Attention: The Police Commissioner Peter Marshall From: Simon-Eru: KaiwaiNew Zealand Police Date: 4/23/2011Fax: (04) 498 7400 Pages: 2Ph: (04) 474 9499 RE: Case number: CRI-2009-001412

Official information request

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you to seek your official position and action on a most disturbing matter that happened to me and my family on the 24th Nov 2009 at the address for service 520 Honeymoon Valley RD2 Kaitaia, Northland, New Zealand.

It has been suggested that the Police hierarchy are responsible for their employees’ behavior and this belief appears to be supported in law. I now seek to see this responsibility in action. Please also consider this an official information act request.

Here is my sworn account of what happened on the day which is supported by the evidence found at

- On the 24th November 2009 two men in the employ of the NZ Police force as Police officers forcibly entered my home location. Their names were Hayden Nicol and David Reynolds,

- They came without a court order or warrant and confirmed that this was the case,

- David Reynolds stated that the reason they were there was because of unpaid bills to the electricity board,

- They refused to leave when asked and were duly informed that they were trespassing.

Question 1: Does the NZ Police claim the right to act as debt enforcers for state owned enterprises or private companies?

Question 2: Does the NZ Police claim the right to forcibly enter private property without a court order for a debt related purpose?

Question 3: Does the NZ Police recognise the right of private citizens to trespass police employees who are not acting within their common law constraints of duty?

Question 4: Is it reasonable to believe that your employees were there for another reason other than the one they informed me they were there for?

Question 5: If yes, has David Reynolds demonstrated sufficient communication skills for the role?

Question 6: Do you consider that the officers were acting within their common law constraints and to your professional standards as detailed in the above scenario?

14/27/2011

The officers involved have claimed that an electricity company requested their assistance that day. There were three electricity companies involved in the provision of that essential service to the address. All three have denied making such a request as the account was confirmed in good standing.

Question 7: Who then directed those officers to the address on that day?

Question 8: Is it acceptable practice for your officers to give false names and identifications in the circumstances? FYI Constable Hayden Nicol provided a false ID when asked.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter and response. Please be advised that this matter is now in the public domain.

Thank you in advance. Thank you in advance.

Regards,

By:

Simon-Eru: Kaiwai

Without prejudice.

Only contactable via email: simon@kiwicando.com

24/27/2011