file”6, an error.
The Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton deceived the court. The DCJ didn’t detail this factor. He should unless he wants to cover up her falsehood and Taumarunui’s “error”.
- In Clause 3, of the judgment the DC Judge referred to my Private Investigator’s License as only, “his license”, however I specifically explained to the Court that I was, “a licensed private investigator”.
- Referring to simply “a license” fails to explain reality to future observers fully and could give the impression that the Court may wish to minimise these events.
- Please clarify and correct this description to detail that it is my “Private Investigator’s” license that is important to me.
- This ruling includes two tense errors that mischaracterise reality or omit critical factors.
a) Taking Steps
- In Clause 3, of the judgment the DC Judge said of the existing civil claim that, “he is taking steps”.
- This statement truncates and potentially mischararcterises an important point that I explained to the court in great detail when I said, “I have a Disputes Tribunal claim before the Court in Taumarunui which was issued prior to this charge being issued”.
- I further clarified this by saying “I have Jacqui Lowndes … on standby holding aside the Disputes Tribunal issue …”
- I explained the significance of this timing issue when I said, “It is bad faith conduct to interfere and determine an issue that is already before the Courts”.
- This point, that the matter was already before the [civil] court is downplayed with the use of the present tense (even though use of the present tense is technically correct).
- Please change this present tense to include the past tense and the fact that this attempted prosecution occurred AFTER I had commenced civil litigation as I explained to the court in person.
As I have previously explained, if you leave a falsehood or misunderstanding unaddressed, ‘they’ will surely use it against you in the future when the falsehood is then used to ‘get you’.
a) Now Civil
- In Clause 3, of the judgment the DC Judge said of the Crown’s position that, “this is now essentially a civil matter”.
- The use of the word “now” is ambiguous as it could mean that ‘from the Court’s perspective it is now seen as a civil matter’ or it could imply that a change in circumstances has occurred, i.e. that I was charged correctly but something is now different.
- I have always maintained that the matter is and has always been a civil matter, indeed as per my attached Affidavit, the first thing I advised the Police who attended was that the matter was a civil matter.
- Furthermore, I advised the Court of this very point quite clearly and strongly, taking direct issue with the Crown Solicitor’s statement of fact that “the [disputed] property has returned to its rightful owner”7 when I said, “That is incorrect. That’s a factual – factually incorrect statement … That is incorrect. I am the rightful owner …”.
- There has been no change in circumstances that I am aware of (nor that I have been advised of) since the charging was initiated by the Taumarunui Police that have altered the civil nature of this matter.
- Please correct or clarify the use of the word “now” by explaining that this change has only been from the Court’s perspective and not that there has been any actual change in circumstances that justifies use of the word, “now” in the context of any material change of circumstances.
- In Clause 3, of the judgment the DC Judge said of the 15 questions that, “related to why the Crown solicitor has sought to withdraw the charge”.
- This statement is factually incorrect.
- No discussion of the nature of these 15 questions is in the transcript which (except for one minor case of possible word transposition, from “Is it” to “It is”) appears to me to be accurate.
- Early on, I did ask the court to answer one question, “I would like to know the reason that she has said in writing … that the charge of theft is established,” but this had no direct relation to the 15 questions.
- I do not recall hearing the Crown Solicitor make this statement or claim and it does not appear in the transcript, thus it appears to be an error, likely an incorrect assumption on the part of the DCJ.
- The 15 questions were supplied to Jacinda Hamilton, Crown Solicitor in writing on the morning of 19 November 2021, long before her letter of 3 December 2021;
- As per my Affadavit, I believe the very reason she issued this letter as she did was actually because of my 15 questions and that the decision was made on the morning of 19 November 2021 to “pull the charges” and to formulate the letter as she issued on that date in conjunction with another person.
- I have never supplied the 15 questions to anyone other than the Crown Solicitor, nor have I spoken to any one other than the Crown Solicitor about them, certainly not to the courts or judiciary to date.
- This incorrect assumption is a material one and therefore an important one that may have ramifications for the entire decision to order an Acquittal under s.147.
- This is especially the case when this ruling was made in contradiction to the wishes of both the Crown Solicitor (who wanted the charges withdrawn) and the Defendant (who wanted discovery completed before having to address the matter).
- I have attached an Affidavit that details the specific questions for the record however I note that I asked the court very clearly in writing to “Please: ANSWER 15 QUESTIONS FIRST – THEN I WILL CONSIDER [the] FACTS & DECIDE MY RESPONSE”8.
The DCJ overruled both parties to secure an acquittal. I wanted the Crown Solicitor to answer some basic questions first, she wanted to withdraw the charges. What will happen if the acquittal is permitted without the questions asked is that corruption will be swept under the carpet.
56. It is my submission that as per my analysis in my Affadavit the bulk of the 15 unanswered questions are based on the so-far disclosed evidence and they are therefore primarily evidential in nature.
This is an important point that I have only sought clarifications of information disclosed to me. Nothing is new. It is simply standard stuff that they have thus far refused to provide. Funny that eh?
- 57. It is my submission also that both an Acquittal under s147 and withdrawal of charges under s146, before obtaining clarification of the full facts are inappropriate actions in order to dispense justice – in essence I as well as a judge are asked to perform a judgment utilising only partial information.
I got the impression that the DCJ just wanted to get the whole thing out of his court as quickly and simply as possible. He thought that I would be happy with an acquittal but not so . . .
- 58. I would note that while I am self-represented, I am cognisant that reversing a decision of Acquittal on Appeal may result in a trial but (depending on the answers I receive to the 15 questions) a trial may be a good thing and may be necessary in order to dispense justice.
- 59. I also note that:
- I do not believe that it is an accident that the Crown Solicitor has avoided addressing the 15 questions;
- My Affidavit also makes clear my belief (as I identified in court in person when I said, “…Jacinda Hamilton says that she has she has now reviewed the file. I don’t believe that”, is clearly a falsehood or an admission of professional incompetence (or worse).
- This is especially obvious as I explain in my Affidavit, in the light of s219.3, “In this section, taking does not include obtaining ownership or possession of, or control over, any property with the consent of the person from whom it is obtained, whether or not consent is obtained by deception”9, her primary witness states that he gave me the goods “I told Dennis if he could get rid of it, he could have it”10;
This is a smoking gun because if the Crown Solicitor actually read the file she would have known that the Police witness said that he gave the scrap steel to me!
- 4. My Affidavit confirms that based on reasonable application of simple logic, that on or about the same day that she received the 15 questions she spoke with Taumarunui Police Prosecutor, David Gray and then secretly agreed to “withdraw the charges” at that time; and that
5. No consideration has [yet] been given to compensation for the filing of false criminal charges and that Police bad faith conduct has yet to be addressed, neither have the substantial commercial losses for me resulting from this misconduct.
- Reverse the ruling of 9 December 2021 that I be acquitted, pending:
- An order that the Crown Solicitor answer the 15 Questions I asked her on
1519 November 2021; and set the pre-trial matters down for a second hearing where this matter can be considered properly with the full evidence at hand.
Invalid Basis for Acquittal
- The Defendant thanks the DCJ for recognising that this matter is (and IMHO always has been a civil matter) however the Defendant does not believe that an Acquittal under
s146s147 without the full evidence available or without the evidence used being tested, is justice (especially when the Crown Solicitor has explicitly advised the court that she believes that a crime has been committed, “In terms of evidential sufficiency, I consider that the charge of theft is established”11 and did not agree to the acquittal).
- As matters currently stand, my untarnished professional reputation of decades, rests upon a DCJ’s assessment that the [largely hidden] written word of a Crown Solicitor is less worthy than the voice of a single person accused of a Category 3 offence standing before a judge effectively saying “It’s all BS, your Honour!”.
- As explained in my Affadavit, in the context of many months of personal and business upset as well as financial loss, the very strong possibility that I am a victim of Police bad faith conduct; subject to false charges (certainly the nature of the charges disputed within the authorities themselves); the clear appearance of Crown malpractice if not conspiracy and that I am a prolific author, blogger and Licensed Private Investigator in the porocess of writing and publishing a book, “Corrupt Cops UNMASKED!!”, I do not consider that an Acquittal under s147 achieves my goal of clearing my name.
- I write here seeking reconsideration to avoid the necessity of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- I also seek that this Memorandum be viewed as an appeal, or as an application or an extension of time as appropriate in light of the required timeframes so that if necessary (with the Christmas period interruptions) I am able to formulate an appeal to the Court of Appeal within the 20 working days from this court’s ruling.
- I am available for teleconference or for in person appearances (even at short notice) as the court so requires.
Signature of Dennis Arthur Smith
1All quotes [italic] are from the LEGAL DISCUSSION BEFORE JUDGE R G MARSHALL, 9 December 2021 unless otherwise identified.
2Email, Wed, 8 Dec 2021, 12:28
3Minute of Judge R G Marshall, 9 December 2021
5Crown Solicitor Letter, 3 December 2021
7Crown Solicitor Letter, 3 December 2021
8Handwritten on the bottom of the copy of Jacinda Hamilton’s ‘missing’ letter provided to the court, CAPS reproduced as per the original
9Crimes Act, s219 (3)
10Clause 10. Statement of Kevin Morris, 17 July 2021
11Crown Solicitor Letter, 3 December 2021
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
UNDER THE Crimes Act (1961)
IN THE MATTER OF: Obtaining by Deception
BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
AND: Dennis Arthur Smith
Beneficiary of Taumarunui
AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS ARTHUR SMITH
Filed by: Dennis Arthur Smith, Plaintiff.
Address for Service: firstname.lastname@example.org
4/2a Para St, P O Box 2, Taumarunui, 3946 NZ
I, Dennis Arthur Smith of Taumarunui, Beneficiary, make oath and say as follows:
- I have never given consent to any criminal court to have jurisdiction over me.
- In February of 1979 I gave jurisdiction to another [higher] Entity.
- I do not vote nor do I ascribe to nor endorse the concept of democracy whereby the majority rule.
- Any interaction I have with “The Queen”, “Parliament” or “New Zealand Criminal Laws” is therefore undertaken while I am under duress.
- I have seen sufficient deception to believe that both the Taumarunui Prosecutor, David Gray, and the Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton have conspired to pervert the course of justice.
- In the first instance, a witness told me secretly that on the late morning of
1519 November 2021 David Gray advised him that he would not be required to attend court in Hamilton as the Crown will be “withdrawing the charges”, but that this information was to be kept from me.
- In the second instance, the Crown Solicitor held this knowledge from me from 19 November 2021 until 3 December 2021, despite very active efforts on my part to make contact with her.
- I am a prolific author, blogger and Private Investigative Journalist having published 36 books and over 2.5m words online.
- My New Zealand Private Investigator’s license number is PSPLA 004201/2017 1
- The first words I spoke to the attending officers in July 2021 clearly identified the matter in dispute as a civil matter.
- I explained before even identifying myself that they were attending a civil dispute, a matter that arose over disputed ownership of some ‘apparently’ abandoned scrap steel.
- I do not believe that there is any possibility of confusion or error in this matter as I summarised this by email more than once and receipt and clear understanding of my position as presented in person and by emails has been acknowledged by the Police more than once.
- On the morning of Friday 19 November 2021, I spoke again with Lianna at Hamilton Legal attempting again to speak to Jacinda Hamilton.
- At 13:14 on the same date I emailed to email@example.com:
As discussed with your team this morning, can I please have:
- A copy of the file notes that the judge wrote on the last appearance in Taumarunui relating to the incorrect spelling of my surname and a jurisdictional issue (my consent not provided).
- The name of the judge who presided in Taumarunui.
- An MP3 (or similar digital) copy of the 111 call referenced in Clause 25 of the Statement of the Complainant Joshua HAWKLESS, 18 July 2021.
- The invoice and proof of payment of the steel referenced on page 5/5 of Constable Laura EDWARDS’ daybook in the Statement of the Complainant Joshua HAWKLESS, 16 July 2021.
- The coversheet referred to in Clause 1 of Statement of Kevin Morris, 17 July 2021.
- A copy of the lease referenced in Clauses 2 & 4 of the Statement of the Witness Kevin MORRIS, 17 July 2021.
- Confirmation of the time of her departure from 2a Para St, Taumarunui referenced in Clause 6 of the Statement of the Constable Laura MITCHELL, 28 August 2021.
- All relevant entries in Constable Laura Mitchell’s notebook specifically including Friday morning 16 July 2021, and Wednesday afternoon 21 July 2021.
- Missing notebook entries from Friday afternoon 16 July 2021, Saturday 17 July 2021 and Sunday 18 July 2021 of Sam EDWARDS.
- Confirmation of the time of Constable Sam Edwards departure from 2a Para St, Taumarunui on Sunday 18 July 2021.
- All relevant entries in Supervisor Graeme Rumble’s notebook specifically including Sunday morning 18 July 2021 and Wednesday afternoon 21 July 2021.
- The “contract to remove” as described in Clauses 2 & 4 of Statement of Joshua Hawkless, 18 July 2021.
- An exact description, weights and verification of valuation of the goods claimed to have been misappropriated as described in Paragraph 9 of Statement of Joshua Hawkless, 18 July 2021.
- The Application for a Search Warrant mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the Search Warrant issued on 21 July 2021 by #9296.
- The “summary of right to ask for further information” as described under the heading, “Prosecution disclosure duties” on Summons to Defendant, 22 July 2021.
- I have never received any response to these questions nor to multiple requests for meaningful communication requesting any person allocated to this case.
- I came to the conclusion that Jacinda Hamilton did not want to speak to me about any matter and that as I received advice on 19 November 2021 that she secretly planned to withdraw the charges, that bad faith conduct was occuring.
- My analysis of the above questions is that apart from the first two (which I have found the answers to in other ways) all unanswered questions (Q3-15) are specific clarifications of existing evidence, by way of direct reference detailing the source reference – all within the disclosed documents.
- I am an active professional where public trust is critical to my commercial performance, let alone my personal reputation and standing.
- It is my belief that the direct and indirect consequences of a charge of a false Category 3 crime of dishonesty have been devastating – both personally and professionally.
- For example, I could no longer, in good conscience, operate as a Private Investigator thus this has had very serious negative commercial ramifications, past present and most likely also into the future.
- My professional and personal reputation has and continues to be seriously and permanently negatively affected by these ‘false’ charges and bad faith conduct on the part of some people with influence within the authorities.
- Furthermore, faced with this trauma I believed that I had little choice but to elect to resign as Trustee, Chairman and CEO of a Charitable Trust, KCET, a Charitable Trust that I helped to establish in 2019 (King Country Education Trust), causing the trust to lose hope, vision and purpose, let alone losses financially.
- Furthermore, my plans to work with others to establish other Charitable Trusts have also had to be postponed, perhaps shelved permanently.
- Furthermore, renewal of my lease with Colliers who represent LINZ has been negatively affected as a result of these affairs with a key employee of Colliers being asked to be a Police witness unnecessarily and in dubious circumstances.
- I am arguably a victim of Police bad faith conduct with the charges having been laid knowingly after I commenced civil litigation.
- I have been subjected to false accusations and changing charges with the investigating officer Sam Edwards and his supervisor Graeme Rumble both exercising aggressive conduct and false & differing accusations, first of Burglary, then of Theft, then of Obtaining by Deception.
- Throughout the period of this trauma I have also observed the clear appearance of Crown malpractice if not an outright conspiracy:
- The Taumarunui Police Prosecutor David Gray was embarrassed before a DCJ when I asked for his personal identification (I had never previously met him nor spoken to him despite trying many times) and in particular when I noted before the DCJ that disclosure had not been completed properly, as I was then (and still am now) awaiting answer to a formal valuation of the disputed goods.
- The Taumarunui Police Prosecutor David Gray was again embarrassed when I sought his timely forwarding of this file to the Crown Solicitor and revealed his unprofessional and rude conduct.
- The Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton entered into a secret agreement with Taumarunui Police Prosecutor David Gray to withdraw charges weeks prior to informing me.
- The Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton stated (obviously falsely) that she had “reviewed the file” when she clearly hadn’t, instead speaking to and getting her ‘feed’ from Taumarunui Police Prosecutor David Gray .
- The Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton advised the world that in her professional opinion based on the evidence I was guilty of a different crime (previously rejected by Taumarunui Police Constable, Supervisor and Prosecutor) but that she actually recommended withdrawing charges due to COVID-19 delays of a trial.
- I am a prolific author, blogger and Licensed Private Investigator and am in the process of writing and publishing a book, “Corrupt Cops UNMASKED!!”
- I do not consider that an Acquittal under s147 achieves my goal of clearing my name.
Sworn at Taumarunui on this……..……day of………….….…………2022
Leave a Reply