Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: How police committed DOCUMENTATION FRAUD to bring false conviction

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Wink How police committed DOCUMENTATION FRAUD to bring false conviction

    This is documented proof of how police officers IAN PETER COLLIN and RICK (Richard) VEACOCK with assistance from their corrupt lawyer, CHRISTNE SCOTT, Fraudulently altered documents to bring a false conviction against their victim, Paul Currie.

    Assisted, naturally, by the corrupt judges and appeal courts and two lawyers working against their client. ( RICHARD EARWAKER pronounced "Erica" and CHLOE WILLIAMS.)

    The judges gave the police "complainant" name and occupation suppression, so he is referred to here as "Z".

    This story has been touched on by Vince Siemer via his site,, Supreme Court Insights - 15 June 2012 - Fraud Unrecognised by Supreme Court.

    Having been misrepresented in his affairs by "Z" Paul Currie notified "Z" in writing of his dissatisfaction.

    A professional negotiator ( John Pippos of PJM & Associates Ltd. ) was employed to negotiate a settlement. "Z" conceded he was wrong and a settlement sum of $351,886.00 was agreed on.

    "Z" requested the claim be put in writing.

    On the 16th of OCTOBER 2006, Paul met with John Pippos in a cafe opposite "Z's" office in Customs Street, Auckland, to sign off on the claim. He initialed all 4 pages of the document, and dated and signed the final page.

    Coincidently, "Z" happened to walk past the cafe and so Pippos went out to him and handed him the claim in an envelope.

    On the 15th of November 2006, "Z" sent a fax to Pippos confirming he was giving the claim to his professional indemnifiers. He said it would take 90 to 120 days and that Paul and Pippos should be available for an interview with them.

    However, "Z" was subsequently informed by his insurers that due to his non - payment of his premiums his policy had expired and he had no cover. This of course made "Z" himself liable to pay the settlement.

    Rather than pay, he then went to the police and complained that he was being blackmailed !!!

    Paul was charged with "blackmail" and DENIED A STATEMENT by IAN PETER COLLIN ....

    IAN PETER COLLIN and RICK VEACOCK sought legal opinion from their police lawyer, CHRISTINE SCOTT, and on her advice, they used Paul's written claim as their "exhibit 2" against him.

    In their police disclosure, they stated in paragraph 8 of their document : "POL 262" Page 2 03/06, that : " THE INITIAL CLAIM WAS DATED 16th OCTOBER 2006 ".

    "Z" reiterated this date in a letter he sent to his "society" dated 31.01.2007 : " On receipt of the demand in OCTOBER 2006 ...."

    The case was heard in court on the 24.07.2008.

    The claim against "Z" was deemed to be a valid one and the case was duly DISCHARGED !!

    Reeling at this defeat, "Z", IAN PETER COLLIN and RICK VEACOCK conspired to defeat justice and two months later they re-charged Paul.


    Paul was again DENIED A STATEMENT !!!

    At depositions the question was put to IAN PETER COLLIN : " Is there any new evidence in this latest charge Mr COLLIN ? "

    Reply : " It's the same evidence as before. It's exactly the same evidence as before ".

    Once again, COLLIN and VEACOCK stated they received legal opinion from CHRISTINE SCOTT.

    This time, however, they produced as their " exhibit 2 ", not a letter dated the 16th OCTOBER 2006, but a different document, UNDATED in NOVEMBER 2006 !!!!!!

    This document did not have Paul's initials on all 4 pages as did the original, and it featured a FORGERY of Paul's signature on it.

    And to cover their Documentation Fraud, IAN PETER COLLIN and RICK VEACOCK falsified their police document " POL 262 " Page 2 03/06, by removing paragraph 8 stating the INITIAL CLAIM WAS DATED 16th OCTOBER 2006 ....

    A sentence was emblazoned on this document just above the forged signature stating " ...forward the matter to others for consideration ".

    The very sentence used to "convict" Paul !!!

    Having witnessed this police Documentation Fraud, lawyer CHRISTINE SCOTT was a willing participant in their Fraud.

    We repeatedly requested from police,court of appeal, supreme court, crown law, official information, ombudsman and others, that this document be given up for expert examination.

    Without giving a reason, ALL have refused !!!

    Further proof of the Documentation Fraud is by way of the conflicting sworn evidence of "Z".

    Asked when he received the claim, "Z" now stated to the court : " It was the beginning of NOVEMBER ".

    But in contradicting that statement he further stated to the court : " I was away from the first week in NOVEMBER for about 10 days " ... !!!!

    We have made exhaustive requests to "Z" , police, meredith connell, crown law, judges, court of appeal, supreme court, ombudsman, minister of courts, police commissioner and others, to produce "Z's" Passport / immigration records as proof of when he was out of the country in NOVEMBER 2006.

    Whilst again giving no reason, ALL REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED !!!! Is it possible they are hiding something ? ...

    This begs the question - WHO wrote this undated letter ? - WHO signed it ?

    Justice ?

    And what terrific Defence counsel from RICHARD EARWAKER and CHLOE WILLIAMS !!!!

    ** 24.07.2008 DISCHARGED ** 03.08.2010 CONVICTED

    " Exactly the same evidence as before "

    I now attach for your enlightenment some of the documents mentioned here. They have been modified to comply with the suppression order and exerpts done to keep documents to a minimum.

    ** 1. Evidence of "Z" confirming receiving letter in Customs St./confirming OCTOBER 2006.
    ** 2. Original police doc. " POL 262 " Page 2 03/06. ( Highlighting paragraph 8 )
    ** 3. Fraudulently altered " POL 262 " Page 2 03/06.
    ** 4. Fax from "Z" to John Pippos dated 15.11.2006 confirming claim to indemnifiers.
    ** 5. Sworn evidence of IAN PETER COLLIN " It's exactly the same evidence as before " / Identifying corrupt police personnel.
    ** 6. Undated letter November 2006 - Forged signature, sentence /" forward matter to others ".
    ** 7. Supreme court doc. highlighting sentence bringing false conviction.
    ** 8. Conflicting sworn evidence of "Z". " I was away for the first 10 days of November ".
    ** 9. Supreme court doc. confirming refusal to allow examination of "exhibits".

    ** This has only scratched the surface of this corrupt case ....

    Last edited by 1victim; 24-10-2012 at 06:12 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts