SkyGate: Judge Forrest Lost in Woods Clutching at Legal Straws on Dismissing Trespass Charges against Dissident Duo
A strange trial of a seasoned independent media duo commenced May 7 2024 at the Manukau District Court in South Auckland, New Zealand, following their spectacular arrests 15 months prior. The court heard the pair 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 — 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’.
The New Zealand Crown’s case against Gunn and Clark balanced on the legality of trespass over their filming without permission from the Airport Company.
However, the defence proved that their enterprise, FreeNZ Media, was not a commercial for profit trading entity, and therefore Auckland International Airport Limited had no legal authority to evict the pair. Yet, they faced charges for trespass, and resisting arrest. Gunn also faced a charge for assault in the ‘judge-alone’ trial.
The prosection’s case was in tatters once the defence had dismantled the two charges for trespass. Yet, the judge allowed the resisting arrest charges to remain.
Moreover, the charge for assault against Liz Gunn also remained at the end of the first day, despite the accuser admitting the touch was both brief and not a grip. And, it seemingly was apparent to everyone, but the defence, the police and the judge that the touch was not meant as an assault, but to get the security guard’s attention.
And, yet the Airport security coordinator had not established she had a legal right to have the film crew ejected. The big professional camera mislead her, it seems. Despite initiative of the accused cameraman supplying sound synced with the Airport’s SkyGate surveillance footage, the Airport’s Security Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, remained steadfast she had done her job properly.
Furthermore, so did the Police, whose game-plan for the court hearing fell apart.
They were shown by the footage, and the accompanying audio track, to have slammed both the cameraman and the reporter to the Arrivals Lounge floor, in 10 and 18 seconds, respectively. The brutality, swiftness and and arrogance displayed in the footage was palpable. ThePolicemen’s lack of remorse in court was witnessed by the gallery. And it became apparent a jury would have found the scene disturbing.
The Court heard the Senior Constable, Erich Postlewaight — who grievously assaulted reporter, Liz Gunn, who was 63 at the time — brag “you can get a lot done in 18 seconds”, while under cross examination. The brag drew scorn from the gallery.
And the Court was told by the former TVNZ Late Edition One News anchor “I can’t do my own bra up,” due to her injuries. Gunn also emphasized that “size doesn’t matter”, in regard to the big camera that Clarke had been wielding, before she burst out laughing at the lurid connotation of what she said. In spite of the defence lawyer, Matthew Hague, making several attempts to have all of the charges dismissed, the judge metaphorically clutched at legals straws.
Meanwhile, the case itself hung on by a thin thread that may have been stretched beyond its theoretical limits — if only the ‘elephant’ occupying the otherwise empty jury seating had been named in the court record. For the ‘elephant in the court-room’ was free speech rights; Gunn’s little media outfit had been under the gun.
And while a jury was not called for this ‘minor case’, the conspicuous absence of Gunn’s former employer, Television New Zealand, also mirrored that of it’s broadcasting rival, the soon-to-be defunct Newshub. The no-show revealed theatre.
Former Māori Television news and current affairs editor, Steve Snoopman, finds that the reason for dragging out this Kafka-esque clown show theatre, is an attempt to ‘save face’ for the Police, the Crown Law Office, and Auckland International Airport.
The final day of the case is set for Friday 10 May, at the Manukau District Court.
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. I apologize for the mistake.
Trespass Dismantled By ‘The Hague’
Manukau District Court, Auckland, New Zealand:
JUDGE JANEY FORREST CLUTCHED at legal straws in a trial on Tuesday 7 May 2024, after the defence pulled the ‘keystone’ from the ‘archway’ of the New Zealand Crown’s case against a former TVNZ news anchor and a former CNN cameraman.
The case involved charges of trespass, resisting arrest and assault following the spectacular arrests of the pair in 18 seconds flat, at the arrivals lounge inside the Auckland International Airport, in the early evening of Saturday February 25 2023.
The accused, former TVNZ news anchor Liz Gunn and former freelance cameraman Jonathan Clark, 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’.
Gunn and Clark had doggedly followed the Patelesio family’s heart-breaking plight for help since July 2022, when they were subjected to humiliating hostility, ostracization, and shaming. They wouldn’t submit to edicts to take Pfizer’s shots.
At the afternoon session, beginning 3:40pm, defence lawyer, Matthew Hague, applied for all charges to be dismissed, claiming the Police evidence failed to satisfy section 147 of the Criminal Procedures Act 2011; therefore there was no case to answer.
Hague essentially argued a transgression of law had occurred on the part of the accusing parties, Auckland International Airport Limited and New Zealand Police.
Auckland Airport’s SkyGate Security Team Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, told the court she was called by radio and directed by the Airport’s shift manager to confront the pair for undertaking unauthorized filming. Kolodeznaya said they were using a professional camera and that the reporter was not listening to “my point of view.”
Yet, Kolodeznaya failed to prove her assumption that Gunn and Clark were a trading for profit commercial media enterprise filming without permission at the Auckland International Airport Limited (“Auckland Airport”). Despite Gunn telling her that their work was voluntary, and they were there to film a family that they helped to come to New Zealand, Kolodeznaya continued to assume they were a commercial media enterprise that had not gained permission of the Airport Company to shoot.
The legislation for governing the airport on the Ihumātao Peninsula — which was gained by brutal a conquest plot during the New Zealand Masonic Revolutionary War of 1860-72 — is the Auckland International Airport By-laws Approval Order 1989.
Justice Forrest was handed a paper copy of the Airport’s governing legislation. Hague continued cross-examining the witness, after her eyeballs read the relevant subsection.
According to the Airport By-laws, commercial filming activity is permitted only for accredited media, or with the express permission of the Auckland Airport’s CEO.
Mr Hague pointed out to Kolodeznaya, that clause 6 shows that any non-commercial filming does not need authorization. Meekly, the SkyGate Security Team Coordinator said “I can only answer to the training procedure in place”, despite her being employed as a security coordinator for 12 years at the International Airport.
Without establishing whether or not they were a for-profit commercial trading entity, Kolodeznaya had breached the boundaries of the governance by-law. Gunn and Clark operate a not-for-profit entity called FreeNZ Media, which produces podcasts, interviews, and written reports on various online platforms, and runs on donations.
These facts were not disputed by Police, their lawyer Jerome Beveridge, or the Airport.
Indeed, Kolodeznaya volunteered she did not know they were a volunteer group, filming a family associated covid anti-vaccine content. This remark drew laughter from the public gallery, which was filled with FreeNZ Media supporters.
The public gallery were served with a brief lecture on respect for court witnesses, by Judge J. Forrest, who spoke throughout with a becalmed appearance befitting of a court-room upholding a naïvely Smurfish doctrine that ‘all [were] equal before the law’.
But, in this troubled land down under, neighbouring the one where women glow and men plunder — this legal proceeding riffed with a Kafka-esque style of The Trial.
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. Judge Forrest ‘seemed’ unaware Kolodeznaya had set in train special pleading locomotive from the moment she radioed for support to have Gunn and Clark ejected for trespass — as any newsroom possessing a copy of Professor T. Edward Damer’s book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, could readily identify.
Damer defines special pleading as:
“Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of personal interest, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception.”
— T. Edward Damer. (2009). Attacking Faulty Reasoning
Despite her 12 years in the job, Kolodeznaya failed to establish, accept, or believe Gunn’s explanation that their enterprise, FreeNZ Media, was a donation-funded non-profit venture, which meant the media duo did not require special permission to film.
The judge was calm, like a Hindu Cow; with no expectation that any scared cows of the regime will be shattered in her court-room.
The court was shown the Auckland Airport’s surveillance footage that had been synchronized with the audio recorded by Mr Clark’s camera via Gunn’s sound-gun.
The sound — synchronized with the otherwise silent surveillance footage — revealed that Gunn and Clark learned that Kolodeznaya was escalating the matter when the SkyGate Security Coordinator radioed for assistance to have them trespassed.
On hearing this call, Gunn could be heard exclaiming “Oh, you’re calling the police!”
Under cross-examination by Mr Hague, the SkyGate Security Team Coordinator claimed she could not remember if she had advised them that they would be trespassed. She added the excuse that the incident occurred over 12 months ago.
It seems Kolodeznaya hadn’t refreshed her mind-banks with either an incident report, or her statement to police, nor with a court affidavit — that presumably were filed.
Previously, Gunn could be heard asking Kolodeznaya three times what law was she operating under, to have justification to tell them to stop filming. At no time did the airport official ask or instruct the independent media crew to leave the airport lounge.
Kolodeznaya told the court that the Airport shift manager was directing her, including telling Kolodeznaya to walk away and to cease talking to the reporter.
She walked to the Airport Help Desk located about 7 to 10 meters away from where Gunn and Clark were standing to grab the Trespass Book, Kolodeznaya told the court.
Meanwhile, the Airport Monitoring Team called the Police, who were told that an Airport staffer had been assaulted by a camera crew conducting unauthorized filming.
By claiming this assault, Kolodeznaya appears to have shifted the matter from a civil dispute to a criminal situation, to justify a swift police response. It also had the effect of shifting jurisdiction with heftier impacts than may impinge on the accused, such as liberty to travel to other territories on a far-flung planet endearingly called ‘the world’.
“Or My Glock”
Up next, the court heard testimony from Constable Robett Luong, who arrested Mr Clark — after 10 seconds. He told the lawyer acting for the Police, Jerome Beveridge, that he was called to an incident with Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight sometime between 7.00pm and 7:30pm on February 25 2023. His vagueness was subsequently corrected by Wellington barrister, Mr Hague, who prompted Constable Luong that the call-out time was actually 7.20pm. Luong admitted to the short of the matter.
With his customary polite style, Hague prompted his opponent to refer to him as “my learned friend”. Amid this dual of passive aggressive exchanges, the court theatrics resembled a competitive tennis match — absent the John McEnroe outbursts of “you cannot be serious.” And all the while, the metaphorical ‘elephant in the courtroom’ watched from the lonely space where the jury would’ve been seated — but for a ‘judge-alone trial’. For the central farcical fact remained, there were no grounds to prosecute.
The two charges for resisting arrest stood on the trespass charge, which were dismissed by 4 o’clock by Forrest, as mentioned previously. Yet, they remain to be contested when the court reconvenes Friday 10 May. As the Snoopman shall show, the reason for dragging out this Kafka-esque clown show theatre, is an attempt to ‘save face’ for the Police, the Crown Law Office, and Auckland International Airport.
As with the surveillance footage shown to the first witness, SkyGate Security Coordinator Anna Kolodeznaya — Constable Luong and Senior Constable Postlewaight, were also shown the Auckland Airport’s surveillance footage that was synced with the sound recorded by Mr Clark. However, the released surveillance video only contained footage from two cameras, despite the large size of the arrivals hall.
Yet, it became clear from this footage and sound that both of the accused hadn’t been warned they would be arrested if they did not leave the Airport Lounge immediately upon just one request to leave from Police. The sound — synchronized with the otherwise silent surveillance footage — revealed that Gunn and Clark were informed they were under arrest after they were pushed to the ground by the two policemen.
Constable Luong, who swore to tell the truth, opened by stating they were called to an incident where two people were filming, and had assaulted an Airport staff member and were refusing to leave. Beveridge asked Luong why he stepped in to confront Clark after just 10 seconds into the encounter. The Constable, with four years policing experience, said Mr Clark had directed his camera at Senior Constable Postlewaight.
It seems the Constable and his partner’s game-plan was to stop free press rights, as an entitled narcissist rockstar might, to make a scene. Except, their escalation occurred against the backdrop of a draconian period when liveried civil servants — who were non-player characters — took on inflated roles like they were aspirant minor villains in a corny graphic novel because governments gave permission to bully any ‘resistors’.
Under cross examination, Luong went on to claim to Mr Hague, that he didn’t know what caused Mr Clark to fall to the floor, despite earlier admitting to Mr Beveridge that he had both of his hands on the cameraman’s shoulders. Loung justified this application of force because he claimed Mr Clark was “not adhering to instructions.”
Three times in a row, Constable Luong could be heard yelling at Mr Clark that he was under arrest after the camera-man had ‘fallen’ to the floor, from the force of Luong pushing him as he tried to maintain his balance stepping backwards, while holding his camera. With this footage synced with the sound, Constable Luong was forced to face his own aggressive disorderly behaviour while in full tactical gear.
Constable Luong in an automated vocal tone to Crown Counsel, Mr Beveridge, said, “Considering all my options, I considered empty hand tactics reasonable at the time.”
Judge Janey Forrest questioned what empty hand tactics (EHT) entailed. Luong explained gaining compliance with the hands, as opposed to using the accessories he was carrying, which he named “baton, pepper spray, taser — or my Glock.”
Earlier, when Hague had challenged Luong over his use of force, Luong hadn’t mentioned he was armed with a lethal 9mm Glock handgun; a ‘distance weapon’.
Mr Hague established the Constable had a current qualification for use of force before presenting to him and Justice Forrest with a copy of a diagram from the New Zealand Police’s Tactical Use Framework Training Manual. The diagram is used for explaining the handling of situations where Operational Threat Assessments (TENR) are required. Hague had Luong look at the diagram handed to him to identify the active noun written the whole way round the outer ring circle: communication.
The lawyer for the defence said to Constable Luong “would you agree there is no bylaw rule that allows for the use of force to enforce any bylaw?”
Reluctantly, Luong agreed, “Um, yeah”, as he sat in the witness box seat.
Having unbraided Constable Luong’s prior proposition that the two policemen had the legal position to use force to enforce a bylaw rule dispute over filming, he pointed out to the policeman of about four years experience that it was only a matter of 18 seconds from the time that Constable Postlewaight opened the encounter to Jonathan Clark being yelled at that he was under arrest — after he had been pushed to the floor.
After Hague played Luong the synced up footage of the encounter, the learned Wellington barrister asked the Constable, “Are you telling me that there was no more communication that could have been used to defuse the situation?”
Constable Loung replied, “They were aggressive.” Mr Hague played the footage off his lap-top once again for the Manukau District Court, and then he paused the scene, after Gunn asked for clarification over what law the policemen were applying. “That’s aggressive to you?” Hague asked. “They were argumentative,” replied the Constable.
Hague was too refined to shout, “Are you serious!” He said, “You said Postlewaight had referenced the bylaw. He didn’t did he?” Luong replied unequivocally, “No”.
It became apparent to the Snoopman and others in the public gallery that the Police witness had not had the opportunity to see this audio-synced up footage. The Police tactic to delay the release of the footage had worked against the Crown Constabulary.
The unbraided Constable was asked if Mr Clark was arrested for trespass?
Constable Luong replied that he arrested Mr Clark for disorderly behaviour.
The theatrical farce continued when the third Police witness, Senior Constable Postlewaight, was called. He did not appear through the door he had earlier exited at the end of a procedural process, where it was agreed he would wait until called.
Beveridge walked out to the corridor, where a spillover of supporters stood. He returned, saying he could not locate his witness. At 12.45, Forrest said the court would reconvene at 2pm. Amid the public gallery filing out, I remarked to a Mr Chicken that at times like this, a court sketch artist would be opportune as I pointed to Beveridge.
Mr Chicken asked me if I had a spare pen, and he requested a piece of paper. So, I tore a sheet from the 1B5 40-leaf class book I’d grabbed as I rushed to get out the door after sleeping past an alarm; but woke to a tui singing a clichéd tune about waking up.
Beveridge was standing near the King’s Crown-sponsored witness box with his cellphone to his left ear, while Luong stood nearby. Chicken drew a sketch of Luong.
Had Postlewaight had privileged access to the court CCTV footage, such that he could disappear at just the right time? Or, was he on a weight-lightening ‘call with Nature’?
I found the ‘cafe’, which was a tiny dairy that sold neither Occam’s Razors, nor fresh hand-made food. And nor, did it have any shelves of books that might shift the brain-waves of the testifying Constabulary, the serving judiciary, or the administrative staff above that of either half-wit; nor past the level of mid-wit monkeys, like those who oversaw a cultist pivot to totalitarian techno-feudal tyranny from March 2020 onward.
“You Can Get Alot Done in 18 Seconds”
At 2 o’clock, a lunched Senior Constable swaggered across the courtroom from the door he was to have appeared via, one hour and three quarters prior.
He carried his blue police hat, which featured the black and white checkers strip symbolizing the enduring penetration of New Zealand by Freemasonry, since they had wrested control off the indigenous and aboriginal peoples during the Colonial Era.
After swearing to tell the truth before the presence of an invisible super-being that evidently goes by the descriptor, ‘the Almighty God’, the evidence-based legal proceeding continued. Firstly, Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight, identified himself for the court as the Policeman wearing the police hat in the paused video. He answered that he was a Senior Constable at the Auckland Airport Police Station.
Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight explained to Mr Beveridge that the call-out occurred because the Airport Company wanted individuals removed from the premises because they had been trying to interview staff and had assaulted a staff member. He said they talked to security, but he couldn’t remember the discussion exactly, adding the “game-plan” was to remove them from the airport.
The Senior Constable said the “sargeant” directed us to them, since at first they walked past Gunn and Clark. Postlewaight said he said something to the effect that “we require you two to leave” and then “the female shoved her hand in my face — now known to be a microphone,” he added sardonically. The Senior Constable claimed Gunn’s “purpose was to interview me rather than anything else”. The Constable remarked the reporter was “saying something about what the issue was, something along the lines of what law — airport bylaws.” He arrested Gunn for trespass, he said.
Thus, the Senior Constable’s truth claim about Gunn shoving her hand in his face was incongruous with his truth claim that she was intent on interviewing him. In other words, his sarcastic remark about her hand being subsequently known as a microphone, betrayed an awareness that there was nothing wrong with his appraisal of whether the object was a hand or a microphone. The problem was the Senior Constable didn’t like being challenged about points of law governing his actions.
He told the court the female was under arrest, and he did so because she refused to leave. He said he grabbed her right hand that he claimed she shoved in his face, and she pulled away, and was yelling at associates and half got away, and she called for help. He said he told three or four individuals “to back off, or words to that effect.”
Beveridge asked what Gunn was saying at that point? Postlewaight replied that Gunn was “screaming and yelling, going on about something or rather, while leaving and outside the terminal.” Ergo, Postlewaight inflected his testimony with belittlement.
Postlewaight said the Trespass Notice was filled by Airport staff after they had removed both “alleged offenders” from the terminal, and he served the notice.
The Senior Constable defended the actions of himself and Constable Luong, saying the media pair had been requested to leave by the lawful occupier, and they were requesting police to assist with the trespass, since the film crew were trespassing, and they refused to leave. In spite of being asked by Gunn what laws he was applying, he told the court he believes he did not state the particular relevant legislation.
He added that the powers applied were the Trespass Act and also the Auckland Airport legislation; in particular part 6, regarding filming, part 7 for behaviour, and part 10 for commercial undertakings. Senior Constable Postlewaight said he took a photo of the cameraman holding the trespass notice, outside the terminal.
Mr Hague established that Senior Constable Erich Postlewaight and Constable Robett Loung lunched together. Postlewaight claimed the pair did not discuss the trial.
My withering eyes drifted to where the ‘elephant in the courtroom’ was still sitting — without taking a lunch-break. Except now, she had been joined by the magical creatures exiled by Prince Farquaad. I looked behind me, to guage the ‘Gallery’.
There was no Farquaad that I could see in the District Court Public Gallery Universe, where women know and men wonder what the hell happened to New Zealand.
Clearly, I was imagining — how things may change if humanity didn’t wear masks.
Postlewaight claimed the reason for confronting Mr Hague’s clients was justified because they were filming at the airport for commercial purposes. Hague countered, asking if he had been told about the purposes of their filming. Postlewaight answered “No.” He quickly added, “But I would have had permission — the duty manager had permission,” he said — up against the ropes. On this point, Hague raised the matter of the Airport Bylaws. Postlewaight stated to legally film you have to be the accredited media outlets or have permission. Hague asked Postlewaight, “The Airport Company did not explain why they thought it was commercial filming did they?” The cop replied, “Not that I can recall.” So, that would make it wrong to stop them filming, would it not?” asked Mr Hague. “Yes,” Senior Constable Postlewaight admitted.
Hague played the video sequence with the accompanying sound for Postlewaight to watch and hear. Gunn could be heard replying with a friendly tone, “Hello” in response to the cop’s, “Hi”. Postlewaight added, “We need you to leave”. Gunn asked three times, “What’s the law?” At just 18 seconds into the encounter, Postlewaight had Gunn on the floor, at which point he had shoved her under his arresting weight.
The lawyer for Gunn and Clark challenged the Senior Constable, saying, “There was nothing stopping you taking time to communicate and de-escalate.”
Postlewaite claimed their decision was “based on the history they weren’t going to comply.” Hague countered saying, “I’m not asking you to rationalize.”
Beaten, Postlewaight revealed his thuggishness when he said, “You can get a lot done in 18 seconds.” Hague metaphorically slugged his client’s chief accuser in the guts, when he stated for the Court (to be clear about what a brute the cop was that evening in the arrivals hall), “Liz Gunn pulled away from you, because she was in pain.”
“I don’t know, I can’t know that,” the entitled blue-uniformed thug replied.
A palpable murmur of scorn could be heard from the public gallery.
Beveridge tried in vain to rescue the case with points about the trespass assistance of the Police being requested by the lawful occupier of the Airport. But, it was clear that the Police had not merely failed —rather they actively avoided doing any due diligence to establish the lawfulness of the request. With their position dismantled, Mr Hague requested the case be dismissed. He submitted the proposition that a criminal conviction for assault could not be sustained. Judge Forrest countered that it was a “relatively hostile exchange going on.” Hague replied it “was not unlawful to get someone’s attention.” The judge called for a 15-minute break to consider the issues.
Twenty five minutes later, Hague re-submitted that the case be dismissed. He said the basis for the trespass charges weren’t satisfied. He said the assault against Liz Gunn should be thrown out because the contact was a momentary “trifling touch”, with no intention for assault. The question arises, was Justice Forrest advised to carry on?
Because, even the New Zealand Herald’s Steve Braunias — who showed up to report on the proceedings, as serious as his satirist’s brain could muster — was forced by the circumstances to admit the case itself was hanging by a thread at the end of the day.
The 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.
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.
After all, New Zealand’s Establishment, includes the ‘Fourth Estate’ media, which acts ‘intuitively’ as the peripheral nervous system to protect the other three estates — the legislature, the administration, and the judiciary; especially in election year. Braunias, who amusingly cast Gunn as a “conspiracy hobbyist”, played with words like a tennis pro deftly varies his serves by angle and force, as with the volleys. Seasoned journos with a sixth sense see puppet people, while avoiding reporting about dead ones.
The prosecution’s case was facing the prospect of an ‘exile file’, which to Snoopman’s mind means it’s fit to be classified as a work of legal fiction. And it’s ‘author’ is asking to be kicked to infinity and beyond, to make allies with the foes of Buzz Lightyear.
At the end of lunchtime, outside the court, I called to a real friend who makes a bundle of cash outwardly pretending to have magical powers by making out he can manifest gifts for all children across the Christian World. (He emphasizes to children it’s not really about the presents; it’s really about being good, helpful and alert). I said I needed to stand by the door, because I needed to ensure I got inside the courtroom.
He followed me over a few steps, where I stated I wouldn’t have needed to claim a spot if I hadn’t neglected to bring my plastic grenades, to clear the crowd in the corridor.
Snoopman gestured to roll a grenade on the floor, and called out “Grenade!” The ‘covid conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer’ crowd laughed. Security didn’t flinch.
Behind me by the door was Mr Hague, the lawyer acting for Gunn and Clark.
I asked him whether the two Policemen lunching together breached the Court’s rules.
Hague said only if they discussed the trial. With extra sensory perception (ESP), Snoopman asked him, “isn’t that a tad naïve?” We eyed each other. He didn’t answer.
“I Can’t Do My Own Bra Up”
At 3:50pm, Liz Gunn (64) swore to tell the truth, and explained to the court that her cameraman, Jonathan Clark, and herself were there to film the arrival of a family who were coming to live in New Zealand. Gunn said the airport security woman was “aggressive, in our space” — meaning she had positioned herself very close. The former TVNZ journalist, studio show host and news anchor, added that the SkyGate Security Team Coordinator, Anna Kolodeznaya, “would not look at me in the eye”.
Gunn told the court that she uses her hands to communicate, and that she very gently touched her arm to get her attention. Kolodeznaya had claimed the pain level was “5 out of 10” on her subjective internal scale. She added this was because the contact site was the location of a previous injury. Gunn said she was “flabbergasted” to hear Kolodeznaya claim a “5 out of 10”. The touch was so light, Gunn added.
Kolodeznaya was not asked to prove she had a previous injury at the site she indicated on her arm, which appeared to be where vaccinations would be administered.
Gunn testified she heard the security woman call that they were being trespassed.
Before the police arrived, Gunn told the court she to the supporters to “stay calm.”
Postlewaight was “very gruff” she said, instructing the pair that they’d have to leave the airport. The other officer swang Jonathan around and tackled him, she said. Gunn described that she moved toward Jonathan, saying “excuse me, excuse me, what are you doing?” to Luong. The camera flew out of Mr Clark’s hand, and hit the floor.
She described how Postlewaight rapidly grabbed her fingers and was bending them over. He had yanked her right shoulder, arched it upward, and her arm bent over head and behind her back, she told the court. She continued, saying she felt a seering pain in her wrist, which he fractured, while he was bending her thumb, she said.
Hague asked, “what did you understand was happening?” Gunn replied, “I didn’t.”
Gunn cried briefly after recalling the violent assault, how quickly it had escalated, and how she had torn ligaments in her shoulder and arm and wrist. She can’t play tennis.
“I can’t do my own bra up,” the former TVNZ Late Edition One News anchor said.
This admission would have been embarrassing for the New Zealand Police; but for the fact that there were no crews from either of the two 6 o’clock bulletins, from Television New Zealand, and its retiring 36 year-old ‘competitive rival’, TV3’s Newshub.
Ironically, last year, 1News introduced Gunn as “the former broadcaster” without mentioning her association to the Crown-funded television network. In the story, “Conspiracy theorist Liz Gunn pleads not guilty to 3 charges” from March 23 2023, her former employer Television New Zealand did the bare minimum, and avoided investigating this incursion of free speech rights that are so crucial to journalism.
On May 7 2024, two newsrooms were present from NZ’s monopoly economy’s media cartel: the NZ Herald, and by default, NewsTalk ZB; both are owned by NZME; it’s rival the Stuff newspaper empire. 1News and Newshub had both described Liz Gunn as a “conspiracy theorist” when they reported her not guilty plea last year.
Gunn said to her lawyer, she was asking Postlewaight “under what law, then Jonathan was going down and then it was all on. It just escalated so quickly.”
While Liz Gunn was in the witness box, Beveridge asked to hear all the audio.
He challenged Gunn for bringing up Nazi Germany within 45 seconds of the SkyGate security coordinator approaching to tell them they could not film. In the footage, Gunn was heard saying to Anna Kolodeznaya that people’s freedoms were taken away little by little to start with. Beveridge said Gunn was talking over Kolodeznaya.
Gunn countered saying, “In those 45 seconds … she was obsessed with the size of the camera. It was not within her purview” to stop them filming, Gunn added, “The size doesn’t matter!” before laughing at the lurid connotations of what it sounded like to say the phrase “size doesn’t matter” in a court of law for a trial she felt was ludicrous.
The judge, Janey Forrest, called an end at 5 o’clock and adjourned until 10 May.
Outside the courtroom, Liz Gunn thanked the supporters for staying over the long day.
Once outside the courthouse, Gunn and Clark were interviewed by Samantha Costello from Counterspin Media, which — like FreeNZ Media, Voices For Freedom, and the NZ Daily Telegraph — was established in 2021, amid the censorship over dissenting voices.
Gunn and Clark talked about the case, and at times the exchanges with others present mocked the courtroom clown show, including how a touch could be construed as a common assault. There was a feeling that the day had revealed the legal proceeding to be farcical, and that when they returned, the Crown prosecutor would try to slur their character. Yet, Gunn and Clark appeared confident that they had proven they weren’t lying, or violent, nor acting unlawfully. Rather, their accusers had been shown to have acted without care for their duty to uphold the rights of two citizens lawfully filming.
To sum up, in spite of Mr Hague making several attempts to have all of the charges dismissed, the judge metaphorically clutched at legals straws. Meanwhile, the case itself hung on by a thin thread that may have been stretched beyond its theoretical limits, if only the ‘elephant’ occupying the otherwise empty jury seating area had been named in the court record. For the ‘elephant in the court-room’ was free speech rights.
And while a jury was not called for this ‘minor case’, the conspicuous absence of Gunn’s former employer, Television New Zealand, also mirrored that of it’s broadcasting rival, the soon-to-be defunct Newshub. The no-show revealed theatre.
The case resumes at Manukau for it’s last hearing session, at 10am on Friday.
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/
What a farce. Reading this, Solzhenitsyn sprung to mind. And Kafka. And Koestler. Excellent report.
Great reporting Steve Snoopman. Forest will no doubt be forced to grant the two heroes leave to counter claim for damages and defamation.