Welcome To Dob A Cop. (UPDATED 02/10/2015)

This is a community minded website that is protecting the public By Exposing Corrupt and Dirty Perminently Inept Government Servants (P.I G.S).

We would love to publish your story ... please send an introductory email to "mailto:iron_clay@xtra.co.nz?subject=dob-a-cop"

Body text only No attachments or images are required or accepted without prior arrangement.

Comments made on this site are Without Prejudice to my rights and I Reserve All My Rights.

Should you find you may have a problem with the facts published here, you are welcome to email me and inform me and it may be that I may alter the text if it not the truth. If it is in fact the truth, Trust Me it's staying here.

My Name is Neal ... what's yours?


Table of content.

 Former StandUpNZ Campaigner Neal King and His On Going War for The Rights To Travel For The Necessities Of Life Stopped By A Dirty Cop the Ensuring Story Uncovers Disturbing Corruption In The Whangarei Police Department ... A Must Read Story.
 Chris Blake made one mistake and got done for 2.5 years when the only witnesses were well known drug dealers in Whangarei. The police were notified in writing that their witnesses had acted in a criminal way including Theft, Aggravated Assault causing GBH, Kidnapping, the police acted in a criminal way by perverting the cause of justice and allowing two well known drug growers and pee cooks to walk free ... this story is now here so look down.
 Steven Wallace's killer walks free. The Police Murder of Steven Wallace haunts us all and Should Never Be Forgotten or Let Go.

 

Campaigner Neal King and His On Going War for The Rights To Travel For The Necessities Of Life

 

Remember StandupNZ and the Digital Biometric driver licence?

This exciting story is one the public just has to see for itself as it stings right at the root of corruption within the police and in high places and 'Your's Truly' has the scoop on that corruption.

How many traffic tickets are fraudulent documents, how often do the police alter evidence, and conspire to pervert the course of Justice? these are important questions and the answers should be in the public view.

By harrassing Neal have the New Zealand Police opened Pandora's Box and are they right now running around trying to find a lid to fit?

Mr King said "I believe it is in the public interest to ensure the police maintain the confidence of the public, and frankly they are not doing a very good job."

Neal King, the man who ran Stand Up New Zealand was finally picked up on the 01/04/2015 by a Whangarei Officer who only had to tell the truth ... and failed ...

The ensuing story is one of major corruption within the Whangarei Police department, one of conspiring with several other (top) named police officers to create fraudulent documents to convict a man "Traveling for the Necessities of Life".

Changing evidence, swapping cars on paper, lying 11 times in a one page statement, and all the time Mr Neal King has the road side recording as evidence.

It started ... well it started in 1998 on News Talk ZB but the continued war over Rights to Travel began afresh at 2:30 April Fools Day 01/04/2015 when this roadside interchange occured.

This could be The biggest story New Zealand has seen since the ''wine box'', one that will strip to the bone the abuse of office of Police in New Zealand.

Documents cited here are as follows:

Three "Reminder Notices" ... saying 'Served By Personal Service'

One Infringement Notice covering 3 alleged offences. saying Gareth John Worswick AKA GWW980 was driving GGR853 on the day

Three Notices of Hearing ... Saying 'Delivery Handed'

One "Notes Made At Time by Officer Gareth John Worswick AKA GWW980 of Whangarei." Saying 'Neal Admitted Offences'

Officer Gareth John Worswick Unsigned Statement containing 11 provable lies including what car Officer Gareth John Worswick / GWW980 of Whangarei was actually driving on the day, GGR853 or GUS297.

Here in short was Officer Gareth John Worswick's Senior Sergeant's problem ... Neal King was traveling Safely, was not speeding or damaging anyone and was stopped illegally by Officer Gareth John Worswick / GWW980 because this officer did not have "Probable Cause" to enter the number of the automobile I was traveling in, into the Police Computer to search. This was an illegal search and seasure.

It turns out that the remedy for the police was simply ... all they had to do was alter records and claim that Officer Gareth John Worswick was driving a different police car rego plate GUS297 which was allegedly fitted with an antomatic plate reader.

The problem with this claim is that we recorded the entire stop on two separate recording devices, and my daughter wrote down the number of the police car on our PaknSave shopping list of the day.

Memo to all readers, I believe it's important for the police to ensure the public have confidence in the system ... otherwise the entire system will go down to Chaos.

Text from Gareth's Official Unsigned Police Statement:

I Gareth Worswick, state:

This statement is from memory and notes made at the time of the offence.

On 1st April 2015 I was patrolling sh14 Maunu.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick was in fact parked on the corner of Tui Cres in fact in Tui Cres and not patrolling sh14 at all.

I was in full uniform and was driving marked patrol vehicle GUS297. This vehicle is fitted with an automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR).

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick was not in full uniform as he did not have his hat/badge/number on and in regard to what vehicle he was driving ... I believe the above image of the two different tickets provided at two different times plus the shopping list may very well present some problems to this statement.

At about 1.15pm a Toyota Hilux motor vehicle XXXXXX travelled westbound past me.

Truth is: The screen shot of the Cell phone sound recording we took at the time has the time stamped at 2:20 - 2:45

Immediately the ANPR system alerted me that the vehicle had a lapsed registration status.

Not entirely sure how a non existent ANPR system could achieve this trick as GGR853 is not fitted with ANPR ... only GUS297 is but I guess the Judge will decide that. Here we have evidence of police corruption but it gets worse so follow me here.

I performed a "U" turn behind it and activated red and blue flashing lights and siren and it pulled over over and came to a stop just prior to the intersection with Austin Rd, Maunu.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick did not pull a "U" Turn on sh14 as he was parked waiting for me to pass at the corner of Tui Cres ... However if he sticks to this claim would he not have been driving dangerously ... driving two totally different cars ... Further more we stopped seconds after he hit his lights some 4km past Austin Road close to Cemetery Rd. See Map below.

 

I went and spoke to the driver who produced an old paper style driver's license ... He said his name was Neal KING.

Truth is: I produced nothing until 10 minutes later when Officer Gareth John Worswick had returned from his car and in that time I'd found a copy of my Life Time Licence.

I examined the vehicle warrant of fitness label and it was showing as expiring in June 2015. The license label was showing an expiry date of 09/07/15. The road user charges label was showing a max dist recorder of 185648. This information was in contrast to what the ANPR had given so I ran the vehicle registration number through my Motorolla Smart device. It confirmed that the warrant of fitness had expired on 3rd September 2005 and the vehicle license had expired on 5th January 2006.

I asked KING for an explanation but he refused to comment, and just shrugged his shoulders.

Truth is: I responded to his every claim with the truth, I did not and do not shrug my shoulders and am seldom without a reply ... as the recorded sound tracks and transcript evidence.

I asked KING to pop his bonnet so I could examine the VIN number which he agreed to.

I then compared the displayed VIN number to the one in my Motorolla smart device and it was a match.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick did not request me to pop the bonnet and the bonnet was never popped and Officer Gareth John Worswick did not check the VIN number at any time. Also if this is the truth, the officer took a number of photos of stickers etc on the day, if he had lifted the bonnet to see the non existant VIN label ... why oh why didn't Officer Gareth John Worswick take a photo of that as well? I can't wait for this to be placed in front of a judge ... bring it on make my bloody day.

I went back and looked further at the license label and RUC label that the vehicle was displaying and it was then that I saw that the blue triangle in the bottom left corner read "the kingdom of god and his right judgement".

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick did not see the words in the blue triangle in the bottom left corner read "the kingdom of god and his right judgement" as the sound track would have evidenced that, what he did notice is only after he removed the labels from my automobile and that is that they were printed on paper.

I suspected that they were both fake and seized them from the plastic holder sleeve fitted inside the vehicle. They felt as though they had been printed on normal paper.

Neal's Comment: I'm just trying to remember how much fight these two tiny pieces of paper put up and the memory eludes me. I think Officer Gareth John Worswick asked if he could see them and remove them and I did not refuse. But My guess is that this officer has to make it sound tough and some sort of war zoneish ... maybe to win some badge that he wasn't displaying on the day.

I then examined in more detail the warrant of fitness label in the top right side of the windscreen and it appeared to be a laminated piece of card taped to the inside of the windscreen that was made to look like an authentic warrant of fitness label.
KING gave no explanation and refused to comment on the labels when I asked him.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick did not see the words Warrant Of Fitness as when we design and print out inspection label it reads "Warrant Of Witness" ... something that has still eluded Officer Gareth John Worswick to this day. However in the sound track he did give me credit for being qualified to test my automobile for safety ... Something that also still eludes the observant bastard. but again I'm sure the Judge will be amused.

I then asked KING to provide some further ID if possible as I wanted to confirm his details were correct. He provided 2 Kiwibank cards with the name N L KING on both. He also provided a business card of some sort. I photographed all three items together resting them on my notebook.

Truth is: That is the Truth ... with one ommission ... Officer Gareth John Worswick captured an image of both sides of my debit card which would have allowed him to use my card online.

Truth is After Seeing That I Had To Cancel My Debit Card For Security Reasons.

Truth is it was only This Event that triggered me to know about the altering of the banking laws "Now I can no longer Have or Operate a Bank Account (2013) ... Bank teller fines $500,000 ... Bank fines of $5m"

I asked KING if it was ok to take a photograph of him and he agreed, and so I then photographed KING sitting in his vehicle.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick did Ask but I refused and I did not know he had breached My Rights in capturing my god given face image till months after when he sent out documents for court. When I refused I said the words

Officer Gareth John Worswick: Alright, I'll give you that back. And, I'll just take a quick photograph of yourself, if you don't mind? Its just a police iPhone, its not going to go any further than my iPhone.

Neal: Yeah thats a problem, the Biometric thing for me is a problem. (this was after me saying) "To me, that biometric system is the Mark of the Beast. ... Do you understand Biometric system?

Officer Gareth John Worswick: Yeah I understand what you're saying, yeah.

Officer Gareth John Worswick then said in reference to my photo being taken: Alright.

Now here's a poser for Officer Gareth John Worswick, why would I agree to the capturing of a digital image of my face when for the last 16 years I've had this website up http://www.iron-clay.com/one_world_government.html#the_mark_of_the_beast ... warning all that see not to go down that road?

Either Officer Gareth John Worswick is lying or I am ... but we both cannot be telling the truth.

I also photographed KING's paper driver's license.

Truth is: That's the first truth Officer Gareth John Worswick has spoken.

I then informed him that I would make some further enquiries back at base and will post him out a ticket in due course.

Truth is: Officer Gareth John Worswick said "But um, yeah ok, well what I'm going to do now is I'm going to take this back to 'my sergeant', he'll have a look through it, and he'll probably give me, you know, push me in the direction that I need to go with it, alright. Which may be sending you a ticket out, may be coming out there to have a chat to you again, out where you live, something along those lines, but we'll see where it goes Ok."

So that kinda screws with the 7 Police documents that claim I was handed a ticket on the day ... does it not?

However here's the gust of my problems with Whangarei Police.

Gareth said I'm going to take this back to 'my sergeant' ... that's a name that has been requested three times now and I still haven't been provided who Officer Gareth John Worswick conspired with to construct these lies.

Also it is I believe quite obvious that the top police officer in Whangarei has full awareness of these lies, in fact I'm going to say he was instrumental in forming them and here's why.

 

 I wrote to one Russell Le Prou have a look at the date and my third question.

What "Probable Cause" did Officer GWW980 have for entering the details of the number plate XXXXXX into his computer to search?

Note also the Date that letter was sent and it was stamped received on the 25th.

This puts District Commander Russell Le Prou in posession of a legal problem for Gareth John Worswick for "Probable Cause" 67 days before Gareth made his statement on the 31/07/2015.

 

Neal has been on 'Virtual Home Detention' without committing an offense or having a trial for the last 16 years ... His damages are $884,000 in lost of earnings alone without considering the damages of many breaches of Basic human Rights and discrimination and there is major discrimination.

Today .... without a New Zealand Driver Licence (Biometric Identifier) a citizen of New Zealand cannot do the following:

 Buy and Register an Vehicle. (thus comply with transport laws) ... (breach of Trust) Enroll your child in school .......... (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)
 Buy Land or property. (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)  Take End of year exams at school ........ (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)
 Open a Bank account. (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)  Transactions of NZ$10,000 or more in cash. ... (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)
HAVE or OPERATE A BANK ACCOUNT (Since 2013 ... Bank teller fines of $500,000 and Bank fines of $5m) .... (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)  Buying or selling Foreign Currency valued at NZ$1,000 or more. (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)
 Open a Telecommunications Account ............... (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994) Hire anything
 Cash a cheque. (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)  Sell Scrap metal
Travel. (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)  Sell goods to a Pawn Broker
 Work ... in many events ... (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)   Check in to some domestic flights
 Apply for a Mortgage ............ (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994)   Apply for an IRD number
 Apply for a benefit. Apply for a tax refund
 Have a JP sign an affidavit ...... (Breach of both human rights and bill of rights act)  Become a police officer
 Be admitted to a university ............ (breach of NZ human rights laws 1994) Visit somebody in prison
 
   
   
   

Want To Add To This List ??? Email me mailto:iron_clay@xtra.co.nz?subject=dob-a-cop

But the good news is none of these things represent any diminishing of any human rights ... or discrimination ... according to parliament ... or do they?

There are thousands of people that opposed the Driver Licence / Biometric Identifier in 1998-1999, those who held strongly to their beliefs are now damaged ... are you one of these?

I have spoken about sound recordings of this illegal traffic stop ... The Telecommunication Minister has assured me that I am never ever going to be getting anything more than the worse dial-up internet connection in the country, one (especially me) has to wonder if that's so's I can't upload video/sound onto the net but that is as I say "one has to wonder" . Long story short I have no way of uploading these sound tracks to this page so here is the transcript.


THE Road Side TRANSCRIPT

One brief exchange has already taken place, the officer walked up, looked at the warrant, was surprised, said oh that's funny my computer says its out of date, Neal responded with “I don't know what your computer says”,

Officer checked that the numbers on the stickers matched the car: checked that the mileage was within date: looked under the warrant and checked that the number matched the car, looked very puzzled.

Officer asked whether Neal had his licence on him, was told no, asked whether Neal had a licence, was told yes, Neal said he would record everything, Officer said yeah and asked for and received name, date of birth and address. Returned to his car.

....
Recording starts:

O: I can't find a driver's licence in there, for yourself?

N: (Passes paper licence)

O: What's that? ... oh good ... so, has it got a driver's licence number on it ...? ....
Alright, I'll just show you as well, about why I stopped you, because your, everything's showing way way out aye? Thats basically what it's coming up as alright, so your registration's at the top there, your warrant, your licence, and the warrant of fitness, its showing out 2005/2006, yeah? Do you know who xxxxxxxxxxxxx is?

N: Yeah, its the guy I bought the car off.

O: That's who you bought the car off, when did you buy it?

N: Quite a while back.

O: Quite a while ago?

N: Mm-hm.

O: Yup. Ok where's ... (touches underside of warrant) ... obviously, that warrant of fitness there, its laminated on the back side, isn't it? So, alright, I'll just have a look at your licence label … (walks around the car and looks) ... I'll just pull that out, so's I can have a look at it. Thats just printed off, aye, its not actually a licence label is it?

N: It is actually a licence label, and -

O: What was that?

N: If you can come round to this side, so's I'm not yelling.

O: (Returns) ... Yup?

N: It is actually a licence label, and according to the law, it is completely legal ...

O: Oh OK, so its a bit like that is it?

O: Yeah? And who ... so you've been given tickets for it before?

N: No.

O: Ok. Just a minute ... (walks away to his car for 10 minutes)

RETURNS

O: Alright, so obviously those have been printed off your, you've printed them off yourself, yeah? From the internet, from a computer somewhere? They're actually completely expired, it is 2005/2006 isn't it?

N: I disagree.

O: You disagree?

N: Mmm.

O: Why are you doing it? Why have you printed them off?

N: To stay compliant.

O: To stay compliant???

N: M-hm.

O: But you haven't actually paid vehicle licensing fees, have you? You haven't actually had it through a testing station to have a warrant of fitness put on it? Test whether its fit?

N: Yes, but there is no requirement in legislation ...

O: Yeah. Ok well right now let me put it to you this way, because I'm looking at arresting you for fraud, for using a document, because that's basically what you're doing, alright?

N: Ok well that's already been tested in court, and -

O: What's been tested in court, you've not been to court on that charge, I checked.

N: No I know.

O: So, give me a reason why you shouldn't be arrested right now?

N: Ok, because I honestly believe that I was obeying the law very specifically, and we have studied that piece of law very specifically, and we have had a court case go through the Whangarei court to prove that piece of law.

...

O: So, what I want to know though is why, I mean, this is here (gestures at warrant) for your own good, this is here to make sure that your vehicle is road-worthy. Does that mean, are you a mechanic? You've got a little bit of mechanical knowledge, yeah?

N: Well I've done a lot of it.

O: Probably, yeah. You live on a farm, you know how to do your own machinery and that kind of stuff yeah?

N: Yeah.

O: I'm gonna give you credit for that. But, a lot of people don't, ok, so the reason why we have a warrant of fitness ... I mean little old ladies, lots of people just have no idea-

N: I understand that, but I wasn't driving dangerously, there was no danger in what I was doing, and to be honest here Officer, I understand your position, understand it completely. I was travelling today for the necessities of life.

O: Yup.

N: As if you have a look in the back, you'll see the necessities of life.

O: So food, mostly?

N: Yup.

O: Alright. So, all I'm trying to understand is why, why don't you run it through a testing station? Because I mean, if the vehicle's in good condition, then you'll actually get a warrant of fitness on there won't you?

N: This is going to be an involved case, because I don't know-

O: What do you mean, an involved case?

N: I don't know how much you've seen, on my record, or my history, I ran the campaign against the digital drivers licences in 1998, that's who I am.

O: It doesn't say anything about that on your name, to be honest.

N: That's good. I ran that, I ran Standup New Zealand. Do you remember Standup New Zealand?

O: No I don't.

N: Ok you weren't around at the time? I ran that campaign. I ran that campaign because I saw something in that biometric system that I wasn't willing to go into. To me, that biometric system is the Mark of the Beast.

O: Ok. Alright, can you, my concern is now, have you got any Photo ID or anything that you can provide to me ...

N: Oh shat, I've left my (old) passport at home. I did. I left my passport at home.

O: It just, I mean you could be, you've shown me an old licence from a long time ago, and you could be just about anyone to be honest.

N: Yeah I know. I can give you, ok hangon a minute, here's a card in my name (passes embossed debit card) ...

O: OK so has it got your name on it?

N: Yup. Would you like my card?? (Passes business card) You can have that.

O: Whats that?

N: My card.

O: Oh ok, well just so as I can say I've seen something with your name on it ...

N: Yeah, I can give you that one too ... (passes embossed eftpos card) ... but I want these back, please.

O: Well all I was going to do is just take a quick photograph, just to say that thats the identity that you've produced.

N: That's ok.

O: Yup? I've got my phone right here which I'll do ... (Places cards on bonnet) ...

N: and can I have the copy of my licence back too, please?

O: Yup sure.

N: And can I have my labels for the rest of the trip, please?
(Officer taking photograph of cards)

N: If you're going to write a ticket, then feel free to do so, but, I'm answering your question, and I'll take my glasses off to do it so as you can see my eyes, I will answer your question, as to why not ..

O: Alright, I'll give you that back. And, I'll just take a quick photograph of yourself, if you don't mind? Its just a police iPhone, its not going to go any further than my iPhone.

N: Yeah thats a problem, the Biometric thing for me is a problem.

O: Alright.

O: In terms of the labels, ok, I'm going to talk to somebody a bit more in the know-

N: Can I just tell you why? Just before you run back and talk to someone?

O: Yeah, fire away. ... That's yours (passes back licence)

N: Thank you. When the biometric system came in, I was basically cast out of society. I couldn't involve. I can't sell scrap metal, I can't travel easily, without being harassed, although this is to be honest the first time I've been picked up, I can't transfer land, I can't open a bank account, I can't open telecommunications accounts, um, what the pharque else, there's a multitude of things that I can no longer do, because of that biometric system. Do you understand Biometric system?

O: Yeah I understand what you're saying, yeah.

N: Ok. That biometric system, and if you go to my website, I've given you my card? go to my website, right on the front page of my website, you can do it on your phone right now, I know because I've just been there myself on somebody else's phone, its quite clear what my beliefs are.

O: Yup.

N: Now, I have tried to live the best I can, outside the system because the system wouldn't allow me to be in it. I've done the best I can. I live on less than $5000 a year. If I was to do, see my intention isn't to travel, I travel very very infrequently. Like probably once every 6 weeks, just for the necessities of life. Everything else we grow at home, we've had to. If I went through the warrant of fitness, registration, it would be a clear indication that I was wanting to travel frequently, that my intent was to travel, that my intent was to run into this gauntlet the whole time. My intent isn't that. My intent is to be a private person, parked out, where I can survive, where I can support myself, where I can grow my own food. Because your system has rejected me, because I can't operate in your system any more.

O: Have you rejected my system, or has my system rejected you?

N: I have a driver licence. Your system rejected it. Didn't you just say that my licence didn't come up?

O: Its expired sir. A long time ago.

N: It hasn't expired. I've never relinquished that licence and the date on that licence is 2025.

O: Yup.

N: I have not relinquished that licence, I did not get it-

O: Well obviously because its an old paper licence and its under the old-

N: I understand that, but its still valid it hasn't been revoked.

O: Yup. That's why I'm not doing anything about it right now.

N: Ok.

O: What I'm saying to you is that you're almost, I mean you want to live the lifestyle that you choose, you're almost there, you just have to get your vehicle sorted for when you, if you're gonna start frequently making trips to town.

N: But if I start frequently making trips to town, you, and I understand your position, I'm not hammering you, its not a personal thing, but you, or somebody else in your uniform, is likely to do this, all the time. I don't want to travel in your system.

O: Well that's what I'm saying, and if you, and if your vehicle is legal, then I wouldn't have stopped you would I, I wouldn't have bothered you, you could have been home by now.

N: And if I could afford a legal vehicle, on 5 grand a year-

O: So that's basically what it comes down to, its cost, you can't afford ...

N: I just absolutely cannot afford to do better than what I'm doing. … I'm a man of integrity, I'm not trying to give you a hard time,

O: No no, I know you're not no, there's just respect back and forth there, yeah absolutely, I'm listening to what you're saying, you're listening to what I'm saying, that what its all about.
But um, yeah ok, well what I'm going to do now is I'm going to take this back to my sergeant, he'll have a look through it, and he'll probably give me, you know, push me in the direction that I need to go with it, alright. Which may be sending you a ticket out, may be coming out there to have a chat to you again, out where you live, something along those lines, but we'll see where it goes Ok.

N: Ok. Well, you do have my address.

O: Absolutely, yeah.

N: Am I free to leave now?

O: Yes, absolutely.

N: Thankyou.

(officer returns to his car and we pull off.)

End of road side recordings.

*****************************************************************

 

It is my belief that District Commander Russell Le Prou is one of the conspiring officers in the creation of fraudulant documents

and that the real driver of GUS297 is yet another as that officer would have to know and be ready to cover this fraud.

 

Not the first time corruption has been found at the top of Whangarei Police.

The Whangarei Police Station is recorded in the news papers as being corrupt and having some serious problems with officers taking evidence (drugs) and selling them to informants, and what did this District Commander Russell Le Prou say to that ????

"Each officer will have their own thoughts and feelings but at the end of the day we can agree that its hurts when someone like this is convicted."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/63781253/cops-betrayed-by-michael-blowers-crimes

Can you see any Remorse in What Russell Le Prou said?

Or is his hurt only refering to one of his own being caught and convicted?

Northland District Commander Superintendent Russell Le Prou says Police rely on the trust and confidence of the public ?!?!?!

How serious can The Public Take Russell Le Prou ?

Here's another problem

Inspector admits she discourages documentation

On the 10th of August 2013 Inspector Tracy Phillips of Whangarei Police was recorded admitting she discourages HER staff from witting Police Job sheets. Tonight we were given this recorded conversation and a transcript from the President of NZPCA, who recorded the conversation between herself, the Inspector and another member of Whangarei Police.

Parker, who recorded the conversation says she always records Police now and wouldn’t have a conversation with a Police officer without recording them. “It has been my experience that they will lie to protect themselves or their staff.

It seems to me that if an Inspector is telling her staff not to bother with a document like a Job sheet, then she would be aware of all the pit falls caused by not creating such a document.

I note that most of the pitfalls would only effect the defendant in the matter.

It also seems that opinions that Inspector Phillips is a very intelligent women are right, she seems to know exactly what she is doing!

http://nzpca.co.nz/inspector-admits-she-discourages-documentation/

************************************************************

After being lied to by the police all the way through ... I have decided to take a more pro-active stance.

1. There is already a Complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

Independent Police Conduct Authority, PO Box 25221, Wellington 6146, enquiries@ipca.govt.nz

2. A case before the Human Rights Commission

Enquiries & Complaints Services Human Rights Commission .... PO 6751 Wellesley St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand, 0800 496 877 | infoline@hrc.co.nz

3. Produced an Official Information Act Request. (text as follows)

************************************************************

THIS OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST WAS ANSWERED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY

From:
Neal King
778 Opouteke Rd
Whangarei 0172

To:UJSU.NorthlandDisclosure@police.govt.nz

Date 19/09/2015
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST.

Dear New Zealand Police.

This is a request under the Official Information Act 1982 and regulations thereunder.

The requested documents may in due course be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at www.iron-clay.com/dob-a-cop.html.
This request is made primarily for the Defence of myself in my court case and also in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.
Any request filled electronically, must be presented in a form readable without the installation of third party software and on a CD-ROM.

In answering this Official Information Request, the New Zealand Police must furnish all requested information, not subject to a valid objection, that is known by, possessed by, or available to New Zealand Police or any of their attorneys, consultants, representatives or other agents.

In the event of information being held or known by other agents the identification and contact details of these other agents or persons having knowledge of discoverable matters must be provided.

If the New Zealand Police is unable to answer fully any of these Official Information Requests, they must answer them to the fullest extent possible, specifying the reason(s) for their inability to answer the remainder, and stating whatever information, knowledge, or belief they have concerning the unanswerable portion.

Each lettered subpart of a numbered portion is to be considered a separate Official Information Request for the purpose of objection.

The New Zealand Police must object separately to each subpart. If they object to less than all of the subparts of this Official Information Request, then they must answer the remaining subparts.

In addition, if the New Zealand Police objects to an Official Information Request or a subpart thereof as calling for information for any reason they must, nevertheless, answer the Official Information Request or subpart thereof to the extent that it is not objectionable.

The New Zealand Police must supplement their responses to these requests when so requested.
Without being requested to do so by the defendant, the New Zealand Police must also amend any answer when it is discovered to have been incorrect when made or when it is discovered to be no longer true and circumstances are such that a failure to supplement is in substance a knowing concealment.

Please provide me signed and dated copies of the following documents:

A. All Documents that would evidence where the Police Vehicle registration number GUS297 was at between 1200 hours and 1600 hours on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

B. All Infringement Notices and/or Traffic Offence notices and/or any other notice written or produced from the Police Vehicle registration number GUS297 on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015 between the hours of 900 hours and 1600 hours.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/F

This evidence must show:

The location the alleged offence/s took place
The badge number of the driver of GUS297 at the time of each alleged offence.
The Name of the driver of GUS297 at the time of each alleged offence.
The Time of Each alleged offence.
The Date of Each alleged offence.

For Privacy reasons I am happy for you to comply with this request with the following data removed.
You may protect the privacy of the alleged offender by blocking out the alleged offender's name, address, date of birth, driver licence number, vehicle registration number, and the details of the alleged offence/s.
All other information on the notices must be visible.

C. Documents that would evidence the full name/s and badge number/s of the Police Officer/s shown to be driving Police Vehicle registration number GUS297 April Fools Day the 01/04/2015.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

D. All Documents that would evidence where the Police Vehicle registration number GGR853 was between 1200 hours and 1600 hours on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

E. All Infringement Notices and/or Traffic Offence notices written or produced from the Police Vehicle registration number GGR853 on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015 between the hours of 900 hours and 1600 hours.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/F

This evidence must show:

The location the alleged offence/s took place
The badge number of the driver of GGR853 at the time of each alleged offence.
The Name of the driver of GGR853 at the time of each alleged offence.
The Time of Each alleged offence.
The Date of Each alleged offence.

For Privacy reasons I am happy for you to comply with this request with the following data is removed.
You may protect the privacy of the alleged offender by blocking out the alleged offender's name, address, date of birth, driver licence number, vehicle registration number, and the details of the alleged offence/s.
All other information on the notices must be visible.

F. Documents that would evidence the full name/s and badge number/s of the Police Officer/s driving Police Vehicle registration number GGR853 on April Fools Day the 01/04/2015.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

G. Copies of all communications of any form between Whangarei Police Station or any other police unit and Officer Gareth John Worswick between the hours of 6:00 am and 4:00 pm on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015 that refer in any way or form to 'Neal Lawrence King' and/or 'Neil Lawrence King' and/or 'Neal King' and/or 'Neil King' and/or 'King' and/or 'Christopher John Blake' and/or 'Christopher Blake' and/or 'Chris Blake' and/or 'Blake' and/or 'Blakie' and/or '(withheld for safety reasons)', including but not limited to all transmissions, phone calls, radio transmissions, and computer entries.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

H. The Complete Personal Conduct Records of Russell Le Prou showing any and all police conduct issues throughout his entire police career.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 9 2 A

I. The Complete Personal Conduct Records of Stuart Wilkes showing any and all police conduct issues throughout his entire police career.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 9 2 A

J. The Complete Personal Conduct Records of Gareth John Worswick showing any and all police conduct issues throughout his entire police career.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 9 2 A

K. (In accordance with Subpart C) The Complete Personal Conduct Records of (the now discovered driver of the Police Vehicle registration number GUS297 between 1200 hours and 1600 hours on the day of April Fools Day the 01/04/2015) showing any and all police conduct issues throughout his entire police career.

DOCUMENT WITHHELD UNDER SECTION 18 D/A/E

In the interest of saving the E-trees, notice to police prosecution:
Any agent/s or person/s holding any of the above information that cannot be produced in document form are expected to be called as expert witnesses at My trial and be accompanied with a signed affidavit of their testimony. Please make it so.

I also require an affidavit from the completing officer, stating that to the best of his ability, all the information provided in the fulfilling of this Official Information Act Request is true and correct.

DOCUMENT NOT SUPPLIED

Any opinion given in response to this request will be a violation of the Official Information Act 1982. Therefore, I specifically request you refrain from including any opinions as part of your response.

Either provide the documents responsive to my request, or
State there are no documents responsive to my request.
Any other response will be a violation of the Official Information Act 1982.

Should you Refuse, Stall or otherwise Block or Default on my request I will be taking this matter to the Ombudsman and Independent Police Conduct Authority.
Please expedite this request within 28 days.

I AM The Man Neal Laurence King making this request and my signature appears.

Signature: ... and it was signed ... sent this morning at 10:08 On the 19/09/2015

And Frankly I'm really looking forward to the reply.

This response was more or less what I expected from a corporate body that is hiding something.

If any of the requests had been supplied it would have been a sign of the New Zealand Police acting in Good Faith but this response proves beyond doubt to me how about you?

Isn't it a Police Lovers Line to say "if you haven't got anything to hide you haven't got anything to fear" ... well it appears the New Zealand Police have something to fear, and that something is "The Truth Coming Out About Them".

 

I'm going to leave this foot note for anyone who believes in "Rights" or "Truth" or the justice system.

Since November the 23rd, when I witnessed a judge in Whangarei take sides with the police even before the case was started, baring me from presenting 90% of my case, and believing the police word even though there was no documented evidence to confirm and he already knew that I'd asked the right way for that evidence and been denied by the police, that I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN NEW ZEALAND.

It is UTTERLY CORRUPT WITHOUT ANY ACCESS TO 'RIGHTS' EVEN THE RIGHT TO LIFE ITSELF.


 

................. Portion removed ...............

Apart from Chris being placed in jail none of the issues in the above text have been looked at or resolved by police.

Note: I am not defending a drunk driver ... I have read his criminal records and yes he needs help with drink.

He is however doing 2.5 years for attempting to regain his property ... A Right We All Have ... whether or not Chris went about that the right way is yet another question.

I'm merely looking at police misconduct here.

As a foot note to this case. Police ask and rely on the public to provide them with witness and evidence ... My Question to any reader is, ''is it safe to trust in the New Zealand Police to act according to their oath and protect the public from Criminals?

I personally do not believe the police have the confidence of the public and I believe that problem is entirely a police problem.

The New Zealand Police have never investigated this event ... does that make you feel safe or instil confidence in the New Zealand Police?

I therefore submit that it's a necessity of life to be armed if you live rural ... Rural being any more that 20 minutes from a police station.

For example: where I live it is around one hours travel for a police car to respond to a call, if indeed they respond to the call and because of cars off the road during the callout and officers unable to collect revenue we have been denied police protection in the past. (2000)

In winter it is not unusual for the road to be blocked and the phone lines taken out for up to 21 days at a time ... we have no cell phone coverage for 10km (well outside the area/road access and due to live power lines down too dangerous to pass).

In these common events, we are totally isolated without the means to call for "Official" help whether it be medical or police or fire, if a life threatening event happens, a life will be lost, it's just a matter of time.

I have informed the Telecommunications Minister, that there is a health and safety issue with no reasonable remedy offered ... in fact she simply said words to the effect of "it aint happening".

In these events, when storms take roads and communication lines out, these are classic examples of when emergencies happen, yet after officials in parliament are notified we are left isolated and without remedy.

 


Steven Wallace's killer walks free.

Waitara police say Steven Wallace had repeatedly threatened to kill the police officer
who fatally shot him. At a police briefing held in the town today, a spokesman said Mr Wallace, 23, had thrown a golf club at a police officer and was threatening an officer with a baseball bat when he was shot. (comment added ... eye witnessess said that Steven did not have a bat in his hand when the execution took place)

The spokesperson said Mr Wallace also approached a police patrol vehicle, smashing the car’s windows before the police returned armed.

The police account differs from that of a witness to the shooting.

The witness said Mr Wallace, who was shot five times by a police officer, was effectively "murdered" by police.

The man, who did not wish to be named, said after the shooting Mr Wallace lay unattended and bleeding for 20 minutes until ambulance crews arrived.

Mr Wallace was fatally shot last the weekend by a policeman after an early morning incident where he went on the rampage, smashing shop-front windows on the town’s main street.

The incident has put police gun procedure under the spotlight, with many commentators questioning whether Wallace’s shooting constituted a “minimum reasonable use” of force.

Some months later:

Shoot, Dont Shoot .... well I got roasted by some (including Leighton Smith of Newstalk ZB in Auckland) when I came out against the cop for the cold blooded murder of the young man named Steven Wallace ... But guys the truth is out now and ye can all see for yourselves.
We have a killer in our police force here in NZ and he's walked home free.

A 60 Minutes documentary screened last night (See. Shoot; Don't Shoot - 60 Mins On Steven Wallace) on TV1 raised significant questions about the shooting Waitara student Steven Wallace in the early hours of April 30th last year.

In the report presented by Kim Webby and featuring footage of a re-enactment of the shooting incident (from which the two accompanying images are taken), two experienced police officers, were interviewed about the police shooting. They concluded, after considering the evidence as presented in the police report into the shooting, that the police officer Keith Abbott - identified in the report as Constable A - seriously mishandled the incident.

Quote: "There used to be a tradition of courage and ingenuity in the Police. Now it appears, all we have is a legally sanctioned gang of boys with guns who are encouraged to roam around and commit acts of physical and economic violence."

They concluded, after considering the evidence as presented in the police report into the shooting, that the police officer Keith Abbott - identified in the report as Constable A - seriously mishandled the incident. ... and

FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski made no attempt whatsoever to incapacitate or restrain Stephen Wallace with non-lethal methods. They did not use mace, they did not rush him with riot shields and batons, they did not try to pin him under the car, they did not cordon, contain and appeal, they did not try running away from Stephen - even though Keith claimed that he , '..genuinely feared for..' his life.

FACT: Three trained police'men' should be able to confront and restrain one boy with a bat. It's a public expectation.

FACT: Keith Abbot is a gun freak who knew - before, during, and after he'd killed Stephen Wallace - of the lethality of a handgun at close range - and still he made no attempt to restrain
or otherwise incapacitate Stephen. In Abbot's mind, there was no option but to shoot (ie. kill) Stephen.

FACT: Keith Abbot is a good enough marksman to have injured/incapacitated Stephen with one shot. He shot 5 times.

FACT: Stephen Wallace did not pose a threat to Abbot or Dombroski he was talking too much, and was moving too slow to be a real threat.

FACT: Keith Abbot is taller than Stephen Wallace. This gave him a psychological and physical advantage over Stephen.

FACT: The police report uses a distorted and shrunken window of accountability to determine the lawfulness of Abbot's actions.

Q: Why wasn't Abbot's omission to consider other means taken into consideration?

A: His actions can only be lawful if the time before the 'approach' is ignored, and the actions after the shooting are ignored. How very convenient that they have.

FACT: Our law requires /reasonable/ use of force in self-defence.

FACT: Our law is riddled with the phrase, "any act or omission", and this is particularly apparent in the crimes act regarding homicide.

FACT: Our law puts duties on us respecting the preservation of life.

FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski did not use reasonable force, they omitted to consider or /attempt/ non-lethal alternatives and they left Stephen to die on the street alone. They treated
a dying young man as a 'crime scene'.

FACT: Abbot and Dombroski, through their solicitor, don't want to testify at the coroners inquest unless they're assured that they won't be subject to a private prosecution.

Their actions were disgusting. Their actions were cowardly. And to top it all off, their actions appear to be perverting justice.

 

mailto:iron_clay@xtra.co.nz?subject=dob-a-cop