The case has been moved to the High Court with pleas due in December. Virtually all the facts are still suppressed.
According to court documents, the man “threatened expressly to endanger the safety of any person, namely infants, by releasing infant milk formula into the Chinese market contaminated with traces of 1080, with intent to cause Federated Farmers Incorporated to act in accordance with the will of [the man] to cause Federated Farmers to pressure the New Zealand Government to stop the use of 1080 in New Zealand ”.
That part about method sounds new, though. At least I hadn’t seen it expressed that authoritatively before. What’s still not clear is why he wanted 1080 use to be stopped, and there are several possible reasons which opposing factions will probably champion against each other (as has already been happening) until it’s made more clear.
I also hadn’t previously noticed any info that he was specifically threatening to release it into the Chinese market, which the above seems to be suggesting.
There's now a guilty plea. The name remains suppressed.
Also, in yesterday’ news, Animal Control Products (1080 importer and bait manufacturer) has reportedly been cleared of involvement.
It’ll be interesting to learn about where the raw 1080 was sourced.
Thanks for the updates.
It’ll be interesting to learn about where the raw 1080 was sourced.
Stolen? Reverse-engineered? Fraudulently purchased?
We know that the man is (was?) involved with a pest control business and I'd imagine that people working in that area would have access to raw 1080. However the list of people with that level of access to the pure version of the chemical would be extremely limited, and that may have provided a viable line of enquiry for the Police.
The sentencing date is to be announced after the facts hearing in February. I guess we shouldn't expect to hear any more details until then.
A Golden Bay couple already reeling after a police raid last March were shocked to learn of an earlier secret search of their home.
Rolf and Ute Kleine, who run teahouse and bakery Takaka Infusion, received an email last week from Detective Senior Sergeant Aaron Pascoe that attached a signed copy of a search warrant and a "postponement notice". That notice had enabled police to keep the search secret for 12 months.
"We had no clue," Rolf Kleine said. "I had to read it three times. "I thought 'that can't be'."
A property record sheet attached to the email showed police took hair samples from brushes, four pieces of used dental floss, a sheet of A4 paper with a print test and two plain sheets of A4 paper.
Wet and dry swabs were taken from two toothbrush heads and handles. Police also copied electronic storage items including computers, an iPad, external disk drive and a USB stick.
stirring up a surveil ants nest...
secret search of their home
The Kleines strike me as the kind of decent New Zealanders who would have happily supplied DNA samples had they been extended the civilised courtesy of being asked and had the situation explained to them, maybe it's the cyber squad who are more gung-ho about clandestinely gathering data?
On whose directive did they leap to the CIA playbook from square one?
it's not just whether Mr and Mrs Kleine have any ongoing concerns about these Police actions, it's whether we all should...
...and we should
- these actions do not speak of a firm grip on the basics of the reality of a civilised and inclusive society, they speak of fear and control.
When this story originally broke I thought, 'Somebody is out to discredit the anti-1080 brigade.' It was something the SIS might have dreamed up... send one little envelope containing white powder and everyone involved with the anti-1080 campaign is immediately discredited as a terrorist. Effective. And evil.
We now know that the blackmail had a purely financial motive. But if the police took this line with the Kleines, how many other people received similar treatment? As the Kleines appear to be gentle pacifists, I'd imagine almost every known anti-1080 activist in the country was subject to similar secretive searches. And if that is the case, then a number of 'postponement notices' will be due to expire shortly and we may hear further shocking tales like this one.
NZ used to be a perfectly good, honest little country. But at some point our police and security services became empowered to adopt these Stasi-like tactics.
Perhaps excessive paranoia is a compulsory condition of five eyes membership. The secret search of the Kleines, the massive overkill demonstrated in the raid on Kim Dotcom and the dirty tactics employed for the illegal search of Nicky Hager's home suggest this is increasingly the case.
The Kleines strike me as the kind of decent New Zealanders who
Yes, probably. Though from what I've seen of the 1080 debate in the last few years, and some of the people involved, I'm reluctant to draw conclusions about people based solely on how they're presented in a media article like this one. The entire argument is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, group polarisation with confirmation bias, plenty of other fallacies, and occasional subterfuge. People on each side frequently accuse the other of blatantly lying, fabricating evidence, generally making stuff up or ignoring evidence. I know that most involved are decent people, but there are certainly a few involved who are hardly decent in their actions, but can present themselves as such. Who these people are will depend on who you ask.
it’s not just whether Mr and Mrs Kleine have any ongoing concerns about these Police actions, it’s whether we all should…
Exactly. Learning more about the grounds on which the warrant was issued for a secret search would be a good start. Is that very easy to discover?
...but there are certainly a few involved who are hardly decent in their actions, but can present themselves as such. Who these people are will depend on who you ask.
So just like politics then...
So just like politics then…
And the'type' of person you are depends on what side you are on.
And, quite often, you're forced into choosing a side.
If you are the person who looks at the evidence about a substance, looks at the reasons given for distributing that substance in a widely dispersal manner, looks at the regulations devised to protect from 'off target' application and see with your own eyes (and through the evidence of others) that those protective regulations are completely ineffective, then as a "decent" New Zealander you would speak up.
Maybe loudly....because the voices that speak out against the official line have to raise themselves.
If, perchance, after speaking up in a friendly, respectful manner you fall victim to harassment and intimidation from the people you have officially requested to follow the rules for your family's safety....and....you are put in a position when you are forced to exercise your right to defend yourself....then a world of shit rains down upon you and your household.
Now, you used to be one of those 'decent New Zealanders' who would happily cooperate with the local constabulary...
Sleeping Dogs - pull up a couch...
Yet this old machine needs an update (according to the three messages that popped up!) and I fear loading more onto the hard drive just might push it over the edge. (If left on for more than half an hour...the cooling fan makes more noise than the washing machine spinning out! And then there's the burning smell)
However...a tune, we can cope with
So just like politics then…
Yes and no. I don’t think there’s so much in the way of high level personal agendas and ulterior motives as often seems to happen in politics.
The 1080 argument is largely a fight directly about stuff people strongly believe, and as Rosemary said it’s hard to be involved at all without picking a side. Generally on one side are people who strongly believe its use by government agencies is wiping out our native fauna and poisoning our water supplies. Generally on the other are people who strongly believe it doesn’t do either of these things in any significant way, and that without its immediate and widespread application for the combined control of possums, stoats and rats, we’re signing the extinction warrant for blankets of our native flora and fauna in the wild by the not-very-distant future.
I think the combination of strong conviction of being right, combined with signficance of the consequences, is enough to explain why a few people probably take an ends-justifies-means approach towards making points and justifying claims, hence my earlier comment about that happening. But, I also can’t see how anyone taking any view in this could rationally conclude that threatening babies with 1080 could possibly further their agenda. It’ll be interesting to eventually find out who and why, if there even is a why that makes any vague sense.
Also, the Police had better have a damn good reason for having needed a secret search warrant, and a judge had better have had an equally good reason for authorising it. Based on other recent happenings, though, I don’t hold my hopes very high. How frequently are secret search warrants used? Is it only available when there’s an alleged terrorism threat?
We now know that the blackmail had a purely financial motive.
Well that's nice and tidy eh? No other motive need be sought, no need to look any further then.
Now, if you were going to do this as a "False Flag" operation, what would you do?.
How frequently are secret search warrants used? Is it only available when there’s an alleged terrorism threat?
this seems to meet that description, to be fair
I wonder if all those who had official access to the 'white powder' form of 1080 were searched, in secret?
If I were running the investigation I'd start with those people....then search their email and phone records....contact all their contacts....
If I were running the investigation I’d start with those people
What if you just wanted to look at a specific group of people, who'd be first?
I've been searching the law as best as I can, and I can't find a requirement for a terrorism threat. I'll happily submit to someone who's actually qualified to interpret law.
As I can see, in the Search and Surveillance Act, all of Part 4 seems to be about search warrants.
Within that, section 131 requires that Police notify the occupier.
BUT, section 134 then states that with an application a judge can postpone the notification period for up to 12 months if they're satistisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing notification would indanger any person's safety, or prejudice ongoing investigations.
Section 135 then states that new applications can be made if the period needs to be extended further, but it can only be done once and for up to another 12 months.
Have these provisions from sections 134 and 135 always been there, or were they introduced with terrorism changes, despite not requiring anything resembling terrorism?
It brings to mind a few questions about how it's used. eg:
* How frequently do police and judges use this in day-to-day operations?
* What reasoning was used to justify that their knowledge of this search might put people in danger or prejudice the investigation?
* Do police always apply for 12 months and judges always sign it off, or was this exceptionally long?
* Why did Police wait the entire 12 months to tell them, when there was presumably zero risk after it became clear that they weren't involved?
In various 1080 facebook forums, the suppositions I've seen are that it has something to do with the letters this couple sent to Fonterra earlier, added to police apparently thinking the threat came from someone with English as a second language (and based on that, the language history of the guy in court could also be interesting). Last year the couple had already noted they'd written strongly worded letters expressing concern that 1080 drops near dairy farms might result in contamination of milk products including baby formula. To me it seems a big extrapolation to assume that someone who'd write a letter saying that (if that's really all it said) would actively threaten babies, or anyone. I'd hope Police had more to go on to justify not simply asking them stuff, or at least notifying them of the search when it happened.
Thanks. So it seems that this really is a new thing, unless the previous law also allowed secret searches.
It'd be interesting to know how frequently Police are using it.
At the time Media were looking at the changes from their point of view. I kept saying under the misuse of drugs act, Police could enter if they suspected misuse then they could discover other illegal activity which is what used to happen. The changes reprinted in '15 are some light reading, NOT!