There’s a rather large Elephant standing in the middle of the illegal Dotcom wire taping scandal room, an Elephant that has so far not been spotted by mainstream media outlets in New Zealand. Correct us if we’re wrong but the last time we looked the crime of purjury had yet to be removed from the New Zealand Crimes act.
Nor for that matter had the crime of conspiring to defeat justice been toyed with. With this in mind just why is it then that Detective inspector Grant Wormald is still in his job. As we recall, having watched online the television coverage at the time, Wormold was asked a very straight forward question by Dotcom’s Counsel, Davison QC:
“Was there any other form of surveillance being undertaken here in new Zealand to your knowlege”
To which Detective Wormald, the man heading the investigation and present at the meeting with the GCSB, then stated on oath:
“No there wasn’t”
A resounding lie, if ever one was told. Once the cat was out of the bag and the defense and the public knew about the illegal wire tapes, a memorandum was hurriedly filed on the 24th September, two days before the next scheduled hearing, by Crown Lawyer John Pike QC in an obvious attempt to cover Wormald’s arse on the earlier question he’d declined to answer, as to the identity of the spooks present at the Police National Headquarters meeting (now known to be the GCSB), but Pike made no mention in the memorandum of the fact that Grant Wormald had later, when questioned (above), again mislead Davison QC and the Court:
“During the evidential phase of the remedies hearing Inspector Wormald, pursuant to s 70 of the Evidence Act 2006, declined to answer a question as to the identity of the entity or entities attending a planning meeting at Police National Headquarters.
The question of the disclosure of that entity and any further information about its role in the Police operation known as “Operation Debut” was subsequently the subject of a Ministerial Certificate issued pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950.”
Source: MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTIONS HEARING ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2012 (Scoop.co.nz Pdf)
Hey presto the Ministerial Certificate appears, but did the Ministerial certificate in fact really exist in August or was it manufactured at some later date soon after the defence had discovered the involvement of the GCSB and long after Wormald had misled the court so as to protect him?
That could well explain why Bill English was not in a position to advise John Key in August, perhaps the certificate didn’t exist in August as it had yet to be created? It makes more sense than the current excuse they’re offering the public and the countries lacklustre media; Bill English and his bad memory.
Why then is it that New Zealands media are not asking the hard questions? Surely had it been anyone other than a serving New Zealand police officer giving false or intentionally misleading evidence, in such a high profile case, a criminal investigation would have already been nearing its completion. evidence of Detective Wormald’s offending was after all recorded on video. The whole country got to listen to it on TV3’s Cambell Live.
This is not that dissimilar in fact to the Bronwyn Pullar case wherein ACC managers had clearly made a completely false complaint and no doubt also knowingly false and misleading statements to the police in order to have Pullar and her mate Boag charged with extortion. Again no police investigation into the protagonists and their criminal offending.
There appears to be two quite distinct versions of the New Zealand Crimes Act at work. One that is applied when dealing with everyday New Zealand citizens and another, which does not appear at all obvious, that applies to corrupt New Zealand civil servants, including high ranking police officers.
Then there’s the matter of Paul Neazor’s extrajudicial report on the unlawful bugging of Kim Dotcom an investigation and report that has obviously been hobbled by very narrow terms of reference, cleverly drafted by the boys and girls at New Zealand’s Crown Law office, on instruction from the office of the “missing in action” prime minister himself, John Key.
Neazor’s report sets a new low, even by New Zealand standards, most of the five and a half page document is dedicated to what arguably more closely resembles a wikipedia entry, than a serious report; in setting out the role of the GSBC.
Clearly the terms of reference give to Neazor by Prime Minister John Key were by design a constraint, so as to prevent the retired High Court judge speaking out; in particular against Key and his Corrupt Government.
This so-called report gives a deserving and expectant public absolutely nothing other than that which had already been made available by the countries media. Neazor QC, Kim Dotcom and New Zealand citizens are being grossly short-changed, treated like so many mushrooms, kept in the dark whilst being force fed a gushing diet of horse shit…….slung in to that cave by the National Party’s spin-doctors and an out-of-control civil service.
John Key knows what’s happening, whats more he always has; the real issue here is when was that very convenient Ministerial Certificate really produced and signed off on by Bill English. Is the Ministerial certificate (also conveniently signed in John Keys absence), like so many other aspects of this case, completely bloody dodgey…..for what its worth (looking at the chronology of events and the bullshit excuse of English failing to advise John Key of its existence) we have ample reason believe it to be, as they might say at Crown Law: a very real and almost distinct possibility…stupid pricks.
But then some months later, New Zealand Justice campaigner Dermot Nottingham made a telephone call:
- Prime Minister Key: No need for further Dotcom inquiry (nzherald.co.nz)
- Key rejects calls for full GCSB inquiry (TV3 streaming video)
- Dotcom: Earlier spying? (nzherald.co.nz)
- Dotcom case: Earlier spying alleged (nzherald.co.nz)
- Dotcom: the men in black, the boys from the GCSB (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Dotcom saga sucks in leaders, police, spies (nzherald.co.nz)
- Officer’s evidence ‘inconsistent’ – Dotcom (radionz.co.nz)
- Kim Dotcom hints at suing Govt (stuff.co.nz)
- GCSB used ‘unlawful interception’ in Dotcom case (radionz.co.nz)
- Spies given wrong info on Dotcom: papers (stuff.co.nz)
- Dotcom calls for spying probe (stuff.co.nz)
- Gcsb and Telecom Employees Conspire With Police; Is Mark Lundy Innocent? (laudafinem.wordpress.com)