Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
". . . game playing . . ." Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:38 pm
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Update . . .
(1.) Police administrators have responded to my Official Information Request of 31 October 2008 -- see Item (3)(ii) above, Sunday 2 November, 2008
Relevant documents, transcripts and links relating to this request are available on my Site -- here
As a courtesy to members and guests of the NORML Forums, a plain-text transcript of the response is provided below at Item (3)
(2.) Yesterday, Tuesday 2 December, in a press release that is coincidental -- but timely -- the Chief Ombudsman said that "...Public Servants (are) playing games with OIR requests (and) deliberately delaying responses..."
The Ombudsman's Annual Report released to Parliament yesterday -- here
(3.) Here is a plain-text transcript of response from police administrators:
26 November 2008
Dear Mr O’Brien
Official Information Act 1982 request
I refer your email 31 October 2008 in which you requested “with reference to the police department’s press release of 15 March 2004 …{link} ... a copy of the report provided by Mr Bruce Squire QC as per that media release”.
Pursuant to section 15A(1)(b) of the Official Information Act 1982, Police advise that an extension to the 20 working day time limit for response is required as consultations necessary to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the request cannot reasonably be made within the original limit.
Police require until 16 January 2009. You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act, to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman about this extension
Yours sincerely
Fiona Jackson
Legal Advisor
Police National Headquarters
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
update . . . Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:40 am
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Brief update . . .
A response from the police department's "independent" investigator to my supplement (my earlier post on Sunday, 9 November 2008, above, refers). Here is a plain text transcript of this response:
====== BEGINS ======
Email Headers -- here From: Featherston Chambers
To: O'Brien
Date: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008
Subject: Messgage from Mr Bruce Squire QC
Attached is a message from Mr Bruce Squire QC
Re your email of 12 November 2008:
I have received your email of 12 November and the document which accompanied it which you have described as a Supplement to your original confession to the Chief Justice of 30 November 2007. I have been out of the country and received the papers on my return to Chambers on 24 November 2008.
In your Supplement you have categorised your perjured evidence under three heads, the last of which you describe as 'tampering with evidence.' Under that head you record that in every case, evidential drug purchases were 'skimmed or rubbed', as you put it, for the purposes referred to in the six bullet points which follow. It may be obvious from the tenor of what you have said, but it is best there be no uncertainty about it; is the term 'skimming or rubbing' intended by you to signify the fact that you personally used drugs you purchased for evidential purposes, and for the other purposes outlined in the bullet points referred to. If so, in any of the instances where you 'topped up' other exhibits, as you describe it, from drugs skimmed or rubbed or purchased from others you refer to as 'rats and mice', were the amounts sworn to as evidential purchases in Court in excess of the amounts actually purchased by you. In other words, were the 'topped up' amounts greater than what you actually purchased. If so, are you able to recall now how many instances of that occurred and, if possible, the names of the offenders affected by it, or if you cannot recall the names of the offenders concerned, when and at what locations those particular offenders were tried.
I have been endeavouring to obtain from the Police and of the Courts, details of the persons who were prosecuted as a result of your undercover Police activities between 1974 and when you ceased those activities in February 1977. When that information is to hand and assuming I am at liberty to disclose it (I am informed there may be privacy issues involved) it may assist in identifying the persons who may have been affected by your claimed perjured evidence and the other activity referred to in your Supplement. In the meantime it would assist if you were able to provide the information requested above.
I await your reply.
Bruce Squire QC
====== ENDS ======
Correspondence regarding this "inquiry" is available on-line -- here
you will be more able to grasp what he is after than me.. but does it seem to you he is focusing more on the possible exposure of others within the police .
We all knew back then the evidence room was very leaky..what went in was back in circulation in no time..not all via UC.The used to be a pub opposite corner to the current TVNZ HQ in Auckland I gather most of it changed hands in the upstairs bar .
One wonders if they want to make sure no current serving seniors were round at the time your wound opening might expose.??
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 5754 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:56 pm
I used to work in Wellesley St in late 70s and during the week drank (that is, if we did go for a drink) at the Albion where cops drank too. Friday afternoon entertainment was 'spot the cop'... someone reckoned their crappo shoes were a dead giveaway
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Update . . . Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:15 pm
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Update . . .
(1.) Recent update to my {opt-in} Blind mailing list for January is available here
(2.) I have formally responded to December's letter from the police department's "independent" investigator's (refer my earlier posting above: Wednesday, 10 Dec 2008 10:40 am)
My original, digitally signed document is available on-line here and a copy in its chronological context is here
As a courtesy to members and guests of the NORML Forums, here is a plain-text transcript of my response:
===== BEGINS =====
19 January 2009
Mr Bruce Squire QC
Featherston Chambers
PO Box 10-157
Wellington
Dear Mr Bruce Squire QC
WHAIKA TE WHAKAPONO: Seek for the Truth - Follow the Truth
Thank you for your email of 9 December 2008 regarding my Supplement and refer my email on 24 December 2008 in acknowledgement, copies {above}
(1.) You write:
"... In your Supplement you have categorised your perjured evidence under three heads, the last of which you describe as 'tampering with evidence'. Under that head you record that in every case, evidential drug purchases were 'skimmed or rubbed', as you put it, for the purposes referred to in the six bullet points which follow ..."
The six bullet points you refer at (3)(c)(ii) of my Supplement are alphabetised respectively here, as follows:
(A) "supporting my drug habit"
(B) "developing my cover as a drug dealer"
(C) "cultivating new targets"
(D) "on-selling to fund my operations"
(E) "topping up other exhibits"
(F) "please note, this list is not exhaustive . . ."
(2.) You write:
"... It may be obvious from the tenor of what you have said, but it is best there be no uncertainty about it; is the term 'skimming or rubbing' intended by you to signify the fact that you personally used drugs you had purchased for evidential purposes, and for the other purposes outlined in the bullet points referred to ..."
Yes, it was / Yes, I did
(3.) You write:
"... If so, in any of the instances where you 'topped up' other exhibits, as you describe it, from drugs skimmed or rubbed or purchased from others you refer to as 'rats and mice', were the amounts sworn to as evidential purchases in Court in excess of the amounts actually purchased by you. In other words, were the 'topped up' amounts greater than what you actually purchased ..."
No. The amounts I swore to in Court were less than the amounts I purchased. Put simply, I lied to the Courts; admitting neither that the balances of my evidential purchases (the stuff that was missing) had been used for the purposes summarised in my six bullet points — nor that, in part or whole, the amounts sworn to in evidence were made up of drugs skimmed from other purchases
(4.) You write:
"... are you able to recall now how many instances of that occurred ..."
Tampering with evidence was standard practise; please refer my Supplemental answers at items (2)(a) and (2)(b)
(5.) You write:
"... (can you recall ) . . . the names of the offenders affected by it ..."
I do not have the names of my targets; please refer my Supplemental answer at item (1)
(6.) You write:
"... if you cannot recall the names of the offenders concerned, when and at what locations those particular offenders were tried ..."
Please refer my Supplemental answers at items (2)(a) and (2)(b)
(7.) You write:
"... I have been endeavouring to obtain from the Police and of the Courts, details of the persons who were prosecuted as a result of your undercover Police activities between 1974 and when you ceased those activities in February 1977. When that information is to hand and assuming I am at liberty to disclose it (I am informed there may be privacy issues involved) it may assist in identifying the persons who may have been affected by your claimed perjured evidence and the other activity referred to in your Supplement ..."
Thank you, Mr Squire
When police administrators give you the names and trial dates of my targets, I invite you to contact me again. My original offer to meet you for an interview remains open
As before . . . "kindly advise by return email the time, date, and location of venue, convenient for your purpose, that we may arrange an appointment"
It's interesting to read the nitty gritty.
Some how I think they could resolve things a lot quicker if they just set up an interview with you. They could sort out all thier questions so much quicker.
I suppose it's not in thier interest to resolve things quickly though, they want to drag it out slowly in the hope that your give up get dispondent etc.
Well done so far, keep fighting for justice.
Another idea..if you are lookign for your ex targets/victims you could try The Daktory.
You can bet they will be doing their darnedest to try and bury it all. You can't blame them . if I was the PR merchant for them , I would be telling them the integrity of the police is already under threat enough , much more could undermine what respect they have left.. It really is a few bad apples , and I don't mean just in Patrick's case , that wreck it for all the good cops..
Its just that there has been a few too many cover ups of late , and its not just Patrick's Mr Squire who has trouble getting all required material, at times the PCA is short changed as well.
WOW
Maximum Respect for Patrick. Hope you and your victims get some real justice. Seems like the Police Dept. are going to drag this out forever, wonder what that QCs f##ken problem is, you have confessed the cops are obviously stonewalling time to investigate properly. Independent my ass!
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Happy St Patrick's Day! Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:05 am
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Happy St Patrick's Day . . . this thread is one-year-old
* In a media release following my letter to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias (2007) and appearance on Campbell Live (2008), police administrators dismissed my admissions of perjury:
"... A significant portion of the allegations (confessions!) made by Mr O’Brien to TV3 have been investigated on several previous occasions, by Police and by independent investigators'
'Those previous investigations, of the perjury allegations, could not obtain sufficient evidence of perjury to enable the cases to be further prosecuted or otherwise pursued with the former undercover agents."
* In a 2004 media release regarding those previous admissions and subsequent investigations, Police Commissioner Robinson had this to say:
"... police would provide Mr Squire with whatever support he needed to carry out his brief and the results of his work would ultimately be made public."
* I requested a copy of that report. My original, digitally signed document is available on-line (here) and a plain-text transcript has been posted above - see Item (3)(ii) above, Sunday 2 November, 2008
* My request has been "refused" and the original letter from police administrators is available on-line (here)
* As a courtesy to members and guests of the NORML Forums, here is a plain-text transcript of that refusal:
===== BEGINS =====
9 February 2009
Dear Mr O’Brien
RE: Official Information Act 1982 Request
I refer to your email of 31 October 2008 in which you requested “with reference to the police department’s press release of 15 March 2004 … a copy of the report provided by Bruce Squire QC as per that media release”.
Police have considered your request and the public interest in releasing the information at issue, and advise that your request for a copy of the report is refused pursuant to sections 6(c), 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b), and 9(2)h) of the Official Information Act 1982. Bruce Squire QC is currently undertaking an investigation into allegations of perjury. Police consider that the release of the report at this stage would prejudice the maintenance of the law. Police also consider that the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence, and to maintain legal professional priviledge.
If you are not satisfied with my response to your request you have the right to complain to the Office of the Ombudsmen and seek an investigation and review of my decision
Yours sincerely
Win Van Der Velde
Detective Superintendent
National Crime Manager
...are they saying society will break down if they release a report and it says the cops lie through thier teeth while under oath?
I guess the public will loose all faith in the cops, after Rickards and all the other scandals who in thier right mind will trust any cops who when not committing crimes themselves are are just out to get better work stories!
Having followed this all with interest and with one exception ( well, two with my right lead foot ) my cannabis use, I am all for law and order and try very hard to have faith in our police .. What really disturbs me about all this is the lack of records the police seem to be able to access about the activities and consequences back then.I would have thought our police files would have been extremely comprehensive , it is disturbing to find thats not so.
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:13 am
'One year on - files finally found for perjury probe'
4:00AM Saturday Mar 28, 2009
By Wayne Thompson
"A top lawyer investigating claims that a former undercover policeman lied in court to wrongfully convict at least 150 people has finally obtained the 1970s court files - one year after the inquiry began" . . . NZ Herald article
_________________ "Whaika te Whakapono"... Seek for the Truth - Follow the Truth
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:00 pm
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
A brief update . . .
Following the NZ Herald article on 28 March 2009, police administrators' "independent" investigator, Mr Bruce Squire QC., wrote inviting me to an evidential interview
As a courtesy to members and visitors of the NORML forum, here are plain-text transcripts of that correspondence:
(1.) Email from the independent investigator
===== BEGINS =====
From: Featherston Chambers
To: O’Brien
Date: Monday, 30 March 2009
Subject: Letter from Mr R B Squire QC
Dear Mr O’Brien
RE: POLICE INQUIRY
As a result of inquiries I have made of the Police and Courts in the various districts in which you carried out your under-cover duties in 1974 and 1975, I have been able to identify a number of cases in which prosecutions were taken as a result of your activities as an under-cover Officer. However, in many cases, due to the passage of time, the Court files are incomplete or cannot now be located. Given your response to my email of 9 December last it would seem that the only cases which may be of relevance for the purposes of my inquiry are those in which prosecutions were taken for drug offences at which you were required to give evidence. It seems that, in many cases, those charged with drug offences as a result of your under-cover operations subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges brought against them and you were not required to give evidence in those cases.
I have listed below, by reference to the areas concerned and the times within which you carried out under-cover duties in those areas, the various cases which arose as a result of your under-cover duties. Because of privacy considerations which may arise and because I note that it has been your custom in the past to publish on the Internet correspondence you receive from me about this inquiry, I have not identified those cases by reference to the names of the persons charged but I would be happy to give you that information on your undertaking not to publish it for the reasons indicated.
(a) From 23 June 1974 to approximately 23 August 1974: Auckland
- 5 prosecutions for bookmaking.
- 11 prosecutions for offences for which it appears the persons charged pleaded guilty.
- a Supreme Court trial and a Depositions hearing relating to an accused charged with the purchase of Hashish. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict being returned.
(b) 3 September 1974 to 14 October 1974: Hamilton
- 17 persons arrested as a result of your undercover duties of whom nine were charged with drug offences and proceeded to trial.
(c) 13 December 1974 to 24 December 1974: Dunedin
- Seven people arrested as a result of your under-cover duties. Of those only one proceeded to trial on drugs charges. The Court records indicate the remainder pleaded guilty and, in one instance, the Court file cannot be located.
(d) 8 January 1975 to 8 February 1975 and
1 May 1975 to 15 June 1975 : Gisborne
- Fourteen people arrested for drug offences as a result of your under-cover duties in this area. Of those, the Court could locate the files of only seven of the persons concerned and could find no records relating to the others who had apparently been arrested.
(e) 29 December 1976 to 2 January 1977 : Nelson
- The records indicate that two persons were arrested for drug offences as a result of your activities in this area. Unfortunately again, the Court can locate no records relating to these persons.
Subject to inquiries presently being made by the High Court in Auckland in relation to two files I have asked the Registrar of that Court to locate, if they exist, and one similar inquiry at the Dunedin Court, the point has now been reached where I doubt that it is likely any further inquiries will locate the files which cannot be found. At this point, subject to you confirming you are willing to co-operate, I would like to carry out a preliminary interview with you to discuss the information I have obtained in terms of the allegations you have made, which have led to this inquiry. If you are willing to be interviewed I think I need to make it very clear to you that what you might say to me in the course of the interview is not privileged or protected in any way, that if in the course of the interview, which I propose to record, you admit any criminal offending or say anything which might constitute evidence against you of criminal offending, that will be available as evidence in the event prosecution action subsequently taken against you. You will be aware, of course, that like any other citizen, you have the right not to answer questions and not to say anything that might incriminate you. If you elect to take that course, that will naturally affect the worth of any interview I might have with you but it is important that you have a very clear understanding of the implications of what an interview might involve and the possible consequences which could arise from it.
I do not know whether you have consulted a Solicitor before embarking upon the events which have led to this Inquiry but I would strongly recommend that you take the advice of a Solicitor before committing yourself to the interview that I propose. If you do not wish to take such advice, or having done so you are still willing to be interviewed by me and one other person who I will have present to help me record the interview, then I should be grateful if you would let me know so that the necessary arrangements can be made.
I await your response.
R B Squire QC
===== ENDS =====
(2.) My formal response to the independent investigator
===== BEGINS =====
27 April 2009
Mr Bruce Squire QC
Featherston Chambers
PO Box 10-157
Wellington
Dear Mr Bruce Squire QC
WHAIKA TE WHAKAPONO: Seek for the Truth — Follow the Truth
Thank you for your email of 30 March 2009 and refer my email on 15 April 2009 in acknowledgement {copies above}
I will gladly meet you for an interview, Mr Squire; my intention is to fully cooperate with you in that regard
Please arrange for a video recording of our interview . . .
Thank you
Yours (etc)
===== ENDS =====
This correspondence, including links to original documents, is available online — here
Yup many of these detective type police are crooked az. This revelation will not destabilise the general public toward the rule of law as the powers that be think will happen, contrary, all it will do is confirm something many already know to be true.
Its confirmation of that knowing by this ex-police officer that is hard to stomach.
But in saying that, Piha mate, wouldn't it be a better world if more of these criminals came forward and tried their best to clear the names of those citizens they stitched up? I would hope that it would create a movement amongst ex-detectives to come forward and confess their many crimes.
So I am not saying that you shouldn't be angry about reading about what these people have done, I'm just suggesting that if we want to see more of it we need to meter the rage toward those crooked criminals in uniform that still walk the beat stitching up good citizens of this country in order to justify their salaries, rather than at those that have the stones enough to admit they are crooks.
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 9:50 pm
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
An information request . . .
30 April 2009
Howard Broad
The Commissioner
NZ Police Department
PO Box 3017
WELLINGTON
Dear Mr Broad
Whaika te Whakapono: Seek for the Truth - Follow the Truth
Following my November 2007 letter to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias confessing perjury to obtain convictions against my targets while working for your Criminal Intelligence Section, your office instigated an “independent” inquiry, viz: the office of Mr Bruce Squire QC
It is apparent from my recent correspondence with Mr Bruce Squire QC that he has been unable to obtain all of my targets’ names
The names of my targets are contained in my personal file at the headquarters of your Criminal Intelligence Section — and I now write requesting you provide me a complete copy of that file
Please deliver the file to:
Mr Bruce Squire QC
Featherston Chambers
PO Box 10-157
Wellington
Should it be necessary, this request is made pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act
Thank you
Yours (etc)
Cc: Mr Bruce Squire QC
The original, digitally signed document is available — here
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:00 pm
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Just to hand, a letter from police administrators "independent" investigator . . .
===== BEGINS =====
From: Featherston Chambers
To: O'Brien
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Subject: FW:
Dear Mr O'Brien
RE: POLICE INQUIRY
I have received your letter of 27 April 2009 sent by email on the same date.
I have Court commitments commencing next week which are estimated to occupy at least the next fortnight. The result is that I will be unable to arrange the interview I propose to have with you until next month, possibly in the weeks commencing 8 June 2009 or 15 June 2009. Would you be good enough to advise whether you are available to travel to Wellington for the interview in either of those weeks, and if you have any preferable dates within that period, indicate which date or dates would suit you best.
I do not intend to video record the interview. Such facilities are not available to me and my Inquiry, as you are aware, is conducted independently of the Police. I do intend, however, to tape record the interview and naturally I have no objection if you wish to do the same. If you intend to have a support person or legal adviser present with you during the interview, could you advise the name of that person.
Given the nature of the matters to be addressed in the interview and the possible implications that may arise, as referred to in my email of 30 March last, it may be necessary for me to have a Police Officer attend the interview as a witness, but I will give further thought to that in the interim.
You have not expressly signified in your letter of 27 April that you have understood and accepted the basis upon which the Interview will be conducted as outlined in my email of 30 March. In the absence of any indication from you that you have not understood what was outlined in that email, or that you do not accept the possible consequences which might arise from it, I will assume you are fully cognizant of those matters. If that is not the case you should notify me or alternatively take legal advice from a solicitor of your own choosing.
Finally, I have received a copy of a letter dated 30 April sent by you to the Commissioner of Police seeking to have a copy of your personal file held at Police National Headquarters delivered to me at my Chambers. That request has apparently been prompted by your perception I have been unable to obtain all of your 'target names' as you put it.
In point of fact I have already, as part of my Inquiry, had access to the file concerned and you will note, if you take the trouble to re-read my email of 30 March, that I indicated to you that because of privacy considerations which might arise and your custom of publishing on the Internet correspondence you receive from me in connection with the Inquiry, I was not prepared to identify the names of the persons charged as a result of your undercover duties. I indicated I would be happy to provide that information to you on your undertaking not to publish it but no such undertaking has been provided.
I await your reply.
Bruce Squire QC
===== ENDS =====
This letter and full email headers are available online — here
Joined: Mar 12, 2008 Posts: 31 Location: New Zealand
regarding an evidential interview . . . Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:33 am
Fáilte!
Kia Ora!
Greetings!
Here is a transcript of my formal response to letter of 6 May 2009 from the police administration's "independent" investigator, above:
===== BEGINS =====
7 May 2009
Mr Bruce Squire QC
Featherston Chambers
PO Box 10-157
Wellington
Dear Mr Bruce Squire QC
WHAIKA TE WHAKAPONO: Seek for the Truth — Follow the Truth
Thank you for your letter of 6 May 2009 regarding our interview dates
I will gladly travel to Wellington for an appointment with you, Mr Squire, and advise that I will be available any time as from the week commencing Monday, 22 June 2009
Please make those arrangements necessary for your purpose and advise me the time, date and street address of venue
Thank you . . .
Yours (etc)
===== ENDS =====
My original, digitally signed letter is available online — here
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
...oh yeah..been thinking about a suitable reply..and then some kinda "flashback" hit me 
