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