Court Action against the Government
Some of you may be aware of some of the issues that I have had over the past two or three years that have spilled over into issues with the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice. I will spare you many of the details for now but I have been assaulted a number of times and threatened a number of other times. Court staff in particular seem to use intimidation as their go to means of attempting to control people. To me that is simply assault – a threat of force that causes the other person to believe they have the present ability to carry out, to paraphrase the Crimes Act. In the most recent example the court staff tried to remove me apparently under the Court Security Act (so they said) just for not following instructions or obeying requests. A power I do not believe they have under that act. I asked to speak to a manager and then asked to be allowed to check the legislation and then to act accordingly. Instead two officers jumped on me and forced me to the floor and called police.
Over the past two weeks I have tried to take action in the District Court against the police and the ministry of justice. Most recently that was denied because the court claims that neither the NZ Police nor the Ministry of Justice are an artificial person and so I cannot list them as respondents in court action.
That seems contrary to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 which at s12 says
Subject to the provisions of this Act or any other Act, all civil proceedings which must be taken by, or may be brought against, the Crown under this Act may be commenced, heard, and determined in the same court and in like manner in all respects as in suits between subject and subject.
and at s14
Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other Act, civil proceedings under this Act against the Crown shall be instituted against—
(a)
the appropriate government department in its own name if the department may be sued apart from this section; or
(b)
the appropriate officer of the Crown in the name in which he or she may be sued on behalf of the Crown or of any government department if the officer may be sued on behalf of the Crown or of any government department apart from this section; or
(c)
the Attorney-General if there is no such appropriate department or officer or if the person instituting the proceedings has any reasonable doubt whether any and, if so, which department or officer is appropriate; or
(d)
any 2 or more of them jointly.
I am going to try to take the action against the Commissioner of Police and the CEO of the Ministry of Justice this week. My backup plan then is to take an action against the Attorney General (or the Crown).
I was referred by the court to a case DSW v Allan 1993 in which it was held that the Department of Social Welfare and the Inland Revenue Department were not separate “persons” but just separate administrative arms of the Crown who was the “person” to whom monies were owed in that case. To me this seems to be contrary to the Interpretation Act s29 which defines a person to include:
includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body
I would have considered a government department or the New Zealand Police as a body corporate.
The judge last week also claimed that the use of “he or she” qualified “person” so that I could not take action against an “artificial person”.
Does anyone have any experience or legal expertise that could help clarify for me who I need to name as a defendant in civil proceedings against the government.
Thanks
I suggest you read every article on the first page of kiwisfirst.com If that doesn’t convince you that Judges will go to any lengths to disregard the Law to protect themselves and Government Departments, nothing will. And that goes all the way to the “Supreme” Court. And we have no redress to the Privy Council now either. Corruption can remain firmly in the control of New Zealand hands.
Comment by golfa — Mon 31st July 2017 @ 9:50 am
Thanks for the grim message but we must keep trying.
Comment by Andrew McCarthy — Mon 31st July 2017 @ 1:47 pm
I’ve been I court a said said.
Judge.
This law (correctly referenced)
Says (read what the law said)
The judge replied.
No, I’m not allowing that in my court.
Good luck as I’m assuming you will have to climb all the way up to the Supreme Court of self interest.
Even then the law will be ignored whenever it’s needed to protect our corrupt system.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 31st July 2017 @ 5:27 pm
Wayne…..you have contradicted yourself………above you note the courts say these corporations are not artificial persons……which is correct, they are both legal persons and can both be legally sued.
Person in Latin is MASK…..we Have all been given a legal mask ….a legal fictional persona to which fines and punishment can be awarded.
A corporation is legally also a PERSON……..recall recently the Wanganui river was given legal personhood. The river is now a person, a corporation against which statutes can be enforced.
An artificial person in legal speak …would be everyone of us at birth…..naturally born to your natrural parents just before your birth certificate was created which then becomes your legal PERSON – your MASK in your given birth name.
Also do not confuse the legal term “natural person” ….this is also describing your legal “person” and not the “artificial person ” which would be a naturally born human of flesh and blood with no drivers licence or birth certificate.
A free living sheep would be an artificial person in legal speak because the sheep is simply a sheep living naturally on the land with no legal personhood or mask. You can’t fine a sheep ….. You can’t summons sheep and you most certainly cannot seek damages from sheep..sheep don’t have birth certificates creating a legal person nor are they natural persons at law.
So the judge is correct…. You can not enforce statutes against an artificial person…..eg.. A naturally born human who does not accept the legal mask of being a legal person. Nor against a sheep………which is what we humans have all become…..difference being we can talk.
Comment by Hornet — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 8:15 am
That’s confusing.
Given Names i.e. son or daughter of … Christian names.
Surname – comes from the Roman times of (over) name, by which the State identifies you.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 11:04 am
@Hornet I would also question your thinking – that you cannot enforce statues against the natural person.
Question: why do debts to the crown, created by statute, still exist after bankruptcy?
Civil Law, otherwise known, as law of the person. (One or both)
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 11:14 am
I think what’s he getting at is the crowns defence is to create technical arguments creating a position where they don’t exist in law. I do remember the government past new laws to protect its staff from being responsible for anything they do on behalf of the crown. I think the only person / non person left to prosecute is the attorney general. That in turn will probably result in the judge ruling the applicant has sued the wrong person / non person on a technicality.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 11:47 am
That would defeat the purpose of constitutional monarchy?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 12:02 pm
Yes
I don’t think calling our Legal system a Justice system applies too males complaining.
When was the last time the Governor General steped in and said “No you can’t do that” or “No that law is wrong” or “those offenders are not above the law”.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 12:42 pm
I think that you also have to throw into that picture the source of revenue, which in our recent origins has been In Land, but we see a progression to In Person.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 2:25 pm
This seems to be what has happened. I tried naming Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police. Which is what the Crown Proceedings Act seems to say. The court rejected that I believe unlawfully by the registrar going beyond her purview to reject the documents on a legal point. I asked for a review and the judge said she was correct while making a different ruling – she had claimed I could not name an organisation but the judge cited DSW v Allan (1993) where the judge said that he DSW and Inland Revenue were not “persons”. However the judge did rule that the crown was a person.
In the review I took the judge also suggested that “he or she” meant I needed to name natural persons.
My next step is to name Mike Bush the commissioner of police and Andrew Bridgman CEO of the Ministry of Justice. If that does not work I will name the crown and then attorney general. Possibly I will combine some of those respondents.
It seems when the act in question says “This act binds the crown” that I must be able to take action against the crown somehow.
Comment by WayneBurrows — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 4:47 pm
6 down under……not sure where you read that in my note……..for clarity you can and they do enforce statutes against a “natural person”.
To be clear…the legal term….a “natural person” is your legal identify Against which fines and punishment can be levied.
A corporation – can also legally be a “person”… Given a legal existence which can be sued for damages.
If confused read up on blacks law, and start to understand that everything is commercial law …. Governed by the Laws of commerce.
Contracts are a huge part of commercial law. An offer …an acceptance and a consideration ( something of value ).
I also suggest you study maxims in law and the laws of equity. Especially as these relate to civil law which affects us all here.
Comment by Hornet — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 4:51 pm
Wayne……you don’t have to name a “natural person” as we would think by Christian and surname…….you just name the corporation in your proceedings which is a “person” by legal definition.
Comment by Hornet — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 4:55 pm
@Hornet a natural person is a person in the ordinary sense of the word.
This has nothing to do with corporate or artificial persons.
Perhaps this is just a matter of explanation: that when a legal person is established for a natural person, it must include that natural person.
A natural person is the adult of a natural child who is born of another human.
Natural person and legal person while being two separate bodies are attached.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 5:16 pm
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Artifcial perons.
A natural person is a human being.
I used the terms in these senses.
Comment by WayneBurrows — Tue 1st August 2017 @ 10:18 pm
The language is deliberately confusing…..black magic and trickery to keep you confused……
On the entire issues of licence….corporate ID…you don’t need a licence to walk around your home or property. You are free at common law to move freely.
But once you step on to a road and agree to being a driver of a vehicle……see blacks laws. …..then you are deemed to be engaging in commerce while in control of a vehicle and so require a licence….your legal personhood…”which you happily hand over to the police when they ask for it…..you consent to being the legal “person” so named……with the same name as you received at common law birth.
Some may recall Maori were claiming recently to be travellers….moving freely between two locations….they are in fact correct…..once you admit to “driving” a legal term and present your “drivers licence” your corporate ID …..that’s why your name is spelt in all capital,letters…. you are then bound by statute, fines and punishment.
This goes back to Rome when those engaged in commerce on a roman road had to pay a fee to use the road…..same applie today……
The world is currently going through a battle…..those wanting to rule the entire planet by statutory man made law…..versus those wanting to live by the laws of nature…..natural law…the laws of God…….laws of land and culture at common law.
Nz sits on gods own at 42 degrees ……which is Pi …….and Kaikoura sits directly on 42 degrees ……..the ancients knew ..you do not go against the laws of nature…….sadly some today in power….did not learn that lesson,
If we go back to your personal property…..your home…..and your right to roam freely on it……you will all have noticed the encroachment by officials using the new health and safety act ….held in secret courts (like the family court)….who are drumming up more and more excuses to get onto your private property and tell you how you can live……not wearing a helmet on your farm quad for example…..can’t go on the roof for “safety ” reasons without scaffolding…….this is the last bastion of your common law rights which are now targeted to be taken away…….along with your kids if you resist…..
Comment by Hornet — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 8:00 am
I don’t know what you guys are doing with that God damn American book, but where I come from it don’t mean diddly squad. I’m a walking, talking, air breathing son of a bitch, just like you guys, and my Mr may need licence to drive a vehicle on a road, but I’ll walk the highways, and the bi-ways, and the beaches anytime of the day or night that I like.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 8:23 am
Lastly on this point…….that is WHY our police are now more focused on targeting you for statutory laws….and debt…..as opposed to what they previously did well……protecting your common law rights ……protecting life and property.
This then answers the question as to WHY the NZ police ( common law protectors ) were merged with traffic ( statutory law ) enforcement.
Many good detectives and common law police were removed by early retirement after the merger….which allowed many traffic cops to take senior roles in our police. Add to this the influx of English police imports into senior NZ police roles and I am sure you can all see the problem…….our NZ culture even at a police level has been changed over the last 20 years……
What is important for all is to push the pendulum back the other way and WILL to bring back more common law protections…….bring back the balance between common law and statutory law protections and enforcement.
On a final note……this entire we are doing this for your “safety” message requires the state to actually provide “safety” to its citizens because currently there is a promise of protection but non is given.
I
Comment by Hornet — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 8:27 am
Down under …..watch the movie ..hunt for the wilder people ..with a fresh eye…….it’s aimed directly at you………and me….
What are they hunting?????
A Maori and a White man with a gun………..who both just want to live free on the land.
You should also pay close attention to the recent burning of “wilder land”…..an Eco friendly self sustaining free living community on the coromandel who were causing no harm to anyone…….they did not break the golden rule………yet coromandel council have been trying to remove them for years…….and they finally got their wish when the honey business …their source of income….was destroyed by fire.
Hunt for the wilder people ………you and me…..the hunt for ..Maori and pakeha who simply want to live free on the land.
Comment by Hornet — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 8:37 am
Attention to detail is always important. I would like to correct what is written above:
NEW ZEALAND DRIVER LICENCE
Comment by Downunder — Wed 2nd August 2017 @ 8:53 am
@3 DJ Ward
The law is not black and white.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd August 2017 @ 1:07 pm
I understand what your saying.
I think it’s pink.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd August 2017 @ 6:11 pm
I once thought it was grey, but were both wrong.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd August 2017 @ 7:10 pm
@15 Wayne Burrows
The way I read that, is that some of the English words used in those sentences reflect slighty different usage and therefore different legal definition to ours, which would be enough to cause Hornet’s confusion.
Our artificial person is not a natural person, but as I see it, could be a natural person.
But regardless of these differences, there is a legal person for the artificial person, in the same way there is a legal person for the natural person.
Your legal person is NOT an artificial person.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th August 2017 @ 7:15 am
@4 Hornet Whanganui River given legal status of a person
Given status of a person is where you stopped reading, because that supported the way you are thinking, to get what you want.
The rest of that sentence is
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th August 2017 @ 8:05 am
As many of us are aware, there is a Spring tide of female graduates invading the Law Society, these days. Many years ago I was having a bit of a in-depth with one of these girls … a qualified lawyer, at the time.
“So, what’s all this stuff about the person and the other person, I can’t work that out.”
“I didn’t really get that bit. My lecturer said … “Think of it like, looking in the mirror and seeing a mirror image.” …”
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th August 2017 @ 9:58 am
#25
So when the river fails to control its behaviour, floods and does damage can it be sued? Recovery of costs by an insurance company?
What happens because it’s a person and you jump naked into the river, expose yourself to it etc.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 4th August 2017 @ 4:36 pm
Interesting analogies,- for me it was looking into a pond that once reliably reflected image and reality, or so I thought, but it only took one stone thrown into the pond, tranquility is gone, algie doubles by the day and the ripple effect invited a swarm of flying leaches.
Its been 3 1/2 years since i was falsely accused, I still havent managed to forgive it, the water is calm but its unclear, full of parisites.
Now, Im fearful of the waters.
I pay to have a drink occasinally.
But I dont hang around.
Its just too dangerous.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 4th August 2017 @ 9:32 pm
Exactly, would a law lecturer with half a brain, tell a young female student, to think about it like a mirror image?
I’d bet money, that was never said to a male student, who didn’t get it.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 5th August 2017 @ 7:15 am
I had a Limited Liability Company, specialising in WOF Testing and general car repairs and general engineering. The WOF side of my organisation was governed by rules as set by the Transport agency NZ.
These rules were administered by NZTA staff. It is the staff that I believe have acted outside confines of any contractual agreement. The result being a loss of WOF Licence, severely diminished turnover and bankruptcy and a stroke.
It has taken me some time to recover from my bankruptcy and my stroke and feel i am now strong enough to begin to bring some charges against them.
Can I bring charges against the LTSA?
Is there any time limitations that will disqualify me from bringing charges?
Kind Regards, Paul kelly
Comment by Paul Kelly — Mon 9th October 2017 @ 9:16 pm
This has cost your health and wellbeing by a significant measure already.
Is it worth it?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 7:15 am
Many people here are funny.
They know so much deep stuff but are so ignorant of the basis.
Like Idiot savants.
Can calculate astronomical numbers with their minds but can’t wipe themselves.
Hornet has a lot to say that is true.
Nothing can be done without consent. That is the first fundamental.
It is through our acquiescence that we get shafted by a system that is all offer and punishment.
A driver is someone who’s profession is to drive.
A driver’s license takes away your right to travel by automobile as a human being and replaces it with the privilege to drive under statute. Hence the fines and the NZTA regulations.
Registration means putting your belonging on the King’s register (CROWN). This effectively means stripping your ownership away and replacing it with the privilege of possession of a vehicle you no longer own. (Notice you do not get a title for the vehicle. You get a certificate of title. BIRTH CERTIFICATE) You get the right to use it albeit after paying for WOF and keeping it legal.
Summons are for dead people. So they send you a summon to raise you from your grave to appear in Court. When you appear, you confirm you are dead.
Lawyers. Lawyers are here to facilitate the entire process. AS soon as you are represented, the courts have jurisdiction. They can do what they want. They work for the courts and are employees of the court and their only job is to present your head to whatever judge sits high.
If you have a senior lawyer that is good and your case has merit, he will guarantee the other person’s head as offering instead of yours.
Lawyer are not educated people. NOT AT ALL.THEY are simply part of a brainwashing process. In fact many of them do not know the difference between pro per and pro se.
That is why the first step on any lawsuit is “get legal advice.”
Most people get legal advice and end up with a lawyer.
Their job is to preserve the appearance of justice and the decorum.
And of course charge you between 200 and 500$ an hour… How does that make justice available?
Of course it is they say, if you qualify, you can get legal aid.
Legal aid is a chain ball wrapped around your balls.
First you surrender all your rights to privacy then you (DECLARE) every hair on each ball and every penny you make from any source and enter into another formal contract with the government – yet again – and this all under penalty of prosecution… Whilst surrendering your most basic rights which are now replaced by privileges.
It means your lawyer get paid pennies for everything he does for you. He is not paid an hourly rate. He is paid by application. So even if it took him 20 hours, he gets paid the same as the bastard that only takes .5 hour.
And this incidentally make people on legal aid prone to abuse by overly stretched lawyers who need to handle 50 cases a week just to survive their expensive spending habits.
Lawyers that have no experience, are not prepared and basically run their offices out of a cell phone.
If you understand all the above. Then you have a chance, otherwise you are simply a dead man walking.
Comment by WrongGender — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 9:40 am
@30, Paul Kelly -identify the person or persons that have acted wrongly against your and your business interests and sue them personally.
Anyone who is acting in any capacity and goes beyond that capacity is acting personally and is liable for his or her own actions.
If you can prove that what they have done is not company policy and that they have acted beyond their roles then you have the right to seek damage from them.
IF what they have done is company policy and this policy was prejuciable to you and to your business then you can have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by WrongGender — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 9:47 am
Wayne,
I think you are complicating your life unnecessarily.
First identify the persons (human) being that has acted wrongly and make them liable.
As per post above.
A government like any institution is a snake with many heads. You cut one, twenty more sprout.
But the body is composed of men and women like you acting beyond their authority. Make them accountable. And You have a chance.
Otherwise, you spend your life and money and the end result is you in jail, or with a label and enough frustration and sorrow that you end up immolating yourself before parliament.
And you most likely will not even make the evening news.
Speak less, act more and identify one individual at a time or one group at a time to make your case.
And more importantly, first identify what you seek to change or what damages you seek to remedy or recover.
Like we say where I am from : “HE who gets angry first looses!”
Or: “If anger does not make you smart, you are heading towards you own crucifixion.”
Comment by WrongGender — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 10:12 am
@34 who’s license?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 11:14 am
#30 Paul Kelly .
You will need to do some reading on limitation periods as this will tell you if you are too late to sue.
You would have to prove that whatever decision they made was incorrect, or intentionally false.
You would probably have to have evidence of the beyond reasonable doubt standard.
You would probably have to show you made attempts to correct the mistakes and were ignored.
You couldn’t prove your stroke was caused by the events but it would influence the judges thinking in deciding outcomes.
I don’t think you could bring charges agianst them as you would have to show, putting false details in a legal document, collusion, kickbacks, bribery, threatening, etc.
You sue entities or people for negligence etc while crimes are handled by the police. If the police refuse to act on your compliant then you can engage a lawyer and attempt a private prosecution.
Whatever you do it will be expensive and the gains are possibly less than the costs of doing it.
#31 Downunder sometimes gives good comments that are worth thinking about.
I have heard other stories of the industry becoming stricter and some smaller operators failing inspections or compliance. The big players would love a near monopoly on WOF etc. Maybe others have been affected in the same way as you?
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 7:06 pm