Day 2 of Gunn & Clark Trial, Manukau District Court, New Zealand
The accused — a former TVNZ news anchor, Liz Gunn, and her camerman, Jonathan Clark, who once worked for CNN and the Wall Street Journal, faced resisting arrest charges, while Gunn also faced a charge for assault after the judge dismissed two charges of trespass; outside Manukau District Court [Snoopman, 10 May 2024]
Overview: The strange trial of a seasoned independent media duo continued to get stranger on May 10 2024, at the Manukau District Court in South Auckland, New Zealand, following their spectacular arrests 15 months prior.
The public gallery witnessed the Court’s theatre descend deeper into a cruel farce in the afternoon when the police prosecutor attempted to humiliate a defense witness with innuendo more befitting of an L.A. Law episode.
But, thanks to the mischief of a cyber god — as one wag quipped — the ploy of the Police’s prosecution lawyer, Jerome Beveridge, plonked like soggy soap.
Previously, on ‘Court Soap’, it was revealed the media duo were arrested in 18 seconds flat by Police, who were sent to eject them from the arrivals lounge inside the International Airport, in the early evening of Saturday February 25 2023.
The accused — a former TVNZ news anchor, Liz Gunn, and her camerman, Jonathan Clark, who once worked for CNN and the Wall Street Journal, had faced charges for trespass, and resisting arrest. Gunn also faced a charge for assault in the ‘judge-alone’ trial.
However, Judge Janey Forrest dismissed the two charges for trespass on the first day. But, the resistance and assault charges remained.
Auckland Airport’s SkyGate Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, said she received a radio call-out to confront the pair about their filming. Airport security assumed their professional camera meant their media enterprise was a commercial venture.
Since they did not have accreditation to film, Kolodeznaya assumed they could be trespassed for failing to gain permission.
The Police failed to establish that the duo’s FreeNZ Media was a non-profit, donation-funded entity and therefore did not require either accreditation, nor permission.
Gunn’s and Clark’s spectacular arrests within 18 seconds of the Police greeting them, meant this constabulary duo skipped the crucial step of due diligence to establish their viewpoint.
Kolodeznaya’s accusation that she was assaulted appeared to be intended to gain a swift response. Yet, Kolodeznaya admitted Gunn touched her to get her attention.
Gunn returned to the witness box, for what she described as “deeply traumatizing” afterward, while Beveridge attempted to create wriggle room for the Police, by venturing that bystanders and supporters may have accidentally injured the reporter.
She accused Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight of a brutal assault, that she said tore ligaments in her shoulder, arm and wrist. Clark stated he sustained bruising from Constable Robett Luong grabbing, spinning and tackling him.
The independent media crew were waiting to film the arrival of a Tokelauan family, who had come to live in New Zealand following a cruel house arrest for refusing to be ‘vaccinated’. One supporter who moved into help was Dr René De Monchy MD.
The psychiatrist, who practiced as a medical doctor for 28 years, said he rebuked Senior Constable Postlewaight, because he could see he was hurting Gunn with the hold he had her in. He spoke out as a citizen and a doctor, he told the Court.
Yet, Beveridge tried several times to get Dr De Monchy to admit he was fond of Gunn. However, the police prosecutor’s attempts fell comically flat amid groans and laughter from the public gallery.
Moreover, following the video-link with Switzerland dropping out, Beveridge waved before his computer’s camera, while Forrest searched to find through what console Dr De Monchy could see the court-room.
The scene caused Snoopman to lose composure. But, his commissioned sketch-artist, Mr Chicken, doth drew the Shakespearean irony with mischief.
In this second snoop dispatch, compiled from snoop notes, snoop sketches and snoop sources, former Māori Television news and current affairs editor, Steve Snoopman, reports on the second installment of this courtroom theatre: SkyGate.
He finds that the lengths that the authorities have gone to, to crush a minor irritant may have as much to do with face-saving after they found their minions had reeled in an outcast public figure.
When satirist Steve Braunias wrote about the case for the NZ Herald, the print headline “Is this really breaking a butterfly on a wheel?” — referenced a famous line from Alexander Pope’s 1735 poem to describe persecution.
The circumstances that Braunias witnessed in court forced him to reference the metaphor of ‘breaking a butterfly on a wheel’, which described such extreme lengths that New Zealand’s authorities had gone to persecute Gunn and Clark.
Ironically, the pair were part of a small dissenting team which included lawyers, who helped stop the persecution of the Patelesio family in Tokelau.
Did their efforts doth ruffle feathers in the Ardern family? The Police prosecutor claimed the Patelesio family’s plight was not relevant to the case.
Yet, former Dawn Raider, Ross Ardern, was the Administrator of Tokelau, and as the highest official he had been involved in the Pfizer ‘vaccination’ project from its inception. Then, he was replaced in mid-2022.
Against the backdrop of the Pfizer shots killing at a rate of 1 Kiwi per 1100 doses, the Snoopman scratched notes, looking up at moments worth saving visually to memory, with his Hippocampus organ.
Such moments, as when a former Senior Constable, Ray Cobb, testified that if he acted the way the two police officers had, back when he was a country cop, he would not be in court because “[he] would be dead.”
Beveridge attempted to diminish his standing since only a minority of his policing career was in the city.
However, Cobb countered saying as a solo officer with no backup, he applied sound policing that involved communicating effectively to de-escalate situations to resolve conflicts as peacefully as possible. Cobb said the Police Officers escalated a situation that could have been resolved in a few minutes.
With his case in tatters, Beveridge submitted to Judge Forrest — without blushing — that Police cannot be criminally liable for their actions if they believe they were right and justified at the time.
Lawyer for the defence, Matthew Hague, summed up that the two Policemen escalated a calm scene into a fracas in a matter of seconds. Mr Hague said on the matter of the physical contact, Liz Gunn is not criminally liable.
Beveridge claimed Gunn admitted she was bullying Kolodeznaya. Hague corrected Beveridge.
Judge Forrest reserved her decision for May 21 in the Manukau District Court, at 3.45pm.
In the first version of this article, I reported Airport’s SkyGate Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya lingered in the witness box and apologized saying “we may have crossed the line.” And I added that, Judge Forrest was looking at her notes and no one, bar Snoopman, was listening. This was incorrect.
Beveridge Vs Hague in Gunn & Clark Trial
Manukau District Court, Auckland, New Zealand, 10 May 2023:
WITH A FONDNESS for ensnaring defence witnesses, New Zealand Police Prosecutor, Jerome Beveridge, attempted to regain dominance over his learned opponent — defence lawyer, Matthew Hague — who had metaphorically battered, bruised and bloodied the Crown’s witnesses in three consecutive rounds on May 7.
Central to the Crown’s case against former TVNZ news anchor, Liz Gunn, and her camerman, Jonathan Clark, who once worked for CNN and the Wall Street Journal — was the Airport CCTV surveillance footage.
The independent media duo had been waiting to film the arrival of a Tokelauan family, who had come to live in New Zealand following a cruel house arrest for refusing to be ‘vaccinated’ with Pfizer’s mRNA shots.
Poetically, the morning session started at 10:10am with Gunn in the witness box. In New Zealand Police Code, 10-10 means “Officer requires immediate assistance”.
Beveridge attempted to discredit Gunn by having short clips played of the CCTV footage that had been synced with the sound recorded by Clark’s camera. In the Manukau District Court Universe — that according to local folk lore is like a cash register siphoning fines off the working class population — Hague pressed play.
In this strange case — that shamelessly passed through the pre-trial hearings — the Police prosecutor relied on the goodwill of the defence lawyer to play footage for his opponent. Due to the Crown Law Office’s mainstay tactic to run interference, including withholding evidence, the delay’s resulted in the fleet-footed defence gaining the sound recorded by Mr Clark, who matched the sound to the CCTV video.
After the Court heard Gunn refer to the Airport’s SkyGate Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, as a “real Nazi” after she left, Beveridge asked her to explain her remark.
Gunn said she would not look at me or hear my answer. Beveridge said, “To confirm, that makes her a Nazi?” Gunn replied that Nazi is “a term of art”. For her, it had a context because her father fought against the Nazis.
Judge Forrest claimed what her father said was hearsay. Gunn said “I have to put it in context. [Kolodeznaya] was someone who was completely twisting of my words.”
Gunn said people in uniform must be able to justify the rules they are applying since there was no logic or rule to deem FreeNZ Media a commercial media organization, and she said it’s not a business.
Indeed, Kolodeznaya had dismissed Gunn’s purpose for the filming out of hand. Moreover, the SkyGate Security Coordinator admitted in Court they have no authority to ask their name or identity, and that they usually accept people’s explanations.
Outside the court-house, Gunn said when her father was 20, he was cycling through Germany with his friend, Dan. They witnessed Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and other key Nazi Party officials speaking on stage in Nuremberg long before World War II.
Gunn said he quipped “God, if I had a gun at 20 years old, I could have stopped the whole Second World War from happening.” Former ad-man, John Ansell quipped, “We’ve got one now”, a reference to the accused’s surname.
Gunn said her dad and his mate were surrounded by the thuggish ‘Brown Shirts’ who tried to intimidate them into standing up to honour the entrance of Nazi officials onto the stage. They refused to get to their feet, she said.
I asked about how Judge Forrest deemed her attempts to recollect her father’s first-hand accounts of his observations of Nazis, as hearsay. Yet, Nazi Germany became totalitarian incrementally.
Snoopman asked, “How is it construed that your father’s anecdote is hearsay? Either he was there or history professors — it’s all anecdotal, or it’s hearsay. What the hell?”
In reply, Gunn said “I really want to own the word Nazi.” To her, Nazi was a “term of art” that was a “short-hand” for a disrespectful person in uniform who bullies, over-reaches their power and acts with little or no justification over-riding peoples’ rights.
The former TVNZ news anchor said she wasn’t racist, nor xenophobic. She said she desired that immigrants be better vetted and prepared to respect the Kiwi culture.
Gunn referred to how she had been helping Patelesio family. The Patelesios had been persecuted in Tokelau and placed under house arrest amid a ‘vaccination’ drive on the watch of Jacinda Ardern’s father, David Ross Ardern, who was Administrator (2018-2022).
Ironically, Ross Ardern was one of the police officers who carried out the Dawn Raids on Pacific Island families in the 1970s. Tokelau is a dependent territory of the Realm of New Zealand, itself a member state of the Fourth British Masonic Empire.*
A couple of times, Beveridge said the Palesio’s backstory was irrelevant, despite the fact that it was integral to why Gunn and Clark were in the Arrival’s Lounge to film.
On Jacinda Ardern’s watch, the HMNZS Wellington deployed the Pfizer shots to Tokelau and other islands, like it were a psy-op to condition New Zealanders.
RNZ and Stuff reported the same propaganda to hype the bioweapon dealing, divulging Ross Ardern had been involved with the vaccination project from its inception.
Ross Ardern was also involved in meetings with the Patelesio family, and used colourful language to tell them they were putting others at risk, instead of sticking up for their human rights as Tokelau’s top official, said lawyer Darin Cassidy in a podcast.
Mr Ardern was replaced on June 1 2022, amid the growing controversy bubbling under.
In essence, Gunn’s public profile as a former news anchor at Television New Zealand and her subsequent stance amid the Ardern Government’s psychological warfare campaign to blackmail the nation into submitting to taking Pfizer’s gene-hacking fluids, cast her as a lightening rod for persecution.
Gunn perhaps made an ‘error’ when she announced on FreeNZ Media’s various platforms, that the Patelesio family would be arriving in New Zealand in two weeks time, on February 25 of 2023.
Supporters were invited to “join us at Auckland Airport to welcome this brave family.”
At the Manukau District Court 7 May, Ana Patelesio said she was “horrified” when she learned after they landed at Auckland Airport that Gunn and Clark had been arrested.
In making my point about the hearsay rule, I was trying to say that the judge considered Gunn’s father’s influence on her moral development was irrelevant. Gunn got my point, and spoke to it in regard to how she felt about using the pronoun, Nazi, as a more general noun.
And, she had spoken about her dad’s eyewitness account in Nuremberg.
However, I feel a definition of hearsay for this dispatch is helpful, since it appears that as Judge Forrest clutched legal straws, she got lost in the feuding woods.
According to the Collins Dictionary (1993), in law, hearsay evidence is “based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what he has himself observed.”
Therefore, it was ironic that Judge Forrest remarked that Gunn’s recollection of her father’s first hand experience of the Nazi regime, constituted hearsay.
Yet, could it not be that the possible unreliability of hearsay might be reasonably countered by the commonly known historical record that proves Nazis trampled upon human rights?
Was there a double-standard operating in Judge Forrest’s mind? Because, at no time did she pull up either of the arresting officers, constables Erich Postlewaight, nor Robett Luong, about how their failure or avoidance to check with Gunn and Clark what was the purpose to film — meant their testimony they presented was partially based on hearsay.
Judge Forrest had already thrown out the trespass charges because neither Postlewaight nor Luong gave the accused time to leave before they were arrested. This clearly meant both policemen took what the Airport staff told them as the true facts.
Yet, their viewpoint was also hearsay, since by their own admission the cops hadn’t viewed the CCTV video, nor gathered bystander statements and nor had they established the accused’s identities, which could have yielded their non-profit entity.
Their ‘neglect’ to do this due diligence — to attempt to establish the facts by effective communication with both sides, which requires active listening — actually meant both Police acted on hearsay. And Judge Forrest accepted their testimony without specifically pointing out to both un-gentlemen, they partially presented hearsay.
As well as incorrect grounds for trespass regarding the non-commercial filming.
And yet on this basis of hearsay, emotion and exaggeration, the Police also accepted the claimed matter of assault, which was forwarded to Police as second-hand data. As Snoopman reported May 9, the SkyGate Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, claimed she was assaulted by Liz Gunn, when the reporter touched her. Yet, in Court, Kolodeznaya had agreed with Gunn that the reporter was trying to get her attention.
Previously, the Court heard the media pair were arrested in 18 seconds flat by Police, who were sent to eject them from the arrivals lounge inside the International Airport, on the early evening of Saturday February 25 2023.
Lawyer Matthew Hague summed up for the defence, that the two Policemen escalated a calm scene into a fracas in a matter of seconds.
The day after the trial, FreeNZ Media released the CCTV footage.
The footage shows they were told, once, to leave by Police, who acted on the story fed to them by Airport SkyGate Security that the pair were filming without permission and they had assaulted a security staff member.
Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight and Constable Robett Luong, failed to follow police procedure to establish the accused’s viewpoint, and with such due diligence, find a way to calmly resolve the matter.
However, the case to defend the accused Gunn and Clark was frustrated by Police refusing to release more CCTV footage. The only surveillance shots supplied for the Court Case was an interior wide-shot of the arrivals halls and a mid-wide shot that panned, and zoomed in and out, since the camera was controlled by the Airport Monitoring Team.
Yet, according to a news report from 2019, headlined “Auckland Airport’s 1000 CCTV cameras record everything from stray parcels to passion,” the NZ Herald stated any single passenger’s movements could be tracked through the airport with the cameras.
The two videos containing the CCTV footage used in court were posted by FreeNZ Media — which is operated by Gunn and Clark — to make the argument that the Police likely withheld footage from other surveillance cameras that may have shown better detail. Gunn said the Police affidavits indicated there were other camera angles.
While under cross-examination, Gunn asked Mr Beveridge if he “had seen the footage closer up or from other cameras?” A few minutes later, she said “there must be clearer footage of this [evidence].” She accused the Police of withholding surveillance footage in an airport with multiple CCTV cameras.
Judge Forrest told Gunn she was “here to answer the questions that are put to you”.
It appeared Beveridge was trying to create wriggle room in the Court record for the accusations of assault against the Police.
Beveridge attempted to establish from the obscure wide-shot how close the other people were to Gunn, as a small number of bystanders or supporters moved in to help.
At 10:46am, Gunn cried in the witness box after several minutes of being required to watch the scene of herself being contorted by Officer Postlewaight. It is with these replays that Beveridge was attempting to establish reasonable doubt about who may have caused her injuries; there were a handful of supporters or bystanders close by.
Gunn drank water from her copper flask, and eyes darted as she re-composed herself.
Beveridge continued to try to glean answers from Gunn to create reasonable doubt about who injured the former TV One news anchor. He said, “I suppose to get to the point, people may have accidently hit [Gunn].” Gunn countered that although she didn’t see his boots, she felt a forceful series of boots. Gunn can be heard calling “Help” three times.
Previously, on Tuesday 7 May 2024, the defence had pulled the ‘keystone’ from the ‘archway’ of the New Zealand Crown’s case against a former TVNZ news anchor and a former CNN cameraman. That keystone was two counts of trespass against reporter, Liz Gunn, and her cameraman, Jonathan Clark, who were placed under arrest with spectacular speed in just 18 seconds at Auckland International Airport last year.
The Court found on May 7 that Airport SkyGate security staff and the Police failed in their due diligence to establish the purpose of the filming, and therefore whether the media duo’s activities were legally permissible. The trespass charges fell on day one.
Although Gunn and Clark operate a not-for-profit donation-supported entity, FreeNZ Media, that is not an accredited media enterprise, they were not required to seek permission from the Airport Company.
The bylaw, titled Auckland International Airport Approval Order 1989, only covers commercial filming.
With these facts laid out, the first witness for the prosecution, the Airport’s SkyGate Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, was asked about getting the Police involved. Kolodeznaya said when the people see the Police they say “we apologise that we crossed the line and we’re leaving.” Kolodeznaya claimed it was a “safe precaution,” to call for the police.
After a two-day recess, the Manukau District Court continued to hear testimony from the defense witnesses in a ground-floor courtroom that was located farthest from the cafeteria.
Thus, the presiding magistrate allowed five minutes walking time on breaks.
“I Felt We Were Being Lined Up for Something”
Up next, the court heard testimony from cameraman Jonathan Clark, who was arrested by Constable Robett Luong — after 10 seconds. He told defence lawyer, Mr Hague, “I felt we were being lined up for something,” after the Airport’s SkyGate Security Coordinator left to have them trespassed.
It was clear to all in the Court from the audio — matched with the video by Mr Clark — that Anna Kolodeznaya had called over her radio to have the pair trespassed, without first requesting them to leave; nor warning them of the consequences.
This skipping of steps — in addition to continuing with the perception that a big professional camera equated with filming for “business purpose” — meant Kolodeznaya had escalated the situation, the defence argued. Clark said he felt they were “under great threat”, and so he recorded “evidence”.
Mr Clark added, “We have people who get in our face because of Liz’s public profile.”
The cameraman — who once did stints filming for the Wall Street Journal, as well as for the anti-slavery Freedom Project series featured on CNN, which was founded by depopulation proponent, Ted Turner — told the Court that Gunn was attempting to de-escalate, while Kolodeznaya was domineering.
Clark said he recorded her ID badge.
Hague asked Clark when did he see the Police. Clark answered when he heard, “Hello. “You’re going to have to leave now.” He turned around to face the Police.
He said Senior Constable Postlewaight didn’t answer Gunn’s question about why he was requesting them to leave. Clark said the Senior Constable went to block his camera with his hand, and Clark said he reacted by moving away, in a backwards direction.
And immediately, Constable Luong “came for my property. I pulled my property away”.
For the Court, Clark described a tug of war with Luong’s hand on his lens. “I felt a hand come on my camera. I felt a tug of war,” Clark said. “My reaction was to protect my camera.” Luong gave up trying to gain his camera, and he did “a move”, Clark said.
“I had a merry go-around. I spun around off my axis and was thrown onto the ground.”
Clark repeated his account for Mr Beveridge. “I was spun around. I had a move done on my body to disable me. I was in shock. I was very calm,” Clark said after demonstrating the hip-height he held the camera, which hung by a shoulder strap.
Beveridge countered saying that two days ago he heard Clark saying “film.” Clark said “I do recall screaming out to people to film.” Clark actually calleed out, “Record. Record.”
At that point, Constable Luong was on top of Mr Clark, telling him he was under arrest. Clark said he could hear Gunn screaming for help. Clark can be heard saying, “I’m relaxed”, to Luong in answer to the Constable telling him he was under arrest.
Clark said once he was on his feet, everything was taken from him, meaning all of his camera gear.
The cameraman said from the point he was lead out of the Arrivals Hall, Luong was civil.
After 59 minutes in the witness box, Clark finished his testimony.
Sorry, Did You Ask if it’s Raining (in Switzerland)?
Ironically, Justice Janey Forrest had started the day with a pep-talk requesting that all participants respect one another’s role in the Court proceedings. She failed to call-out Beveridge’s under-handed tactic, which was meted-out to achieve his strategy: to win.
By the day’s end, the trial became a caricature, descending into a clown show as the constraints of the court-room’s budget were laid bare, during a video-link with a defense witness.
It was during the course of this testimony, that technology issues —somewhere between the supposed Switzerland of the South Pacific and Switzerland of Central Europe — poetically converged to create Shakespearean irony.
Prosecution lawyer Jerome Beveridge sought to discredit defence witness, Dr René De Monchy MD, who was standing nearby when the fracas with police occurred.
Instead of showing De Monchy the video sequence from the point when the police approached Gunn and Clark, Beveridge instead instructed Mr Hague to pause the clip at the wide-shot of the arrivals hall.
This shot is from the second camera in the sequence.
Beveridge got De Monchy to identify himself in this wide-shot (that I have marked with a red arrow), which placed him approximately four to five metres away from where Gunn and Clark were standing (highlighted area, by TV monitor mounted on left pillar) at the moments when Police engaged them and escalated the situation.
But, either due to thoughtlessness or callousness, Beveridge had not oriented De Monchy about when in the relation to the arrest this shot related. The elderly psychiatrist ventured it must have been from after the arrest.
The public expressed dissatisfaction that Beveridge had not properly oriented the defence witness.
Dr De Monchy could be seen scurrying over as Luong tackles Clark, who falls to the floor.
The former medical doctor said he was about one and a half to two metres away from Gunn, when he called out to Postlewaight, “You can’t do that.” Postelwaight had her arm up behind her back at the level of her shoulder blade, which would be very painful, he said.
Asked by Mr Hague why he spoke out, Dr De Monchy told the Court he said he rebuked the Senior Constable because he saw it as his citizen’s duty and as a doctor, to call out a policeman for the completely unprovoked violence.
Earlier, Hague had said that Dr De Monchy had made notes two hours after the events in question, to record the injuries and the incident. On May 7, Gunn told the court that Postlewaight fractured her wrist, and tore ligaments in her shoulder and arm.
“I can’t do my own bra up,” the former TVNZ Late Edition One News anchor said.
In response to Dr De Monchy rebuking the Senior Constable while he was assaulting Gunn, Postlewaight replied, “You’ll be arrested if you stay.”
The Auckland Airport’s SkyGate Security Team Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, who was standing nearby in a hi-vis vest, led Dr De Monchy away to some seats, he told Mr Beveridge.
At this point in De Monchy’s testimony, the video link cut out. Mr Hague, who called Dr De Monchy with Liz Gunn’s cell-phone, explained they were trying to get the video link back-up.
Mr Hague addressed Judge Forrest, asking “maam” if it was alright to put Dr De Monchy on speaker phone, to assist the Court since he said he could see an empty desk with a jar of water and the NZ coats of arms on a wall. Judge Forrest asked, “Dr De Monchy, can you me?” She told the doctor that he had been put on a speaker phone as a work-around while the Court tried to get the link up again.
A recorded female voice for the video conferencing service announced, “Welcome to the meeting,” and prompted for the passcode to be entered. Snoopman got the giggles.
The Judge asked, “Dr De Monchy, do you see us now?” Mr Beveridge put his hand up in front of his computer screen to see if Dr De Monchy could see him waving from the Switzerland of the South Pacific, as he slid his wheeled office chair over the carpeted flooring of the budget district court-room.
With wet eyes, Snoopman scribbled notes.
A wag in the gallery called out “Come on Jonathan! Can’t you the fix the link?”
A woman coughed at the back of the court-room, which had 68 seats for the public. Her cough reverberated into the room after the sound waves travelled to Switzerland.
Mr Chicken, who the Snoopman had ‘commissioned’ to be the court’s defacto sketch artist, produced a picture of the scene. Snoopman and Chicken laughed their asses off.
Chicken — whose tagline, the free-range reporter, may be simultaneously offensive to vegan freedom fighters or to meat-eating chickens simultaneously — drew sketches on an invoice he needed back for some transaction filing I found too boring to hear.
When the Court resumed, Mr Beveridge sought to discredit Dr De Monchy. He asked “You must be fairly fond of Ms Gunn?” The gallery groaned. He had already asked Dr De Monchy how he knew Gunn. He said Gunn had interviewed him twice previously.
Dr De Monchy, who described the relationship as professional rather than a friendship, failed to sense Beveridge was taking the line of questioning to a sordid place more befitting of L.A. Law. “We got on reasonably well,” Dr De Monchy replied.
“You’re in Switzerland at 3am”, Beveridge prompted. But, De Monchy was having trouble hearing. “It’s 3am there, correct?” asked Beveridge. “I’ve been here for the last four weeks”, De Monchy replied.
Snoopman laughed, hiding behind the empty box for the jury. Evidently, their absence was necessary — lest the Hobbits were exposed to truth bombs amid supply chain issues affecting the availability of Occam Razors.
Beveridge shouldn’t have tried again, when De Monchy answered back with a question, “Sorry, did you ask is it raining here?” He tried on the Fond Question, again.
The medical doctor of 28 years, turned psychiatrist, had looked at his notes when he was supposed to have asked the judge first, if at any time he needed to. Dr De Monchy had made his notes two hours after the fracas to record the injuries, as well as the incident.
Snoopman recovered from giggling-itus once Mr Hague returned to restore decorum after the attempts to attack the credibility of his witness.
Hague asked about what Dr De Monchy saw of the arrest scene in the Airport Arrivals Hall. “Was there anything stopping you from observing anything happening in front of you?” asked Hague.
“No,” replied Dr De Monchy. Forrest asked Mr Hague to pass on the Court’s gratitude to Dr De Monchy for being available in the middle of the night, amid the glitches.
Evidently, it was beyond the purview of the Court to solve the mystery over whether or not there was a cyber-god that had frustrated Beveridge’s attempts trip up De Monchy.
Judge Forrest called a lunch break. Amid much mirth, Mr Chicken showed me more sketches.
Snoopman recalled a friend said Snoopman would make a great lawyer, but his biggest challenge would be keeping a straight face all day. The Court was now full clown show.
“I Would Be Dead”
When the Court resumed at 2:21pm, the Court heard testimony from a former Policeman, Ray Cobb.
He told the Court he had been with the Police for a period of 16 years from 1980 to 1996. He had worked in Wairoa, Kawerau, Taumarunui, Tongariro National Park, Tauranga, as well as Auckland for 18 months.
Mr Beveridge tried to diminish his testimonial relevance by saying his city policing experience was minor.
And that there were no tazers, OC spray [pepper], body armour or vests.
Mr Cobb countered saying that had he conducted himself the way that the two Policemen did in the Airport Arrivals Hall, he would not be testifying in Court.
Without back-up in rural areas, the circumstances required Cobb to de-escalate.
The former Senior Constable, who did brief stints as acting Sargeant, told the Court he attended thousands of call-outs solo, and practiced policing according to his training, policing policy and the Police Manual — which he stated had not changed.
Cobb said if he escalated his solo encounters, “I would not be here. I would be dead.”
Mr Hague asked Cobb if the use of force was consistent with the Police policy. Cobb answered, “No it wasn’t”. He added that the Constables failed to exercise due diligence to gain the viewpoints of the accused.
Constable Cobb, who had been in attendance at the trial hearings throughout, told the Court that the CCTV video footage and the affidavits are prima facie evidence that there was no time given in any shape or form for the accused to explain themselves or to leave before the arrests.
To Mr Hague, Cobb said Police are supposed to apply their communication training, which involves active listening, which means to practice empathy, listening and reading body language to better connect with the subjects.
Mr Cobb reiterated it was inconsistent with Police policy for Postlewaight to make no allowances for Gunn and Clark to respond about why they were being requested to leave immediately. He stated the Police actions were contradictory to Policing policy and “it created the escalation.”
“The whole matter could have been resolved instead of going on the offensive and being focussed on the removal,” Cobb said. Good policing involved assessing behaviour, threat, risk and demeanour.
The Police failed to ask them why they were there, he added. Cobb stated, “A simple question was asked and an answer was not given. There was nothing to justify the Police action whatsoever.”
Policing policy requires the attending police to introduce the allegation made, to afford the opportunity to reply to explain or clarify, Cobb told the Court. Instead, what happened was that no trespass was issued until after they were arrested, he said.
The Police wanted the camera turned off because Gunn and Clark were assumed to be filming for commercial purposes without permission, the once-Senior Constable said.
Cobb told the Court, “a uniform doesn’t give you permission to use excessive force.”
The ex-cop’s testimony concluded the defence evidence at 2:42pm.
Afterward, Cobb told Sam Costello, who was reporting for Counterspin Media, that if the Police procedures and the Crimes Act 1961 had have been adhered to, the matter could have been cleared-up in a few minutes, and there wouldn’t be a court case.
The former Senior Constable said — evidently without being aware of the irony — “the Police literally jumped the gun.”
Cobb added the Police were acting on hearsay, because they didn’t evaluate what they were told.
I asked Cobb to clarify on policing practice, since Beveridge had been trying to diminish his experience, including the fact that he had left the force some time ago.
Mr Cobb answered that the policing policy had not changed since his day.
I asked him to spell his name. He said it’s like Cobb & Co, a reference to the restaurant franchise. I sniggered and he touched my upper arm as a social cue that the ‘interview’ was over.
I didn’t take his physical contact as a common assault — in spite of the subject matter.
Snoopman sensed he was looking at a man who’d made a significant contribution to peace, by being a cool-headed policeman, who appealed to peoples’ better selves.
‘The Hague’ Presents a Written and Oral Submission
With his Police prosecution case in tatters — because the errors of his three witnesses were laid bare — Jerome Beveridge had offered a defense for the Police acting in their duty even when they were mistaken.
He also claimed the Police submit that Ms Gunn was bullying Anna Kolodeznaya, and he touched her twice, saying it constituted assault. Hague countered that Kolodeznaya’s visible reaction to being photographed by a bystander was greater than either touch allegedly causing physical pain.
Hague also corrected Beveridge for claiming Gunn admitted she was bullying the Skygate Security Coordinator. Gunn was talking about Kolodeznaya being the bully.
The Police prosecution lawyer claimed Clark defied directions by pulling away, and therefore, any use of force by Police to resist in kind was justifiable.
Countering Beveridge, Gunn and Clark’s lawyer responded that the Police did not state their intention to arrest for disorder, filming or trespass. He said they acted on what they were told by the Airport staff, that they were breaching bylaws.
The Police claimed they were acting in their duty, but they didn’t have reasonable grounds to trespass the defendants, Hague said.
In their evidence, the Police said the factor to justify their use of force was the filming, not the alleged assault. There is no lawful use of force to stop filming in the Airport Bylaw, the founder of Frontline Law said.
In his oral and written submission submitted to Judge Forrest, Hague also referred to section 39 of the Crimes Act 1961, stating the Constables’ use of force was not lawful.
Ray Cobb said section 39 was there in the Crimes Act “to stop excess use of force”.
“All parties were calm before the Police decided to use force,” Matthew Hague stated.
The defendant’s use of low-level force in defence against assault is permitted by section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961, the Frontline Law attorney and defence barrister argued.
And yet, the Police commenced the fracas to stop the filming, Hague stated. It would be artificial to separate that use of force to initiate the fracas, he added. Jonathan Clark pulled away to protect his camera, and he was pushed to the ground by Luong, Hague said.
Constable Luong was not acting in his lawful duty when he arrested Clark, said Hague.
Postlewaight had Gunn in an arm lock to gain control of her, over the matter of a suspected trespass, for which she was arrested, the Wellington-based lawyer for the defence said. Liz Gunn wasn’t arrested for assault, but resisting arrest, Hague said.
The burden laid with the Crown to prove intention to resist police. A person who is either writhing in pain, or trying to break free from the source of pain is a reasonable self-defence, said Mr Hague. He petitioned Judge Forrest, citing a case, the Queen Vs Stevens — lest she got further lost in the feuding woods as his opponent clutched at legal straws.
On the matter of appropriate or inappropriate public touching, Hague said as we go about our lives we are implicitly exposed to the risk of bodily contact.
Hague recalled that Forrest had remarked on May 7, the exchange between Kolodeznaya and Gunn was “not a friendly conversation”. [Editor: Forrest actually said it was a “relatively hostile exchange going on.”]
Hague said, “Any doubt should favour the defendant.”
He re-iterated that both women agreed the touches were to get Kolodeznaya’s attention. Hague pointed out the level of force was not a mystery for the court to solve, because there was an implied consent to communicate rather than an intent to assault.
He stated for the Court that it could be seen from the CCTV footage that the Airport Skygate Security Coordinator’s reaction to being photographed by a bystander, or supporter, was more pronounced than her reactions to being touched twice.
Kolodeznaya had insisted that a man delete the photos of her, and to let her see his camera.
The Skygate Security Coordinator claimed she didn’t give him permission to take photos of her. Gunn had countered saying, “We didn’t give you permission to bully us.”
Mr Hague said on this matter of the physical contact, Liz Gunn is not criminally liable.
Kolodeznaya had said in her court testimony that the Auckland Airport was a private company, so it had the right to trespass people who broke the rules.
Ironically, Auckland Airport Limited is 100% owned by Auckland International Airport Limited, a public company. Among the top twenty stocks, the Airport Company is 22% owned by public entities (Auckland Council 18.08%; ACC 2.26%; NZ Super Fund 1.28%; Public Trust 0.72%), and is 47% privately owned by transnational banks. The top stockholding banks are: HSBC (23.5%), JPMorgan (10.5%), Citibank (5.4%), and BNP Paribas (7.8%) — according the NZ Companies Office register.
By claiming to have been assaulted, Kolodeznaya appears to have shifted the matter from a civil dispute to a criminal situation, to justify a swift police response.
Mystery Over Bra ‘Who Dunnit-Up’ Not Solved by the Court
Before the trial’s second day commenced, Liz Gunn and Sam Costello saw me and said they’d read my “SkyGate” piece about the first day, while en-route in the car to Court.
Gunn introduced me to her partner, Tim, and left me with him as other people grabbed her attention.
I realized that my assumption about him being a reporter from the New Zealand Herald was incorrect.
On day one, I’d seen him with a notebook and pen sitting in the front-row, and standing by himself at a distance between sessions.
Until that point, Snoopman didn’t know Gunn had a partner. And so, meeting Tim answered the snoop-mystery about who had been doing up Gunn’s bras for 15 months.
Snoopman asked him how long Liz had worked at TVNZ. He thought about eight years. I recalled I’d seen a video clip of her on NZOnScreen, presenting a day-time show when she looked about 28. “She was totally made for the camera,” I said. Tim, who I could see is a humbly intelligent man, said “You can’t invent that charisma.”
After the trial, Liz Gunn said she needed to honour her love, Tim.
Amid the post-trial hub-bub outside, Snoopman said to Tim that he heard Judge Forrest remark during the lawyers’ final oral submissions that people should obey authority even when they are wrong.
Tim replied, “No, they shouldn’t, that’s completely wrong.” We talked about authoritarianism, of citizenries standing their ground, and how vulnerable humanity had become amid a psyop that fooled so many in uniform.
In the courtyard afterward, Jonathan Clark told Snoopman that Constable Luong gave up tugging with him for possession of the camera once he realised he wasn’t going to wrest it off the seasoned camera-man.
Clark said Loung grabbed his shoulder to spin him around, as a means to get him off his center of gravity, followed by a tackle to get the camera-man to the floor. Ergo, the officer had seamlessly escalated the encounter from placing a hand over the lens, or harassment, to an unwarranted property seizure by grabbing the lens, to assault before announcing arrest — all in 10 seconds flat.
Mr Clark said the Police did not want to give his camera card back. After two or three attempts in Court, an irate judge gave the Police Prosecutor three weeks to deliver Clark’s camera card.
It was this camera card that contained the crucial audio recorded by Clark of the entire incident up to where he was lead out of the Arrivals Hall.
Snoopman asked Mr Hague what his thoughts were on his “learned friend” pulling up Liz about just answering the questions. Hague said he was actually really impressed with both Gunn and Clark in the witness box.
He added that as a lawyer he was looking for them to answer in a way that adds to the defence evidence. But, he added, they were recalling emotionally charged events that were very traumatic for them.
I added, “And they’re human beings”. Hague repeated, “And they’re human beings.” He continued that when they made remarks to add context to explain why they felt the situation was escalated unnecessarily, you have to let them defend their character.
They’re on trial, under pressure Hague said. I thanked him for his time and thoughts.
Hague had stated to Judge Forrest that the Police actions breached NZ’s Bill of Rights. The gallery cheered.
Indeed, it would appear the Auckland Airport Company and the New Zealand Police breached: section 14, Freedom of Expression; 16, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly; 17, Freedom of Association; 18, Freedom of Movement; 19, Freedom from Discrimination; 20, Rights of Minorities; 21, Unreasonable Search and Seizure; 22, Liberty of Person.
Gunn complimented Hague saying his “cross examinations were second to none.”
The accused grandmother asked ther supporters, “Did you all feel the massive preparation of Matthew? We are so lucky to have him on the freedom side.” Hague thanked Liz for the acknowledgment.
Hague had come on board two months prior to the May court appearance, after their previous lawyer, Jeremy Bioletti, became too sick to continue the defence.
Sam Costello also complimented Hague saying, “You’re a fantastic example for us on how to stay calm and to use our brains.” She asked Hague, “Was it not clear that there really wasn’t an assault?”
The Director of Frontline Law said, “I think it was very clear. It’s one of the clearest cases that there is.” He demonstrated the infamous touch, placing his hand on Liz Gunn’s shoulder. “This touch, that’s what it was.”
Hague added “it was frustrating that this particular charge had ended up in court when there’s so much stuff that doesn’t” due to under-resourcing of the police and the courts. He said he hoped that the Police would reflect on why they sought to prosecute his clients.
Was it that the Police, the Airport Company and the Crown Law Office committed to a face-saving course, once they found their minions had reeled in an outcast public figure? Kolodeznaya said she didn’t know FreeNZ Media was a volunteer group filming a family associated with ‘anti-vaccine’ content.
Gunn’s arrest made the next day’s news, indicating her ill-fated chess move had to be countered once it was public.
Perhaps Gunn compounded her ‘error’, when she again announced the Patelesio family’s looming arrival on the day of February 25 in 2023. Supporters were once again invited to “join us at Auckland Airport to welcome this brave family.”
Did someone contact the Airport Company, or the Airport Police to ensure that the attending security and police on the roster, had a history of over-riding rights?
It appeared that Kolodeznaya, Postlewaight or Luong did not know about Gunn and Clark.
Perhaps Kolodeznaya’s volunteered remark during her testimony revealed why the authorities have gone to extraordinary lengths to crush a minor irritant — as satirist Steve Braunias wrote more generally in the Herald.
The print headline of the satirist’s sarcastically serious report, “Is this really breaking a butterfly on a wheel?” — referenced a famous line from Alexander Pope’s 1735 poem. Braunias was forced by the circumstances to admit the case itself was hanging by a thread at the end of the day.
The metaphor of ‘breaking a butterfly on a wheel’ described the extreme lengths that authorities sometimes go to, to crush the spirit of a minor irritant. His placement of an anecdote from the day, about the controversy over how much voter support New Zealand Loyal, the party founded by Liz Gunn, last year garnered — suggested that Braunias has a Political Calculus App inside his intellectual human-monkey brain.
Judge Forrest set-down May 21 for her decision, at 3:45pm in the District Court.
Lacking a soap-box, Gunn stood on the seating as she emerged from the ’Court Soap’.
Gunn said the morning’s cross examination by Beveridge was “deeply traumatizing” despite describing herself as a being “a pretty tough cookie” when she needs to be.
With palpable emotion, “I’ve had really darks nights of the soul. I’ve really struggled,” said Gunn, who is currently persona non grata at the headquarters of the Crown-owned Television New Zealand.
Twenty days prior to the trial, Gunn was threatened with imprisonment, a hefty fine and property seizure by a swanky law firm, Simpson Grierson, if she failed to comply with an Order from NZ’s Employment Relations Authority demanding that she take down media content to satisfy their client, Health NZ.
This Censorship Order pertained to content posted across FreeNZ Media’s platforms, publicizing their ballsy scoop of whistleblower, Barry Young, who leaked Ministry of Health data showing deaths following various doses of Pfizer’s gene-hacking serum, that had been marketed as the Comirnaty ’vaccine’.
Snoopman’s subsequent exposé shows Pfizer’s shots kill at a shocking rate of 1 person per 1100 doses.
“But,” added Gunn — with her characteristic index finger pointed at the supporters outside the courtroom farthest from the staff cafeteria — “you kept me going. “It’s the beauty of New Zealanders that I believed in. And I saw it in this crowd, the other day. And I see it here today. We still are that beautiful race, that really caring people.”
With a green notebook tucked in her arm, Gunn also spoke of the nation’s many corrupted systems. She suggested united groups were needed across the country — focussed on solutions to confront the problems — to peacefully rise-up against the uniformed bullies green-lighted by Parliament on behalf of the UN, the WHO and WEF (World Economic Forum). “We just need to go out there and get these groups together in our society and remind ourselves of who we were.” Humanity is deceived.
The United Nations, which is a defacto world government, was forged out of World War II ostensibly to mitigate the great powers fighting again. The real purpose was to facilitate the accumulation of wealth, power and control of the planet’s Overlords with the assistance of élites. The backstory is brutal and bleak.
The Overlords’ diabolical quest to rule the world, involves embroiling humanity in geopolitical chess ‘games’ that bamboozle populations to divide and conquer, while desired solutions are promoted — as the Snoopman traced in his epic essay, “Totalitarian Population Control featuring Stealthy Eugenics, a Digital Panopticon and a Defacto World Government — amid the ongoing Third Hundred Years’ War on Planet Earth”.
Gunn hoped the love that permeates New Zealand would stimulate Kiwis to ponder deep questions about what kind of society “we want” to run for ourselves rather than being slaves of civil servants, uniformed ferals and politicians pulling swifties.
*Snoop Note: Fourth British Masonic Empire is the present iteration of its imperium:
1st: 1583-1783; 2nd: 1783-1815; 3rd: 1815-1914; 4th: 1914 to present.
Steve Snoopman worked at indigenous broadcaster, Māori Television, for 14 years as an editor of news and current affairs. He forged his superpower to ‘Thunk Evil Without Being Evil’ while writing a thesis on the Global Financial Crisis. Upon quipping that Batman had failed to bust any Gotham banker balls — since his ass is owned by DC Comics — he consequently realised New Zealand needed a Snoopman.
Editor’s Note: If we have made any errors, please contact Steve ‘Snoopman’ Edwards with your counter-evidence. e: steveedwards108[at]protonmail.com
Steve Snoopman also posts on Snoopman News [at] https://snoopman.net.nz/