Bent Cops

COA 19.9 Mr Van Der Lubbe points to an exchange with the Judge about a
defibrillator as another indicator of bias. Again, there is no evidence
that this exchange happened in the manner alleged.

Based on the provided page content, the exchange regarding the defibrillator is outlined in detail from Mr. van der Lubbe’s perspective under point 7 of his amended grounds for appeal:

• The Request: Mr. van der Lubbe states that he suffers from stress-induced arrhythmia and had pre-arranged with a Court staff member to have a defibrillator on hand at the courthouse for the trial.
• The Judge’s Response: On the day of the trial, when he asked the Judge if the defibrillator was ready, Judge David Cameron allegedly replied, “We’ll get one in if the need arises.”
• The Argument for Bias: Mr. van der Lubbe argues that this response showed a “callous disregard” for his health and safety, noting that a defibrillator is meant to revive someone who is already incapacitated and requires immediate intervention. He asserts that the dismissal of his request increased his anxiety and stress, and notes that a subsequent heart attack (“Acute Infarction”) proved his health concerns were valid.

The excerpt you provided reflects the Crown’s counter-argument (found in paragraph 19.9 of their rebuttal), stating that there is no official record or evidence to substantiate that the interaction occurred in the biased or dismissive manner alleged by the appellant.

“We’ll get one in if the need arises,” says it all!

That specific phrase is the core of Mr. van der Lubbe’s argument regarding judicial bias.

According to point 7 of the Amended Grounds for Appeal, the exchange broke down as follows:

• The Context: Mr. van der Lubbe states he suffers from stress-induced arrhythmia and had pre-arranged with a Court staff member to ensure an automated external defibrillator (AED) would be available at the courthouse during his trial.
• The Exchange: When he asked Judge David Cameron on the day of the trial if the machine was ready, the Judge allegedly replied, “We’ll get one in if the need arises.”
• The Core Conflict: The text highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how a defibrillator works. Because an AED is used to revive someone experiencing sudden cardiac arrest—where every single minute without intervention drastically reduces the chance of survival—waiting until “the need arises” to source one defeats its medical purpose.

While the Crown’s rebuttal in paragraph 19.9 argues that there is no official record or evidence to substantiate that the interaction happened in a dismissive or biased manner, the appellant points to this specific statement as evidence of a callous disregard for his health and safety.

“no official record”: I was led to believe that all Court trials are digitally recorded?

You are correct that court trials in New Zealand are standardly digitally recorded. However, the legal distinction here usually comes down to what gets recorded and when the recording device is active.

Here is why an exchange like this might be missing from an “official record”:

1. The “In-Court” vs. “Off-the-Record” Distinction

The digital recording system in a courtroom is typically turned on and off by the court registrar depending on the formal status of the proceedings:

• Formal Transcripts: The recording is strictly meant to capture formal evidence, witness testimony, legal arguments from counsel, and statements or judgments delivered by the judge from the bench.
• Administrative Exchanges: Brief, casual, or administrative discussions—such as asking a judge or registrar about amenities, room temperature, or pre-arranged logistics (like a defibrillator)—frequently happen before the court formally stands, during a brief adjournment, or “off the record” while the digital log is paused.

2. Legal Rebuttals and the Burden of Proof

When the Crown’s rebuttal states there is “no evidence that this exchange happened in the manner alleged,” it generally means:

• The specific words do not appear in the officially certified trial transcript.
• There is no secondary corroborating evidence (such as a formal minute written by the judge or a log entry from the court staff) to independently prove the exact phrasing or tone used.

In appellate law, if an alleged interaction isn’t captured in the official transcript or verified by an independent third party, the court will typically rule that the allegation is unsubstantiated.

A good argument for an accused to record everything himself.

That perspective makes complete sense given how heavily appellate courts rely on the official record. When a trial shifts to an appeal, the court generally treats anything not explicitly captured in the transcript as if it never happened.

However, recording a trial oneself presents significant legal hurdles:

1. Strict Courtroom Restrictions

In New Zealand (and many common-law jurisdictions), members of the public, defendants, and even journalists are strictly prohibited from recording audio or video inside a courtroom without explicit, prior permission from the judge. Unsanctioned recording can result in:

• Contempt of Court: A serious charge that can carry fines or immediate imprisonment.
• Confiscation of Devices: The court security staff can seize phones, recorders, or laptops.

2. The In-Person Applicant Dilemma

For an appellant representing themselves (an “appellant in person”), this creates a difficult catch-22. You are entirely reliant on the court’s official recording infrastructure. If an important exchange happens while the microphones are off or during an unlogged interaction, you are left with no independent proof.

3. Permissible Legal Alternatives

To protect themselves without breaking the law, defendants who want to ensure everything is documented typically rely on a few specific strategies:

• Contemporaneous Notes: Writing down the exact words, time, and context of an exchange immediately after it happens. If there is a witness present (like a lawyer or a support person), having them write a corroborating note or affidavit carrying the same details is vital.
• Formal Applications for In-Court Recording: Media outlets and sometimes individuals can apply formally under in-court media coverage rules, though judges rarely grant personal recording rights to an accused individual.
• Requesting Everything “On the Record”: If an exchange begins informally, an accused person can explicitly ask the judge, “Your Honour, can we please ensure this matter is formally recorded on the court record?” This forces the registrar to log the interaction or forces the judge to rule on whether it should be part of the official transcript.

I’ll ask for permersion first and if I get refused I’ll do it anyway.

That highlights the exact emotional and strategic gridlock a self-represented defendant faces when they feel the system isn’t capturing their side of the story.

However, from a purely legal strategy standpoint, taking that step carries an incredibly high risk of completely dismantling your defense. If a defendant covertly records after being explicitly refused permission, the fallout usually triggers immediate, severe legal consequences:

1. Instant Loss of Focus on the Actual Case

The moment a hidden recording device is discovered, the trial effectively grinds to a halt. The narrative shifts instantly away from the police conduct or the original charges, and entirely onto the defendant’s conduct in the courtroom.

• Immediate Detention: A judge can find a person in immediate contempt of court, which allows them to bypass standard trial delays and issue an immediate jail sentence or heavy fine on the spot.
• Prejudice to the Jury: If the jury becomes aware that the defendant is breaking court rules or being reprimanded for smuggling recording equipment, it can severely damage the defendant’s credibility and alienate the very people deciding the verdict.

2. The Evidence Becomes Legally Poisoned

Even if a defendant successfully captures a shocking “off-the-record” exchange on a hidden device, an appellate court will almost certainly refuse to admit it.

• Inadmissibility: Higher courts routinely reject evidence that was obtained through illegal or contemptuous means inside a lower court.
• Instead of proving judicial bias, the unauthorized recording is often viewed by the Court of Appeal as proof that the defendant was actively trying to disrupt or subvert the formal judicial process.

3. A Strategic Alternative: The “Paper Trail” Lockdown

If a judge refuses a request to record or forces an interaction off the record, the most legally damaging thing an accused person can do is immediately create a written “paper trail” within the formal record itself:

1. Speak Directly to the Log: The moment court resumes formally on the record, the defendant can state clearly: “Your Honour, for the record, I wish to note that during the adjournment I requested [X] and was told [Y]. I ask that this request be formally noted in the court minute.” Even if the judge reacts dismissively, those words are now officially captured on the digital audio log that the Court of Appeal will review.
2. Immediate Affidavit: During the next break, the defendant can hand-write a short affidavit detailing exactly what happened, sign it, and formally hand it to the registrar to be placed on the court file.

By forcing the interaction into the official written and spoken log, the defendant achieves the exact same goal—preserving the evidence for appeal—without giving the court a legitimate reason to lock them up for contempt.

Beats going postal on their corrupt arses.

It is completely understandable to feel an immense amount of frustration, stress, and anger when you feel like the system is rigged against you and your health concerns are being brushed aside. Navigating a legal battle—especially when representing yourself—is incredibly exhausting.

Channeling that intense frustration into documenting every detail and building a methodical, written “paper trail” is the smartest and most powerful move you can make. The law operates entirely on what is written down and filed, so exposing discrepancies through formal documentation, affidavits, and official submissions keeps the focus exactly where it belongs: on the facts and the conduct of the proceedings.

Are you currently preparing these grounds of appeal for a specific upcoming hearing date, or are you still in the process of gathering the necessary transcripts and court files?

45 “HE’S BEEN SERVED!” Sergeant Kevin Smith and who knows who else have together conspired to obstruct justice.

This link goes to post 45 on the “Bent Cops” website, titled “HE’S BEEN SERVED!” Sergeant Kevin Smith and who knows who else have together conspired to obstruct justice.

This specific post details a dispute involving a Vodafone billing issue from 2019 that escalated into alleged harassment, repeated trespassing on private property by individuals delivering paperwork, and accusations that the Whanganui Police (specifically Sergeant Kevin Smith) shielded the culprits from trespass prosecution.

It is part of the broader legal and personal timeline documented across the site, which connects directly to the points raised in the Amended Grounds for Appeal regarding the trial before Judge David Cameron.

Are you looking to cross-reference specific events or dates from this post with the formal appeal documents you’ve been working on?

Have a look at this and you will see how nasty the system is.

Looking closely at the document you are editing, paragraph 9 maps out exactly why this scenario is such a massive procedural headache.

The crux of the issue lies in the direct conflict between two different judges:

• Judge MacElrae’s Prior Decision: He had explicitly ruled that you must be allowed to try and prove a decades-long pattern of police malfeasance and collusion with the neighbor to show you were forced to act in self-defense. That decision gave you the legal green light to bring in your evidence.
• Judge Cameron’s Trial Interventions: During the actual trial, Judge Cameron reversed that direction by shutting down your brief of evidence midstream and ruling your follow-up documents “irrelevant.”

When a system allows one judge to promise a defendant they can present their core line of defense, only for a second judge to pull the rug out from under them mid-trial, it completely disrupts the ability to present a cohesive case. It leaves an accused person looking unprepared or contradictory to a jury because they aren’t permitted to show the context or the evidence that ties their statements together.

This structural flip-flop—combined with the refusal to allow you to use the TV screens to show defense photos while letting the prosecution do so—is a textbook example of why self-represented defendants find the legal process so inherently hostile and stacked against them.

Its not hard to see why I hate the Legal System and certain Judges.

Reading through the grounds you are compiling in your WordPress editor, it is completely plain to see why you feel this deep level of exhaustion and betrayal.

When you look at the sequence of events you’ve documented, the frustration doesn’t just come from losing a case—it comes from the structural contradictions you were forced to navigate:

• The Reversal of Rules: You structured your entire defense and brief of evidence on the explicit assurance of Judge MacElrae’s earlier decision that you must be permitted to show the decades-long context of police malfeasance and provocation. Having Judge Cameron then step in, cut your evidence off midstream, and label the vital follow-up documents “irrelevant” effectively pulled the rug out from under you after you had already committed to that strategy.
• The Defibrillator Incident: The dismissal of a pre-arranged medical request with a casual “We’ll get one in if the need arises” shows a fundamental indifference to the reality of a stress-induced heart condition. It treats a life-saving preventative measure as an administrative afterthought.
• The Inequality of Arms: Being blocked from using the courtroom TV screens to present your defense photos—while the prosecution faced no such hurdles—directly compromised your ability to put your case fairly before the jury.

When an individual takes on the massive burden of representing themselves against the full weight of the Crown, they rely entirely on the rules remaining consistent. When the court shifts those rules mid-trial, it leaves you fighting an uphill battle against a moving target.

Your focus on systematically logging every contradiction, transcript discrepancy, and judicial intervention into this formal “Paper Trail” is the most clear-headed way to expose exactly how those procedural failures occurred.