Sonja Lawson commits PERJURY - New Plymouth Court 25 July 2019 - sworn evidence:

Sonja Lawson and Brian Hunter - serial litigants, benefit fraudsters, and co-claimants.

Today in the Court at New Plymouth Sonja Lawson swore on oath that she had "never heard of Brian Hunter", "didn't know anything about Brian Hunter" and "didn't want to know anything about Brian Hunter.  She had already submitted these lies in writing in the form of various sworn affidavits:

Lawson recently sent numerous text messages begging for information regarding her co-claimant Brian Hunter and her claims to the contrary are blatant and deliberate PERJURY!

Here's the evidence that they are co-claimants, Sonja Lawson is very well aware of this document, it's got her handwriting on it and the date she received it.  The text messages refer to her desire to "deal to" Brian Hunter and the lawyers who have been assisting her and Hunter, but Lawson was a willing party to the submission of documents that she knew were fraudulent.  Lawson swore in the Court that she had never heard of Hunter and wasn't a co-claimant with Hunter in any legal action and had no interest whatsoever in his affairs or any lawyers representing him - that is indisputably perjurous - it was deliberate and premeditated!  This is her own handwriting on this document!  She is a LIAR!

Here's a message received from Sonja Lawson on 20 March - the affidavits referred to above, in which she denies all knowledge of Brian Hunter, are dated June or July, 3 or 4 months after she sent these messages:

For someone who claims to have no knowledge of Brian Hunter and no interest in Brian Hunter or the lawyers he is associated with, Sonja Lawson certainly has a lot to say about them:

The message above refers to the claim in which Lawson and Hunter are co-claimants, which is evidenced indisputably by the documents above, and it clearly contradicts the denial contained in Lawson's sworn affidavits and evidence given on oath in the Court.  That is clearly perjury.

Which is ironic given the arrogance with which Lawson and Hunter accuse others of perjury despite the fact that Lawson can't even spell the word properly - she knows exactly what it means.

The reference to Hunter working as a " Self Employed IT consultant" refers to the fact that Hunter claims to be an "invalid beneficiary" but is clearly working as well as receiving a benefit and this warrants closer scrutiny, as Lawson knows perfectly well, which is why she is seeking the information and asking for it repeatedly.  Further evidence of this is contained in the Court document reproduced below - the handwriting in the top right hand corner is Sonja Lawsons, and matches all the documents she submitted in Court.  She denied the existence of this document until she was confronted with it, whereupon she stuttered and stammered her pathetic lies and excuses:

The judgment of Churchman J makes a mockery of the this claim, filed by Chris Tennet, it describes the lack of merit to their arguments, the unprofessional and inept manner of their legal abilities, and general incompetence.  It is available at this link.

Allegations of perjury in New Plymouth District Court 25 July 2019 by Sonja Lawson

Lawson v Raue New Plymouth Court 25 July 2019

To the Court:

1. Evidence given by the applicant on oath at hearing at New Plymouth on 25 July, and in the sworn affidavits filed in the Court by the applicant, was clearly and indisputably evidence of intentional and deliberate lies, and blatant perjury.  In particular, her evidence regarding Brian Hunter is untrue, this evidence forms the basis of her claims, and it is ridiculous to think of continuing with this matter untl these deliberate lies are addressed.
2. The claims of the respondent are full of gross exaggeration and complete lies.  I most strongly dispute the evidence the applicant gave on oath in the Court, and fully intend appealing this matter should the Court decide in favour of the applicant.
3. The applicant SL initiated communication with me (again) recently, on 13 March 2019, sending a series of text messages, the primary purpose of these messages sent by the applicant SL was in regard to her actively seeking information about serial conman and career criminal Brian Hunter and a number of lawyers associated with the various litigation she and Mr Hunter are involved with, including a a joint claim in which they are co-claimants. 
4. The messages from the applicant SL refer to various fraudulent activities the respondent and Mr Hunter and their lawyers are involved with.
5. She mentions Mr Hunter around 20 times in the text messages, she repeatedly requests information about Mr Hunter working for a lawyer and working as a self employed IT consultant.  I have provided the Court with a full transcript of these messages.
6. In her sworn affidavits, and again in her oral evidence given on oath in the Court on 25 July 2019, the applicant explicitly denied knowing anything about Brian Hunter or his lawyers, and denied having any interest in the affairs of Brian Hunter or the lawyers they are jointly involved with.  She clearly and indisputably committed perjury and it is unthinkable that this matter could proceed while ignoring that fact and refusing to address it.
7. I repeatedly told her to stop sending me texts, which she ignored.  She continued to contact me after I had ceased communication with her, and she lied to the Court in claiming that communications had "increased in severity and frequency" or whatever it was - her so called 'evidence' is nothing but lies, and it can be proven to be a series of one lies after another, beyond any reasonable doubt let alone the balance of probabilities.
8. When viewed in context the messages are not harmful to a reasonable person.  Nor were they intended to be harmful, and that is also perfectly clear to any right thinking person viewing the communication in context.
9. Ms Lawson was no doubt well aware of that, and sought to bolster her case by making false claims and presenting a biased selection of information, and then taking offence to the facebook post reproduced below.  There is clearly and indisputably nothing "harmful" about it in the context of the communications received from the applicant - the post simply provides the information that the applicant repeatedly requested regarding Hunter working in the lawyers office and working as an IT consultant.  It contains no "false information and allegations" and it is certainly not "threatening, intimidating and menacing" and nor is it "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and is clearly posted to harass [the applicant] in more ways than one."  Those claims are ridiculous - fabricated, inflated, exaggerated, and deliberately dishonest.  Especially in the context of the many Court judgments documenting the profane abuse and threats the appliant justifies using herself, and the use of gross profanity in her many phone calls and other communications to me. 
10. The post below does not meet the threshold for proceedings and is clearly not "threatening, intimidating and menacing" and nor is it "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and is clearly posted to harass [the applicant] in more ways than one."he applicant first complains that I "posted information on facebook directly addressed to [her]" - she was advised to sever contact on social media with me but continues to refuse to do so, maintaining "facebook friendship" throughout the course of this litigation, contrary to all the advice she has received.   The respondent then goes on to describe the post as "contains false information and allegations as well as I feel what Kate Raue has posted on a public forum (for all to see) clearly amounts to harmful digital communications.  The post contains threatening, intimidating and menacing content.  The post is also grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and is clearly posted to harass me in more ways than one."
11. That is blatant lies.  It is not published for all to see at all.  The small icon next to the date (30 April) shows that it is only visible to specific "facebook friends".  Ms Lawson has the ability to delete the post whenever she wishes, she continues to refuse to do so, preferring to vent her outrage about it instead.  She also has the ability to sever communications with me at any time but again - she refuses to do this.  I am not obliged to bow to her every demand.  I have not breached any law.
12. The post is clearly not "threatening, intimidating and menacing" and nor is it "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and is clearly posted to harass [the applicant] in more ways than one."
13. Those claims are clearly ridiculous!
14. The applicant has clearly and indisputably breached the law and committed perjury and I insist that the Court recognise this and instigate further inquiries into Ms Lawson and the fact that she and Mr Hunter have been wasting the time of the Courts with all their lies and unfounded outlandish claims.
15. The applicant also claims to have suffered financial losses which is also a load of rubbish.  She is obsessive, devious, vindictive, and malicious - this is malicious and vexatious litigation, and an abuse of the Court process. 
16. Her so called evidence was nothing but an orchestrated litany of utter lies, and I am seeking legal advice regarding a judicial review of this matter in the High Court.  I am concerned that the Court seemed to think nothing of the clear and indisputable evidence of perjury and made no comment on the fact that the applicant was clearly lying on oath.  I have been at other hearings when the presiding Judge has stopped the trial on hearing witnesses for the prosecution utter perjurous evidence and I find it astounding that the Court made no mention of the fact that the applicant was clearly lying on oath.
17. The respondent has contacted me hundreds if not thousands of times since initiating communications with me in 2014.  She initially contacted me to ask for help with her "battle against WINZ" and her communications have tended to focus on those issues and various associated litigation.  She has phoned me on many occasions during that time and talked for long periods of time to me on the phone and her speech and dialogue is riddled with profanities which she obviously considers quite normal and nothing to be offended about.  This tendency of the respondent to use profane language as a normal matter of course when she is annoyed about something is well documented in the many Court judgments against her for gross abuse, threatening to kill, etc.  She has set the benchmark for what she considers "not offensive" and it is well documented in a number of Court judgments.  According to the benchmark that she set, the communications that I am alleged to have sent her are clearly not offensive.  In the mind of any reasonable person, viewed in context, they are not offensive and certainly not "harmful" enough to warrant the attention of the Court - perjury should warrant the attention of the Court though, that is harmful to public order and the administration of justice, as well as to me personally.
18. In her sworn affidavits and on oath in her oral evidence the respondent denies knowing Brian Hunter and the messages clearly indicate otherwise as does the claim citing the respondent as co-claimant with "Brian Noel Hunter" alias Brian Damien Hunter.
19. Further confirmation that this claim is an abuse of process and a waste of Court time is the evidenced by maintaining fake "friendship" and communication with the respondent despite claiming to be so grossly "harmed" by said communication, which she could stop any time she likes, simply by following the good advice she has been given and clicking the "unfriend" button, and the "block contact" button if necessary.  She continues to refuse to do so and the, the onus is on her to do so, not me, and there is nothing stopping her doing this, apart from her obsession with retaining contact with me and her warped and twisted little facebook "friendship".  She is an adult, not a child, and I am not obliged to indulge her irrational, unreasonable hysteria.  She clearly has a remedy within her power and she should exercise her power and avail herself of that remedy by blocking contact if she is genuinely offended.
20. SL is a serial complainer (so is her co-claimant Brian Hunter) and actively seeks opportunities to be offended about things and sue people for imagined "harm". 
21. The claims of the applicant SL are vague and nebulous in regard to her demands for a correction and an apology, her claims of "harm" allegedly caused by the communications in question are improbable, incredible and ridiculous.  In respect of her demand that the respondent cease communicating with her, the applicant refuses to follow the advice she was given by the statutory authority Netsafe and continues to maintain contact despite initiating litigation and thus wasting the time of the Court with this abuse of process and her deliberate perjury.
22. Netsafe supports the view communication that my communications are not harmful.
23. Netsafe supports the view communication that the applicant SL sent to me (via these proceedings) IS harmful and has taken action accordingly, which is ongoing.
24. The applicant's telephone provider Skinny don't buy her story either.  They know she continued to contact me after I asked her to cease and desist as stated in evidence by the applicant herself.
25. SL is serial complainer and actively seeks opportunities to be offended by initiating and maintaining "friendship" and communication with the respondent despite claiming to be so grossly "harmed" by said communication and repeatedly advised and invited to sever "facebook friendship".  The onus is on the applicant to do that, not the respondent.
26. The applicant continued to send me text messages long after I ceased communications with her and has lied in claiming that communications increased in frequency and severity - her claims are lies from start to finish!
27. The communication in context is not "harmful" to a normal person and nor does it meet the threshold for proceedings.  Ms Lawson presented selective and misleading 'evidence' to the Court and as stated, has committed perjury and wasted the time of the Court.
28. There is considerable evidence in the public domain regarding a similar pattern of behaviour from the applicant - a lot of unfounded and baseless litigation that does not succeed or succeeds on questionable grounds.
29. I further draw the attention of the Court to para 27 of the judgment attached to my affidavit - it would be a travesty of justice  to cave to the demands of the applicant when the authorities refuse to charge her under the correct section of the legislation!
30. She continues to refuse to "unfriend" the respondent on social media and can not claim to be offended while taking such trouble to maintain this "friendship" with the respondent.  All she has to do is "unfriend" and "block" the respondent and all her problems will be solved.  She does not have a legal right to demand that I take the initiative when the onus is on her to do so.
31. The actions of the applicant warrant further scrutiny, in particular her deliberate perjury and blatant attempt to obstruct justice.

Katherine Raue
25 July 2019

Sonja Lawson, Brian Hunter and the Harmful Digital Communications Act:

Sonja Lawson and Brian Hunter - serial litigants, long term beneficiaries and convicted fraudsters

Copied below is an excerpt from a document which Sonja Lawson has filed in Court as part of her latest litigation - a claim under the Harmful Digital Communications Act:

Here is the ALLEGEDLY "threatening, intimidating, menacing, grossly offensive, indecent, obscene" post, containing alleged "false information", which Ms Lawson alleges "is clearly posted to harass [her] in more ways than one." -

The harmless and innocuous post was published in response to Ms Lawson's repeated demands for this information about her co-claimant in other litigation, serial fraudster Brian Hunter, and a few of the lawyers representing Lawson and Hunter.  One of her incessant text messages on the subject is reproduced below, the full transcript in context is at this link.

There are numerous other messages in a similar vein, demanding information about Hunter and the lawyers representing Lawson and Hunter - Lawson mentions Hunter at least twenty times in these messages.

Here's another document Sonja Lawson has sworn on oath and filed in the New Plymouth Court in her claim under the Harmful Digital Communications Act - THIS IS BLATANT PERJURY!  It is also a blatant abuse of the Court processes - it is clear that her claims about the allegedly harmful facebook post are utter rubbish!  They are deliberately fabricated, exaggerated beyond belief - her claims are an orchestrated litany of LIES!

I strongly suspect that Ms Lawson is delusional.  Here she is now accusing me of perjury for stating that she begged me for information regarding her co-claimant Brian Hunter and knew perfectly well that he is a serial conman and was using a fake name on the claim bearing her own name as co-claimant.  She emailed me a copy of the claim, and it bears her own handwriting.  She is clearly and indisputably committing perjury and has the cheek to deny it and accuse me of that instead.

There are numerous Court judgments stating that various judges in various Courts have preferred the evidence of others over the evidence of Ms Lawson and Mr Hunter, and basically confirmed a long and well documented history of untruths uttered by them in Courts.  It's long past time this was directly addressed by the Courts.  Ms Lawson is clearly lying and attempting to manipulate the Courts and obstruct justice.

Ms Lawson and Mr Hunter have a long and well documented history of litigation and it speaks for itself.

Para 123 (below) hits the nail on the head:

This speaks for itself:

ed

It is clearly ridiculous for Sonja Lawson to claim to be so "harmed" by the communications at issue when she thinks it is fine to direct her own communications in such a manner.

Sonja Lawson and Brian Hunter and the Harmful Digital Communications Act:

In late 2014 serial litigant Sonja Lawson initiated communication with the writer repeatedly, with various requests and complaints about government agencies, including requests to create a website for her and publish information about her on the internet, which I faithfully did, according to her directions.  She has continued to initiate these ongoing communications to me regularly to complain about various other parties who she has dealings with, particularly the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income New Zealand, Police, various lawyers, etc.

Recently Sonja Lawson sent me a large number of text messages in which she refers to Brian Hunter about twenty times, and begs me for information she allegedly needs to "nail Hunter" and several lawyers she names specifically.

The full transcript of these messages is at this link.

There is considerable information already in the public domain regarding these various matters.
Sonja sent me hundreds of emails since 2014 asking for my assistance in publishing information she insisted that she wanted put on the internet, and other requests, the number of emails she sent me is more likely to be in the thousands I haven't bothered to count them all.

Sonja asked for my help in "raising awareness" of her issues.  I was somewhat interested in her complaints because, while they were largely illogical, ill founded, or plain baseless, there were one or two legitimate issues, and interesting points of law, including the matter of the Ministry of Social Development using fake names in Courts and Tribunals, which is a very serious breach of article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.  These issues related to the NZ Beneficiaries and Unemployed Workers Union and related agencies I am involved with, so I did all I could to assist her with the legitimate complaints.

Sonja was well pleased with the website, and sent many messages of appreciation for the work involved, and she has not one single complaint about any of it.

In March 2019 Sonja Lawson again initiated communication with the writer by sending a series of text messages requesting information about a serial fantasist and compulsive conman with a very sordid and notorious reputation by the name of Brian Hunter, and some dodgy lawyers who she and I and a number of other people had become unwittingly involved with.  In these messages she refers to Brian Hunter about twenty times, as can be seen.

Some of Sonja's communications are reproduced below and the entire verbatim transcript of communications is at this link.  On each and every occasion since 2014 communications were initiated by Sonja Lawson.

On 13 March Ms Lawson initiated communication again by sending this message:

I did not respond to this message, and Ms Lawson sent the following messages a week or so later:

The full transcript of messages is at this link:

On April 30th 2019 I innocently sent her this communication is in response to her repeated - twenty times repeated - demands for information about Brian Hunter.  The screenshot is taken on 12 July:

 

Here is Sonja Lawson's complaint to the Courts about the post reproduced above:

The use of the word "Saint" is clearly sarcasm and can not be considered offensive in any way.  The reference to Sonja not complaining to Law Society, Police or anyone about the information in the text messages she had sent to me, and the supporting information, was merely an expression of mild annoyance that she continued to bombard me with inflammatory and unnecessary communications about her "dealing to Hunter and all the corrupt lying lawyers" and "proving they all told lies in Court" etc, while refusing to report any of it to the proper authorities, and demanding information from me while bombarding me with ever more ridiculous excuses for her not to share any of the information she said she had with us - for the purposes of making formal action according to the proper channels, rather than her "dealing to them" with all her "work".

Sonja Lawson is claiming that the communication above is "clearly harmful communications. [and] the post contains threatening intimidating and menacing content.  The post is also grossly offensive, indecent obscene and is clearly posted to harass me in more ways than one."

Sonja then complained to Netsafe that I had caused serious harm to her as defined in the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

No action was taken by Netsafe apart from telling her to block my number on her phone, which was totally unnecessary anyway because as soon as she stopped texting me, as I had repeatedly asked her to do, I stopped texting her.  She continued to send me texts for some time though - long, lengthy texts containing various demands and threats and I became mildly annoyed after a while, which is utterly understandable in the context of the communications she was sending me, I will be reading them out in Court.

After a while I couldn't be bothered responding to her delusional nonsense so I simply copied the same message I'd sent her previously, which began with the words "Don't threaten me" - because it  was she who was threatening me, repeatedly, not the other way around.

Unbelievably, Sonja then complained to the District Court in Hawera that I had seriously harmed her by sending her text messages and publishing the above post on facebook:

With all due respect, and without any malice or ill will, and with absolutely no intention to offend Ms Lawson, I totally reject those claims and I believe that they are deliberately calculated to obstruct justice and waste the time of the Courts.  I seriously question Ms Lawson's state of cognition and mental health.  I think her claims indicate the possible onset of Delusional Disorder, and paranoid delusions.

In response to Ms Lawson's claims that I "digitally harmed" her with my innocent response to her demands to information about Brian Hunter and the lawyers associated with him, I was forced to file an affidavit and a notice of intention to defend her allegations in the District Court.  It contained the following paragraphs - which were drafted with the assistance of a barrister who has extensive knowledge of Hunter's criminal history:

Ms Lawson was permitted by the Court to file a response to my affidavit.  In this response she not only tries to include some extraordinarily offensive and irrelevant information allegedly about me,  she repeatedly accuses me of "perjury", and most amazingly, she totally denies knowing Brian Hunter, despite the monumental amount of evidence to the contrary, as shall be seen.

I advised her to file formal complaint with Police and the Law Society without delay, repeatedly, and said that if she had the information referred to in her messages - that they all told lies and were going to submit false information in Court then she needed to provide it to the Law Society and the Police, and if she wanted information from me and another person involved in these matters, that she should also share the information that she referred to in her messages with us, as it corroborated our complaints, and there was no valid or credible reason for her not to share it with us in the context of all the other evidential information.

Ms Lawson continued to send numerous text messages which became increasingly incoherent, illogical and paranoid, and frankly infuriating.  They are published in full at the link in the paragraph above for those with the fortitude to wade through them - as the Court will have to do, unfortunately, at great expense to the taxpayers.  Ms Lawson should be declared a malicious and vexatious litigant, and so should her co-claimant Brian Hunter, and the lawyers assisting them should be struck off.

Sonja confirmed in these text messages that the lawyers had specified Hunter's mandatory involvement as co-claimant in the letters of engagement the lawyers sent her, which stated that Tony Ellis, Seth Fraser and other lawyers had stipulated that they would only take on her case if Brian Hunter was cited as co-claimant.  She told me repeatedly in various texts and emails and oral conversations that Tony Ellis had told her that he refused to take her case unless Hunter was joined as co-claimant and other lawyers involved had said the same.

This went on (and on, and on, and on) until about the 15th of April when the texts were so numerous and so pathetic that I ceased reading them or responding to them.

On April 30th I stumbled upon some information I knew would assist Ms Lawson with her "work" and help her "deal to" all these people she was bleating about, it was the very information she had been demanding ad infinitum in all her messages, it was the link to a media report about Hunter running dodgy lawyer Chris Tennet's office, but it didn't mention how he had been accessing all the clients' files, bumbling his way through their affairs, sending emails to other people about clients' private, confidential information, etc, etc.  I did this purely to assist and help Ms Lawson and solely in response to her repeated requests for this information, her communications are faithfully reproduced in entirety and confirm that she had repeatedly asked me to give her this information, and furthermore the communications indicate that she was going to "take things further" in a fit of temper because she perceived that I was refusing to give her this information, and I thought that if I gave her what it was that she wanted she wouldn't need to take anything "further".  There was no ill will whatsoever in my actions, and none could possibly be construed by any reasonable, right thinking person in these circumstances.

My sole reason for posting the link was to comply with her demands, as I've always done.  That is a perfectly logical conclusion in regard to the communications leading up to the event and the content of the communication itself.  She had repeatedly demanded and begged for information about Hunter working in the lawyer's office, so I sent it to her.  I would have sent her the evidence of the IT consultant work etc too. if she hadn't been so silly.

Now she is complaining that the innocent facebook post above is malicious, obscene, and all sorts of other imaginative nonsense that is frankly delusional.

I think a Court ordered psychiatric examination of Sonja Lawson is in order because it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice if I were to be convicted on account of what are clearly delusional beliefs.  And that has been established by the Courts already.
 
No normal reasonable person could possibly be offended by this under the circumstances.

No reasonable person would react like this and make such a fuss about it being posted on a public forum - for all to see - particularly as Sonja Lawson could delete the offensive post any time she likes, but she refuses to do that and wants to sue me in Court instead.   Claiming that the facebook post "clearly amounts to harmful digital communications.  [And that the] post contains threatening, intimidating and menacing content.  [And that] the post is also grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and is clearly posted to harass me in more ways than one."  That is not a normal reaction under the circumstances and it indicates a complete lack of insight or rational thinking.

She can take it off the public forum any time she likes as she has no doubt been advised by Netsafe and others.  She can "untag" herself if she's been accidentally "tagged", she can unfriend me or block me - she has all the control she needs, she refuses to even unfriend me let alone block me - this is ridiculous and it totally contradicts her hysterical emotional drivel.  Just as she can block my number from her phone any time she likes.  And block me on social media any time she likes.  She doesn't want to do any of that.   On the contrary, she wants to retain contact with me, despite claiming the exact opposite in her sworn statements, she wants to continue to engage with me in order to have something to be outraged about. 

Ms Lawson claims that she is too sick to work.  She is clearly not too sick to invest the kind of energy that she has invested in these proceedings, which is considerable.  Likewise Mr Hunter.

Evidence of her lies is everywhere throughout her briefs.  Let's look at a couple of glaring examples of this.

She says she "did everything everyone advised her to do" and that is a lie.  She refuses to follow the advice of Netsafe and sever contact with me because she craves attention, and she has a malicious and obsessive nature, and constantly hopes someone will engage with her, and "help" her in her "work".

On receipt of the required little bit of paper from Netsafe, Sonja Lawson immediately https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9bVkteTNiUWptdjNMS3dLa01yUVJtcjJnRVE4/
filed proceedings in Court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, claiming that she has been seriously harmed by the post above.

She seeks a correction and an apology, and the writer is only too happy to oblige, this is the correction, you're reading it - a correction of the perjurous statements and cobbled together, delusional, deliberately misleading half truths and blatant lies that she has written and filed in the Courts. 

Hunter has around 200 convictions some of them very serious, Sonja Lawson also has a number of convictions, they both seem to specialise in fraud, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/94964491/fantastist-conman-gets-chance-to-sue-probation-officers-attorneygeneral

The allegedly harmful communication is a link to a report regarding a convicted con artist and career criminal, Brian Hunter and his "work" for dodgy local lawyer Chris Tennet, which has been the subject of numerous complaints to the Law Society.

Brian Hunter identified the common links between himself and Sonja Lawson early on, and began planning to take full advantage of them in collusion with his dodgy associates.  Part of this plan involved preparing a joint statement of claim for the Courts with Sonja, which she emailed me about two years ago.  Her handwriting is on the document below, showing the date she received it from her lawyer Seth Fraser.

Hunter discovered that MSD was using fake names in Courts and Tribunals in about 2015.  He knew that Sonja Lawson also had information regarding this, and he and lawyer Seth Fraser both sent me messages at various times asking me about Sonja as they knew I was assisting her and that she was communicating with me and sending me information relating to her matters.

At the same time, Hunter was also cited in relation to a matter involving Arthur Taylor, widely referred to in media reports as a "career criminal" and "jailhouse lawyer". The Human Rights Review Tribunal rejected his Hunter's evidence in Taylor's claim, saying he wasn't a reliable witness, and the most recent decision to date, in March 2019, has struck Hunter out from the proceedings entirely.

I alerted Sonja Lawson to the criminal background and lack of credibility of Hunter when she first showed me this document, as I realised it refered to Brian DAMIEN Hunter, not Brian NOEL Hunter, - her co-claimant, and questioned the fact that the claim cited an alias, Brian "Noel" Hunter when it is clear that the claim refers to the person known as Brian Damien Hunter, or XXX of Eketahuna.

Sonja repeatedly told me that lawyer Dr Tony Ellis, and lawyer Seth Fraser. had told her several times that they would only take on her case if Hunter was cited as co-claimant, in the claim to the United Nations under article 14 of the https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and other litigation.

Sonja has recently, and repeatedly, announced in public posts "for all to see" her allegations that Tony Ellis "told lies", didn't represent her competently, was "going to tell lies in Court" and a number of other things.  There is evidence of Sonja making these public statements.
 


The first bundle of https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9bVkteTNiUWptdjNMS3dLa01yUVJtcjJnRVE4/ Court documents can be accessed at this link.
The  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9ZGpTbTJpNUdtUDZjdXhPcmVjZ3BvbzFjb0Jn/ second bundle of Court documents are here.
The https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9OUJISDhmY1hMeUFMazkteGFTc3p6dDc1NHR3/ third bundle of documents are here.
The https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9Tms3UkhnVUswcXVTeHVKZWdKTHNsRnRMVG9z/ fourth bundle of documents are here.
The https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9TkZ2RkNVbDkyZ3RQRS1seGJuU1M5dXBweXk0/" fifth bundle of documents are here.  These claims grow more ridiculous by the minute.

So, after initiating communications with me to demand information about a serial conman named Brian Hunter and his bent lawyer mates, and their legal aid and WINZ scams, this woman now alleges that the post below is "threatening, intimidating, menacing, grossly offensive, indecent, obscene and [allegedly] clearly posted to harass [Ms Lawson] in more ways than one." 
Ms Lawson is a nasty, malicious, delusional, litigious, selfish little attention seeker.  She seems to thrive on such dramas and creates them at every opportunity.

Despite Sonja Lawson's claims to be so offended and "harmed" by the post copied above, she continues to fail to "unfriend" the writer, over a month after filing the Court action.

Sonja Lawson is an attention seeker.  She continues to spout her rubbish because she can't bear to be ignored.  Any normal person would report a post they deemed to be offensive to the platform concerned, in this case facebook, in the first instance, any reasonable person who claimed to be so offended would have deleted the post long ago, and severed communications by "unfriending" the alleged offender.  It's a simple matter, involving one click of the mouse on the little triangle next to the "Friends" button (highlighted in red) in the image above.  Sonja didn't do any of that, instead she preferred to spout more irrational, pointless nonsense instead - now demanding that "the people that are harassing [her] victimising her, calling her names, targetting her, etc, etc, and more threats about "taking it further.  She has a long history of "taking it further", more about that later, here are the laughable communications between Ms Lawson and her sister about this  - "unfriend yourself or I will" she says.  I wish she would get on with it then instead of wasting the time of the Court on this utter nonsense!  The onus is not on me to unfriend her - if she is offended it's the first thing she should do!  She has no right to demand I remove anything and everything that she deems unacceptable!

Its a simple matter to sever communications with someone on facebook, involving one click on the arrow on the right of the "Friends" button.  Two options are given - "unfriend" and "block contact".  Sonja Lawson refuses to do any of this, in the belief that the Court will award in her favour over this matter.  I'll save us all the trouble - here on the same website she's asked me to post her "corrections" for years, is the correction she asked for, and I apologise for hurting her delicate little feelings.  There.  Hardly need a Court case now do we?

Ironically, as well as Mr Hunter using a fake name (Noel) as co-complainant in Court proceedings with Ms Lawson, in a claim accusing MSD of using fake names in Court, but in another unfortunate coincidence, Ms Lawson has a long and well documented history of convictions for the very same things she is complaining about, only way worse, for sending offensive communications using phones, faxes, threatening to kill, as well as at least 15 convictions for benefit fraud, as well as numerous other convictions.

Ms Lawons's response clearly demonstrates that either she is cognitively impaired, or she is deliberately trying to waste the time of the Court, pervert the course of justice and defraud legal aid with her application for an amicus, as well as a highly dishonest and manipulative mindset. Ms Lawson is grossly offended and claims to be "harmed" by the information copied above, but she defends her own right to threaten to kill, and the kind of abuse documented below:

F

Seth Fraser was forced to apologise for the false allegation about edited emails, he is delusional, I did no such thing.

This decision states that Hunter is legally aided, and is well worth a read - showing how they simply waste the time of the Court.

The decision is at this link.  Para 30 confirms Hunter is in receipt of legal aid.  The rest of the decision reflects the appallingly unprofessional nature of Tennet and Hunter's efforts to hit the jackpot.

Here is a link to a decision showing how Ms Lawson and her lawyers like to get higher rates for legal aid payments by having the lawyer appointed as amicus curiae.

Here are some examples of what Ms Lawson considers to be acceptable communications:

The full decision can be accessed at this link.

There are many other decisions of the Courts in regard to the claims of Brian Hunter and Sonja Lawson, and many similarities in the claims, and in the manner they are usually disposed of in the Courts.

Sonja Lawson and Brian Hunter have been at this game for years.  The post below refers to the release of two Minutes from the Social Security Appeals Authority, indicating that the Ministry of Social Development have been routinely using fake names in legal proceedings, which is a very serious matter of jurisprudence, and a breach of Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

The judgment relating to the three CIV claims referred to above is at this link, and it shows that Ms Lawson's boasts are without foundation and seriously exaggerated.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nyefAk4eAnxzd0CS7F0H2l474cHsO7g_/

A growing number of Court decisions prove that Ms Lawson is a serial offender in the area of sending offensive communications, and that she doesn't consider there to be anything wrong with sending offensive communications.

In 2013 Ms Lawson was convicted of sending a considerable number of extremely offensive communications to various people.

She demonstrates a pattern of obsessive behaviour and a total lack of insight into the dysfunctional nature of that behaviour let alone the effect of her irrational and aggressive and obsessive behaviour on other people.

She insists on defending her right to send the kind of communications referred to in the judgments above, and she defends threatening to kill people, but on the other hand she claims to be "seriously harmed" by the innocuous facebook post above - which was simply shared with the best of intentions in response to her never ending communications to me demanding information on her co-claimant the serial fantasist and compulsive fraudster Brian Hunter, in regard to their various frauds and numerous baseless Court claims.



Despite the fact that she sent me around twenty emails about Brian Hunter, telling me how she is going to deal to him and several lawyers, and she has known that he and her are co-claimaints in a court case for at least two years, I have heard that she now intends denying that she knows anything about Brian Hunter.  That would be perjury under the circumstances, given the evidence.