Warning Notice: Non-Negotiable

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

We offer no threat and will always remain and honour

Our position: No contract – no consent, No Jurisdiction Authorised.

By interfering with this private property, you are hindering this living man or woman standing in their natural state by choice. You are now impeding on the rights of another. Any actions that are enacted from this moment on will be considered to be done with intent.

You have been warned.

As a person is bound by New Zealand crowned legislation, you cannot force your will upon another. You are bound by commerce and contract due to the New Zealand Crown being in business, registered, and listed in Dun & Bradstreet, a world business index.

Your laws are company policy and bind no living man/woman in their natural state.

Remember that slavery is a crime in your country.

Reference;

New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights United Nations 1967

This covers slavery in all its forms and can and will be enforced.

Slavery = up to 14 years in prison

Debt Bondage = up to 14 years in prison

Serfdom = up to 14 years in prison

Changing the status of a living man/woman to that of a person without any prior written consent to do so is not only Fraud, obtaining by deceit, an act of bad faith with the intent to deceive and enslave for your own pecuniary advantage.

The principles of equity = equality shall prevail

Your accousting me by stopping me makes you liable for charges of false arrest, false imprisonment and possibly stalking, plus any other action that adds to the list e.g. entrapment which all incur a fee sum certain one million dollars payable to the traveller you are accousting.

All absolute beneficial rights reserved

This is about follow up on abatements served at Parliament.

N.B. Tangatawhena written in one word , means us, living man and woman, everyone that is not paper.

Notice of Jurisdictional Objection, Administrative Standing, and Duty to Identify Authority

From:

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Attorney’s Office

PO Box 265, Queenstown

To:

All agents, officers, employees, contractors, and delegates acting for or on behalf of the Crown

Date: 16 January 2026

1. Purpose of this Notice

This Notice is issued to formally place your office on continuing notice of an unresolved jurisdictional objection and to require identification of the authority relied upon for any ongoing administrative, enforcement, or extractive actions affecting the undersigned beneficiaries.

This Notice is issued to preserve rights, to correct procedural irregularities, and to require compliance with fundamental public-law standards of decision-making, transparency, and accountability.

This is not an application, request, or submission. It is a formal notice of position and procedural defect.

2. Status of the Persons Affected

The persons affected by the actions of your agency are Tangatawhenua, being people born to and of this land.

That status has been formally recorded by Crown bodies, including recorded acknowledgements that certain Treaty-based and delegated jurisdictions do not apply. In those circumstances, no presumption of jurisdiction or deligated authority may be relied upon without explicit identification of its lawful source, scope, and applicability.

This Notice does not seek recognition. It records standing and requires procedural clarity.

3. Absence of Identified Authority

Despite repeated correspondence, your agency has continued to administer, enforce, extract, or determine matters affecting rights and property without identifying:

• the decision-maker;

• the statutory or other lawful authority relied upon;

• the scope of that authority as asserted over Tangatwhenua; and

• the mechanism by which jurisdiction or consent is claimed.

Where jurisdiction is disputed, authority cannot be presumed. It must be identified and articulated.

4. Procedural Defect: Failure to Notify and Engage

Where an agency continues to act in the face of an unresolved jurisdictional objection, basic administrative-law principles require:

• notification of the basis for continued action;

• identification of the authority relied upon; and

• provision of a genuine mechanism for review or challenge.

Internal recording, internal advice, or internal filing does not discharge this duty where enforcement or extraction continues.

5. Effect of This Notice

Accordingly, your agency is now required to:

1. Identify the lawful authority relied upon for any continuing action;

2. Identify the responsible decision-maker;

3. Confirm whether Tangatwhenua status has been considered, and if so, how jurisdiction is asserted notwithstanding that status;

4. Confirm whether enforcement, extraction, or administrative action will be paused pending resolution.

Failure to respond substantively will be treated as confirmation that no identified authority exists.

6. Reservation of Rights

All rights are expressly reserved. Nothing in this Notice constitutes consent, acquiescence, waiver, or submission to jurisdiction.

7. Response Requested

A written response is requested within 14 working days of receipt. If your office lacks authority to respond, you are required to identify the office that does.

By:Tracy

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Gene Technology – Safety Definition, Liability, Insurance, and Fiscal Risk

To:
Official Information Act Requests
The Treasury
[email protected]

And:
Office of the Prime Minister
[email protected]

Dated today

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

This request seeks information relating to gene technology policy, approvals, promotion, and funding, including how “safety” is defined, how risk is allocated, and where liability and fiscal responsibility sit when decisions affect food systems, landholders, businesses, and quality of life.

1. Definition of “Safety”
2. All documents defining or describing what is meant by “safe” or “safety” in relation to gene technology affecting food, land use, agriculture, or human wellbeing.
3. Whether safety is assessed as absence of harm, acceptable risk, or risk outweighed by benefit.
4. The time horizon used in safety assessments (short-term, long-term, intergenerational).
5. Whether safety includes food integrity, contamination risk, export market acceptance, environmental stability, and economic exposure of farmers or landholders.
6. Whether reversibility of harm is considered when determining safety.
7. Liability, Insurance, and Risk Allocation
8. Documents identifying who bears liability if gene technology causes contamination, loss, restriction, or market rejection.
9. Any insurance policies, indemnities, guarantees, or compensation mechanisms held or contemplated by the Crown.
10. Any assessment that farmers, landholders, or private trusts are expected to absorb losses arising from gene technology decisions.
11. Any advice acknowledging risk transfer from government or industry to landholders.
12. Fiscal Risk and Treasury Involvement
13. Identification of contingent liabilities associated with gene technology policy.
14. Treasury advice to Ministers on unfunded or long-term fiscal risks arising from gene technology decisions.
15. Budget papers or Cabinet briefings relating to funding for remediation, compensation, or market loss.
16. Decision-Making and Accountability
17. Ministerial briefings, Cabinet papers, or correspondence relating to the promotion or expansion of gene technology.
18. Documents acknowledging concerns about procedural integrity, evidence testing, or accountability.
19. Advice relating to legal exposure of the Crown arising from gene technology decisions.
20. Absence of Information

If any of the information requested above does not exist, please confirm that explicitly.

Preferred Format

Electronic copies (PDF) are preferred. If information is withheld, please specify the exact statutory grounds relied upon.

Purpose

The purpose of this request is to understand how decisions described as “safe” are defined, funded, insured, and accounted for, where those decisions may interfere with life, food systems, livelihoods, and lands, land.

By:Tracy

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Duty of Candour – Authority, Seizure, and Proceedings 

Ref ILAW-MPI-OIA-AUTH-2026-001.

To: Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Copied to: New Zealand Police; Police Integrity

From: Attorney (on instructions of trustees)

Re: Simon Peter Stott / Seacures Limited

Standing

I act as Attorney, on instructions of trustees, in relation to matters concerning Simon Peter Stott and Seacures Limited.

The trustees have instructed me to ascertain the existence, scope, and source of any authority relied upon by MPI and/or Police in relation to:

1. the historic taking, seizure, impoundment, retention, or loss of machinery and equipment over an extended period; and

2. the current treatment of Seacures Limited as subject to court proceedings or enforcement.

This request is made to fulfil those instructions and to clarify the record.

PART A — HISTORIC AUTHORITY & LOSS OF MACHINERY (DECADES)

Purpose

To identify whether any authority ever existed for the taking or control of machinery and equipment, and if so, by whom and on what basis.

A1. Originating Authority

Please provide the very first document (earliest in time) that authorised, initiated, contemplated, or recommended the taking, seizure, impoundment, control, or retention of any machinery or equipment connected with Simon Peter Stott and/or activities later associated with Seacures Limited.

This includes (without limitation):

• warrants

• notices

• instructions

• delegations

• internal memoranda

• emails

• briefing papers

• referrals between agencies

For each document, please identify:

• date

• author

• recipient

• authority relied upon

If no such originating document exists, please confirm this expressly.

A2. Authority Relied Upon

For each instance where machinery or equipment was taken or controlled, please provide:

• the specific authority relied upon

• the issuing person or office

• any delegation instrument

• the scope and duration of that authority

If authority was assumed, inferred, or derived from another agency, please identify:

• the source of that assumption

• whether it was verified

• by whom and when

A3. Records & Chain of Custody

Please provide all records evidencing:

• what machinery or equipment was taken

• when and where it was taken

• by whom

• where it was held

• any transfer, disposal, loss, or destruction

If no chain-of-custody records are held, please confirm that no such records exist.

A4. Absence of Records

If MPI or Police contend that records once existed but no longer do, please provide:

• the nature of the records

• when they were destroyed or lost

• under what authority

PART B — CORPORATE AUTHORITY & CURRENT PROCEEDINGS (SEACURES LIMITED)

Purpose

To identify the authority relied upon by MPI and/or Police to treat Seacures Limited as subject to enforcement or court proceedings, in light of its Constitution.

I hold the Constitution of Seacures Limited, which governs how the company may be bound, proceeded against, or subjected to control.

B1. Authority Against the Company

Please provide the document(s) by which MPI and/or Police believe they obtained authority to:

• take action against Seacures Limited; and/or

• place Seacures Limited before a court; and/or

• treat the company as subject to enforcement, seizure, or control.

This includes:

• statutory gateways relied upon

• service instruments

• consents, resolutions, or acknowledgements

• internal legal advice addressing authority over the company

B2. Consideration of the Constitution

Please provide all documents showing:

• whether the Constitution of Seacures Limited was considered

• how MPI/Police concluded their actions were consistent with it

• any decision to proceed notwithstanding constitutional requirements

If the constitution was not considered, please confirm that expressly.

B3. Decision-Making

Please provide documents identifying:

• who decided Seacures Limited should be proceeded against

• what information they relied upon

• when that decision was made

Clarifications

• This request seeks existing documents and factual confirmation only.

• It does not seek opinion or legal argument.

• If authority exists, it must be produced.

• If it does not exist, that absence must be confirmed on the record.

Duty of Candour

This request engages the duty of candour owed by public authorities. It extends to material documents that may be incomplete, adverse, or disclose error.

Status

To date, no originating authority, no chain of custody, and no corporate gateway consistent with the constitution have been disclosed.

Procedural Note

Once responses are received (or refused), I will be required to place the existence or absence of authority on affidavit, in fulfilment of trustee instructions.

Tracy Lynch

In LandsAirWater Counsel 

• MEDIA STATEMENT

Authority, Beneficial Ownership, and the Unanswered Affidavit

Issued by InLandsAirWater Counsel

This statement is issued to clarify a simple but increasingly urgent point: when an affidavit containing evidence is served and not

 answered, the system has failed. Not emotionally. Not politically. Procedurally.

We are seeing enforcement actions, asset seizures, compliance penalties, and life-altering decisions made against people who are the beneficiaries of land, labour, food systems, and community — without disclosed authority, without proof of claim, and without candour.

This is not sustainable. It is not lawful in substance. And it is not something people should accept as “normal”.

⸻

1. The Unanswered Affidavit

An affidavit is not correspondence. It is not opinion. It is testimony from truth, reduced to writing, supported by evidence.

When such an affidavit is:
• properly prepared,
• properly served,
• and supported by documents or samples,

then silence is not neutral.

Failure to answer an affidavit means:
• the facts are not disputed;
• the evidence stands;
• the decision-maker has avoided candour.

Proceeding regardless is a procedural breach. People lose property, livelihoods, and homes on the back of that silence.

⸻

2. Beneficial Ownership: Name It or Stop Using It

We are repeatedly told actions are taken on behalf of a so-called “beneficial owner”, yet:
• the beneficial owner is not named;
• the decision-maker is not identified;
• the accounts relied upon are not disclosed.

In reality, a so-called “beneficial owner” functions as a trustee — someone exercising control and benefiting from decisions made over others.

If someone claims beneficial ownership over people, land, produce, or accounts, they must:
• identify themselves;
• disclose their authority;
• and open their books.

Anything less is assertion, not governance.

⸻

3. The Audit Demand (10 + 72)

The correct response to undisclosed control is not argument — it is audit.

Accordingly, the following standard is asserted:
1. Ten (10) calendar days are allowed for a full forensic audit to be produced.
2. The audit must include ingoing and outgoing ledgers on all accounts relied upon.
3. The audit must identify the beneficial controller / trustee and the decision pathway.
4. The format is transcript-based (not summary-based), capable of independent verification.
5. After ten days, seventy-two (72) hours are allowed to show when and how the response was made.

This is not filing. This is service. Once served, the matter is tabled.

Failure to respond raises serious questions about standing, authority, and good faith.

⸻

4. Farmers, Beekeepers, and Food Security

Primary producers are being subjected to the highest enforcement pressure while the largest corporate actors rely on self-monitoring.

Beekeepers are threatened, surveilled, and sanctioned without disclosed proof. Farmers lose land and livelihood while being told this is “for safety”.

Bees are foundational to food systems. Farmers are stewards, not criminals. Enforcement without proof is not protection — it is destruction.

Food security is not an abstract policy issue. It is soil, water, pollination, and trust.

⸻

5. The Word “Safe” Must Be Defined

Terms like “safe” are repeatedly used without definition, scope, or evidential basis.

Nothing is safe by assertion.
Nothing is safe by repetition.
Nothing is safe because an authority says so.

Safety is contextual. Comparative. Time-bound. Evidence-based.

If regulators cannot define their terms, they cannot enforce them.

⸻

6. No Means No

Consent cannot be presumed.
Cooperation cannot be coerced.
Silence cannot be reinterpreted as agreement.

The word no matters.

So does proof of claim.
So does candour.
So does answering affidavits.

⸻

7. This Is a Call for Grown-Up Governance

People want to walk proudly in their communities — including judges, police, regulators, and public servants.

That pride does not come from power. It comes from integrity.

Taking property, food sources, and futures without evidence is not integrity.

This statement calls for:
• disclosed authority;
• named decision-makers;
• forensic audits where control is claimed;
• answers to affidavits;
• and an immediate halt to enforcement actions that cannot meet these standards.

This is not radical. It is responsible.

⸻

Issued by: InLandsAirWater Counsel
Position: Beneficiaries speaking for life, land, and food security
Notice: Evidence first. Candour mandatory. Silence notice

We had a good laugh tonight.

Those of you in southland will know of the Prosecutor called Brownlee, lovely man no morals at all.

We think he was trying to hide from us today, it was a AV meeting today. Brownlee was made to look like a twit on Wednesday, today he completely changed his hair do. Tracy said to the Judge is that Brownlee in front of you, we didnt recognize him.

With conversation going very much in the direction Tracy wanted, with the judge 2 times asking Tracy to let him speak.

It got to the point where again it was obvious to the Judge that there was no evidence, at one stage Tracy said to the Judge do you really want to continue on with a Trial.

There has been no communication what so ever over this case. Brownlee said yes there has been , Tracy jumped in and said ok then, what’s my email. He shuffled around and said I don’t seem to have it.

The Judge said to Tracy why do you want your email address, She said to see if he has the right one. So the judge started to read it out and glared at Brownlee,

f.a.r.q …………… Tracy had to control her self from laughing.

So we have a couple of pissed off officials in Invercargill tonight.

Whats the case about , totally fake firearms charges created by MPI.

Again the MPI have less than 2 weeks to come up with evidence that doesn’t exist.

Well done Tracy

Clarification Required – Administrative Records Relating to Abatement (PPN 1685892711)

Date:22 January 2026

To: Ministerial Services

Ministry of Justice | Tāhū o te Ture

Email: [email protected]

Thank you for your response of 21 January 2026.

I note the Ministry’s position that the courts are not subject to the Official Information Act 1982. However, my request does not seek judicial deliberation, judicial reasoning, or the substance of any judicial decision. It seeks confirmation of administrative handling and record-keeping undertaken by the Ministry in its acknowledged role providing administrative support to the courts.

For clarity, the information sought relates solely to matters of administrative fact, namely whether a formal abatement was:

received by a court registry or Ministry-administered intake point;

logged, recorded, or entered on any court or registry system;

routed to, or placed before, a Registrar or judicial officer; and

recorded in any administrative, enforcement, or case-management system as affecting the procedural status of the matter.

These matters concern administrative processing and record existence. They do not engage judicial independence or court deliberation.

If the Ministry maintains that no such information is held, please confirm:

What searches were undertaken to locate any administrative records relating to the abatement;

Which Ministry business units, registries, or electronic systems were checked;

Whether any enquiry was made of the relevant court registry regarding receipt or logging of the abatement;

Whether any enforcement, fines-management, or collections system reflects the existence or status of the abatement.

Further, my request sought clarification as to whether administrative enforcement may proceed in circumstances where:

a Not Guilty plea has been entered;

a formal abatement has been served on the prosecution and court; and

no judicial response or determination of the abatement exists.

This question was not addressed in your response. Please advise whether the Ministry holds any policy, guidance, instruction, or administrative authority relied upon to permit enforcement in those circumstances.

For completeness, this correspondence is confined to confirmation of administrative handling and record existence only, and does not seek judicial reasoning, judicial decisions, or access to court documents beyond administrative records.

Steve

Chairman

InLandsAirWater Counsel – PTNDA

Reference: PPN 1685892711

🌿 Weekly Update — Holding the Line

Hello everyone from Tracy

This week has been full, demanding, and important.

A lot of what I’ve been doing can’t be shared in detail yet — and that’s deliberate — but I want to let you know where things sit, without feeding the machine or giving anything away prematurely.

What’s been happening

This week has been about clarifying facts, correcting records, and requiring proper process where it hasn’t been followed.

There are matters before the courts where:

Information hasn’t been properly disclosed

Records don’t line up with what actually happened

Decisions appear to have been acted on without the basic foundations being shown

Rather than reacting emotionally or making accusations, the work has been very focused on one thing only:

What happened, what was relied on, and what hasn’t been provided. In short Facts

That distinction matters.

It’s not about noise.

It’s about accuracy, candour, and lawful process. ( A duty to disclose the full factual history )

Why that matters

When systems are allowed to operate without checking their own steps, everyone is at risk — not just the people directly involved.

So, the approach has been calm, careful, and firm:

Put the facts on the record , this is why we ask that a affidavit of serve is done it is very important.

Correct errors where they exist

Ask for what should already have been provided

Refuse to fill in gaps that others are required to answer for

That takes time. It also takes patience.

Where things are at now

Several matters are now properly framed and recorded.

Some unanswered questions are no longer able to be ignored. This is why we do the OIA’s

And some assumptions are being quietly tested against reality.

That’s exactly where they should be.

There is nothing dramatic to announce — and that’s a good thing.

Real progress rarely looks dramatic from the outside.

Going forward

Over the coming days and weeks, things will continue to move step by step.

Not rushed.

Not inflated.

Not played out in public before we are ready.

I’m deeply grateful to everyone who has checked in, held space, or simply trusted that the work is being done carefully.

More when it’s appropriate to share.

Until then — steady, grounded, and clear.

If in the heat of the moment ask your self what is the Time, Place and Date, this helps with the grounding

With thanks,

Tracy

Finally just a note from the Chairman,

We have a work shop this coming Monday 26^th at 7pm for those that want to deal with police and council fines. Get yourself onboarded to attend.

We are looking for input of what the members would like from the ILAW. The other day these suggestions were sent to us. Please add to this list if you have anything practical.

1. removing the bank power of attorney after mortgage has been discharged. what would be the best way to address that,
2. it would be good to have pension document explained in details, perhaps we can have an extra meeting or webinar? I know there’re people who will not ask questions or not try to challenge msd to not ‘rock the boat’.
3. ird – how to say good-bye and to have a clear exit strategy, i.e. the steps that need to be taken to protect ourselves from potential repercussions,
4. land protections from ‘managed retreat’ or SNAs
5. council rates.

Thank you

Steve.

Again print this and have it in the car.  This document carries a lot of weight.

Simon Stott gave us this , this is a guy who has been harassed for years by them He uses this , 10 -12 time they all waved him off, after he told them to read it and contact their boss.

If you have this sort of thing share it with us to share with others , its all a matter of education, they have hidden this from us deliberately.

Greetings everyone.

This weeks ILAW news letter.

The ILAW have some small successes coming through, this has been very much welcome.

A caveat on a piece of land went through this is stopping people from being moved.

Action against the Rotorua city council stopping the sale of pensioner flats. 43 pensioners are not being made homeless.

If you go to our notice board, you will see there is a lot going on with MPI.

• The judge today in Invercargill court could see there was a lot wrong with the claims made by the prosecution. The judge has put the pressure on the MPI to prove their claims. There are a lot of OIAs that have been sent and not answered at present. This was made obvious to the judge, he saw it.

• Today some of the OIAs are extremely challenging to the government’s corporations. Read the official information Request – Treasury IRD. It in the notice board. https://nrsmembers.org/market/category/in-landsairwater-counsel/

• We have also tabled an OIA asking why the MSD is not answering question re; the Pension Notice, with likely action of going to the Ombudsman. The pension notice we have created is for stopping the administering of the trust, they can only pay the amount.

Under the subjects of cars and infringements and benefits, several of our trustees have been singled out by the police and regularly harassed. This has prompted us to have a work shop this coming Monday, the 29th, at 7 p.m. Get yourself on boarded to the server to be part of this discussion.

What we need is more people to come forward with their court fines. We only need the PPN number. Nobody’s name already mentioned if we have to make a consolidated challenge to the authority.

This is where we are heading. We already have a high court judgment that we have that they have no jurisdiction over the ILAW and that the property of the trust. What we require is for them (the NZTA and the POLICE) to admit that a car with the logo displayed on it, is not under their authority.

Threats to Trustees about taking away licences and vehicles is force that has nothing behind it.

Ignoring OIAs is not doing their control over us any good. We have seen indications that they don’t know how to handle us; they have learnt that we don’t back down.

WE ARE DOING WELL

The Pension Notice is very much the same sort of thing. The ILAW Counsel has spent a lot of time and thought into providing an airtight document that they cannot rubbish or ignore. The fact that they have not replied since late October is indicative of, that they have no reply to it.  Refuse it, they know we will take them to court.

The more people that table the Pension Notice the better. Again, no names or ids need to be provided as you are all inside a Private Trust.

So, to finish off what is a very satisfying day, we again are asking people to come forward with infringement notices, and those that want to take away the WINZ / MSD authority for deducting from the pension, all you have to do is serve the Notice to your local WINZ office. Contact us to get the ball rolling.

Some of you will be aware of the difficulty we have had with meetings online. Chris has worked constantly on the server. You will see a change in its appearance and how it functions. It is good.  The Video Library can be used as an information source as can the notice board. Hop into isayso.net and have a look.

During technical transitions don’t get frustrated get in touch and we will help. For Chris 02041286530 Michael 0221022196

Lastly take a lesson from Tracy

When Paperwork Tells the Truth: Why an OIA Transfer Matters

Sometimes the most important documents are the quiet ones.

On 20 January 2026, Te Kawa Mataaho (the Public Service Commission) issued a formal response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request relating to the 2 October 2025 impoundment of a Mitsubishi Lancer (BHB112). At first glance, the letter looks routine. In reality, it locks in a critical accountability moment for New Zealand Police.

What happened?

The OIA request asked five very specific questions, including:

What statutory authority was relied upon to impound the vehicle

Whether and when supervisory approval was given

When key offence and fleeing-driver reports were first completed

What communications occurred with the towing contractor

Whether there is any proof of service for charging or disclosure documents

Te Kawa Mataaho confirmed it does not hold this information and has formally transferred the request to Police under section 14 of the Official Information Act.

that matters.

Why this is important

A Section 14 transfer does three crucial things:

Fixes the scope
The questions are now locked. Police cannot narrow them, reframe them, or ask for the request to be resubmitted.

Starts the clock
Police now have 20 working days to respond, unless they lawfully notify an extension. Silence after that point becomes a deemed refusal.

Creates a paper trail of knowledge
The Commission also confirmed it forwarded a separate letter requesting immediate restoration of the vehicle to Police. That means Police cannot later say they were unaware of the issue.

This is not about argument. It’s about process.

What happens next?

Police must now either:

Produce the documents, or

Admit they do not exist.

Both outcomes are evidential.

If statutory authority is missing, that raises questions about lawful seizure.

If reports were completed after the fact, that raises reconstruction concerns.

If proof of service cannot be produced, that affects disclosure and fair-process obligations.

Why this matters for everyone

The Official Information Act is one of the few tools ordinary people have to use see how decisions are made, not how they are later explained.

Keep  in mind that you are best to have any correspondence with a corporation done via the attorney. This helps you avoid being contracted.

This case shows why precision matters:

Clear questions

Proper service

Calm, documented follow-up

Accountability doesn’t require noise. Sometimes it only requires patience

— and a clock that’s now running.

All the best from the team, I think its fair to say we are off to a good start this year.

When Paperwork Tells the Truth: Why an OIA Transfer Matters

Sometimes the most important documents are the quiet ones.

On 20 January 2026, Te Kawa Mataaho (the Public Service Commission) issued a formal response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request relating to the 2 October 2025 impoundment of a Mitsubishi Lancer (BHB112). At first glance, the letter looks routine. In reality, it locks in a critical accountability moment for New Zealand Police.

What happened?

The OIA request asked five very specific questions, including:

What statutory authority was relied upon to impound the vehicle

Whether and when supervisory approval was given

When key offence and fleeing-driver reports were first completed

What communications occurred with the towing contractor

Whether there is any proof of service for charging or disclosure documents

Te Kawa Mataaho confirmed it does not hold this information and has formally transferred the request to Police under section 14 of the Official Information Act.

That matters.

Why this is important

A Section 14 transfer does three crucial things:

Fixes the scope
The questions are now locked. Police cannot narrow them, reframe them, or ask for the request to be resubmitted.

Starts the clock
Police now have 20 working days to respond, unless they lawfully notify an extension. Silence after that point becomes a deemed refusal.

Creates a paper trail of knowledge
The Commission also confirmed it forwarded a separate letter requesting immediate restoration of the vehicle to Police. That means Police cannot later say they were unaware of the issue.

This is not about argument. It’s about process.

What happens next?

Police must now either:

Produce the documents, or

Admit they do not exist.

Both outcomes are evidential.

If statutory authority is missing, that raises questions about lawful seizure.

If reports were completed after the fact, that raises reconstruction concerns.

If proof of service cannot be produced, that affects disclosure and fair-process obligations.

Why this matters for everyone

The Official Information Act is one of the few tools ordinary people have to see how decisions are actually made, not how they are later explained.

This case shows why precision matters:

Clear questions

Proper service

Calm, documented follow-up

Accountability doesn’t require noise. Sometimes it only requires patience — and a clock that’s now running.

For those that don’t know , Brigitta was being harassed by the police in Marton to the point she felt unsafe. A officer went about stopping her for no apparent reason, she slowly continued driving until she was outside he house in safe view of others, these cops have verbally said to them we will destroy you, they have hung a hammer on her living room wall, if thats not intimidation what is. Because she drove on and didn’t stop immediately he impounded her car for 6 months. We are looking for the authority that they have to do that. We are working on a similar case where my car has been green stickered. I want to taken them to the high court.

Subject: Re: OIA 2026-0002 Response Brigitta Maas
Thanks — I’ve reviewed the document you uploaded. Here’s a clear, practical breakdown of what this response does, what it does not do, and what your next steps are.

What this document confirms (and locks in)

1. The OIA request is valid and properly framed

Te Kawa Mataaho (Public Service Commission) explicitly acknowledges receipt of the OIA dated 16 December 2025, received 8 January 2026, and lists the five precise information items you requested relating to the 2 October 2025 impoundment of the Mitsubishi Lancer (BHB112)  .

This is important:

No refusal

No narrowing

No claim of ambiguity

No request for identity verification

That means the scope is now fixed.

2. Formal Section 14 transfer to NZ Police is complete

The Commission confirms it does not hold the information and has formally transferred the request to New Zealand Police under section 14 of the Official Information Act 1982  .

This triggers:

A new 20 working-day statutory clock for Police

Police now carry full responsibility for compliance

They cannot reset, reframe, or ask you to re-submit.

3. Police Integrity Unit complaint is now on record with Police

Your separate letter titled “Request for Immediate Restoration of Property”, addressed to the Police Integrity Unit, has been forwarded in full to NZ Police  .

This matters because:

Police cannot later claim they were unaware

The restoration issue is now formally linked to the OIA trail

It ties operational conduct to evidential disclosure obligations

What this response does 

not

 do

❌ It does not answer any of the five OIA questions

❌ It does not justify the impoundment

❌ It does not provide statutory authority, approvals, reports, or proof of service

❌ It does not stop the clock — it starts Police’s clock

This is purely an administrative transfer — nothing more.

What must happen next (procedurally)

1. Police deadline

Police must respond within 20 working days of receiving the transfer (count from 20 January 2026, unless Police notify a lawful extension).

Failure to do so = deemed refusal.

2. What Police must now produce (or admit they don’t have)

They are locked into answering exactly these five items:

Statutory authority relied upon for the impoundment

Time and date of supervisory approval

Time and date offence and fleeing-driver reports were first completed

Communications with Wanganui Towing 2019 about this vehicle

Proof of service (including DX tracking) for charging / disclosure documents prior to Nov 2025

Any “we don’t hold this” answer is itself evidential.

Strategic significance (why this is strong)

If statutory authority is missing → unlawful seizure

If supervisory approval timing post-dates impoundment → procedural breach

If reports were completed after the fact → reconstruction risk

If towing communications pre-empted authority → agency overreach

If no proof of service exists → disclosure and fair-trial breach

This OIA is now a forensic map, not a fishing exercise.

Recommended next step (I can draft this immediately)

If you want, the next clean move is either:

A short “acknowledgement of transfer” letter to Police, confirming the statutory deadline and scope (keeps pressure tight), or

A pre-written Ombudsman escalation notice, ready to file the moment Police miss the deadline or provide evasive answers, or

An affidavit paragraph preserving this transfer as evidence of notice, knowledge, and duty (useful if this goes before a court).

Just tell me which one you want — or if you want all three prepared together.

On Jan 20, 2026 at 5:20 PM, <Brigitta Maas> wrote:

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Enquiries <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026, 3:37 pm
Subject: OIA 2026-0002 Response Brigitta Maas
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Enquiries <[email protected]>

Kia ora Brigitta

Please find attached our response transferring your below OIA request New Zealand Police.

Ngā mihi nui

Enquiries Team

īmēra: [email protected]

Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

www.publicservice.govt.nz | www.govt.nz

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Confidentiality notice: This email may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please tell the sender immediately by reply, remove this email and the reply from your system, and don’t act on it in any other way. Ngā mihi.

Kia ora,

Thank you for your correspondence advising that my Official Information Act 1982 request dated 11 January 2026 has been transferred to Te Whatu Ora under section 14 of the Act.

I acknowledge receipt of this notice.

For clarity and record purposes, please note:

1. The request was lawfully made on 11 January 2026, and the statutory timeframe under the Official Information Act runs from that date.
2. The transfer does not reset or extend the statutory response period.
3. The scope of the request remains exactly as set out in the original correspondence.
4. The request seeks records, communications, and process documentation only, and does not assert conclusions.
5. If any information is withheld, I expect the specific OIA withholding grounds relied upon to be clearly identified.

I will await further correspondence directly from Te Whatu Ora.

Ngā mihi,

Tracy Lynch

On Jan 20, 2026 at 4:06 PM, <OIA> wrote:
Kia ora Tracey,

Upon review of this OIA request, we have determined that we do not hold the relevant information, and will be transferring the request to Te Whatu Ora. Please see our attached letter for more information.

Ngâ mihi nui,

OIA Requests

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 11 January 2026 12:45 pm
To: OIA <[email protected]>
Cc: 105 <[email protected]>; Private Trust <[email protected]>; Records <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: OIA

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982 REQUEST

To: Official Information Act Requests

Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand

New Zealand

Dated today

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Greetings,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

The purpose of this request is to obtain information relating to Te Whatu Ora’s role in implementing, enforcing, or administering COVID-19 vaccination requirements within the health sector, and to identify any involvement, influence, or interference by external legal bodies, including the New Zealand Law Society, in relation to those requirements.

This request seeks records and process documentation only and does not assert conclusions.

Vaccination policy implementation

1.1 All directives, instructions, guidance documents, emails, memoranda, or internal communications issued or received by Te Whatu Ora between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 relating to COVID-19 vaccination requirements for health sector workers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and maternity staff.

1.2 All documents describing how vaccination requirements were operationalised, enforced, or monitored within Te Whatu Ora services, including consequences for non-compliance.

Employment, remuneration, and workforce actions

2.1 All documents relating to suspension, removal, stand-down, or cessation of remuneration of health workers arising from COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

2.2 Any guidance or advice relied upon by Te Whatu Ora concerning the lawfulness of ceasing remuneration without formal termination.

Awareness of voluntariness and legal status

3.1 All communications, advice, or briefing material held by Te Whatu Ora referencing COVID-19 vaccination as voluntary, optional, or non-mandatory.

3.2 Any internal discussion or risk assessment considering the implications of enforcing employment consequences where vaccination was described as voluntary.

Reporting of adverse outcomes and service impacts

4.1 All reports, notifications, or communications received by Te Whatu Ora from professional bodies, clinicians, midwives, or members of the public relating to pregnancy outcomes, maternity concerns, or placental observations during the COVID-19 response period.

4.2 All assessments of maternity service capacity, workforce shortages, or service disruption between 2021 and 2023.

External legal advice and Law Society involvement

5.1 All communications between Te Whatu Ora and the New Zealand Law Society between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 relating to COVID-19 vaccination policy, workforce enforcement, professional conduct, or regulatory response.

5.2 Any guidance, advice, commentary, or position statements provided by or attributed to the New Zealand Law Society that were relied upon by Te Whatu Ora in forming, justifying, or defending vaccination-related workforce actions.

5.3 Any discussions concerning the management of legal risk, litigation exposure, judicial review, or consistency of legal messaging across Crown agencies relating to COVID-19 vaccination enforcement.

Coordination with other agencies

6.1 All communications between Te Whatu Ora and the Ministry of Health, Treasury, Crown Law, or professional regulators relating to vaccination enforcement, workforce impacts, or legal risk management.

If any information is withheld, please specify the grounds relied upon under the Official Information Act 1982, including the relevant section(s) of the Act.

Please provide the requested information in electronic form.

Thank you.

By:

Tracy Lynch

To: [email protected]

COMPLAINT UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Kia ora,

I write to lodge a formal complaint under the Official Information Act 1982 concerning the handling of an Official Information Act request by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

1. Background

On 19 January 2026, an Official Information Act request was submitted to MPI seeking official institutional records, namely:

– Warrants;

– Warrant applications;

– Supporting affidavits or evidentiary material;

– Authorisations or judicial instruments;

– Correspondence between MPI and New Zealand Police;

that were applied for, issued, relied upon, or referenced by MPI in relation to enforcement activity involving Simon Stott.

The request does not seek personal information about the requester. It seeks records created, held, or relied upon by MPI in the exercise of statutory enforcement powers.

2. MPI Response

MPI responded stating that it would not process the request unless photographic identification was provided, asserting obligations relating to protection of personal information.

3. Grounds of Complaint

MPI’s refusal to process the request pending identification is procedurally and legally incorrect for the following reasons:

1. No statutory requirement for photographic identification

The Official Information Act 1982 does not require a requester to provide photographic identification where:

– The request concerns institutional or operational records, and

– The requester is not seeking access to their own personal information.

Identity verification is relevant only in limited circumstances involving disclosure of personal information about the requester. That is not the case here.

1. Improper delay of statutory timeframes

By refusing to commence processing unless identification is supplied, MPI has:

– Imposed a requirement not contained in the Act; and

– Effectively suspended statutory timeframes without lawful authority.

This constitutes an unlawful administrative barrier to access to official information.

1. Failure to cite withholding grounds

MPI has not identified:

– Any specific withholding ground under sections 6, 9, or 18 of the Act; nor

– Any statutory provision authorising refusal or delay based on identity in this context.

1. Public interest

The request concerns the existence and legality of warrants and enforcement authority exercised by a public agency. There is a strong public interest in transparency where coercive powers are exercised.

4. Relief Sought

I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:

1. Determine that MPI is not entitled to require photographic identification for this Official Information Act request;
2. Recommend that MPI immediately resume processing the request;
3. Confirm that statutory timeframes run from the original receipt date of 19 January 2026;
4. Require MPI to either:

– Release the requested information; or

– Properly refuse it by citing specific statutory grounds under the Official Information Act.

5. Current Status

As at the date of this complaint:

– MPI has not commenced substantive processing of the request;

– No lawful refusal decision has been issued;

– The delay is attributable solely to an improper identity demand.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ngā mihi nui,

F Q

for and on behalf of

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

Email: [email protected]

Attachments (if required):

• OIA request dated 19 January 2026
• MPI response requesting photographic identification

Begin forwarded message:

From: Official Information Act <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 20, 2026 at 2:22 PM
To: F Q <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OIA URGENT

Kia ora,

Thank you for your email of 19 January 2026, requesting information relating to Simon Stott.

Your request is being considered under the Official Information Act 1982.

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has statutory obligations to protect the personal information we hold. Before you receive any of your personal information, we must be satisfied that we know who you are so that we don’t risk giving information to the wrong person. We request that you supply via return email a copy of your photographic identification.

Accepted forms of photographic ID include a passport, drivers’ licence, student identification, Kiwi Access 18+ card, or firearms licence.

We will begin processing your request once this is received. We will be unable to provide you the information you have requested without an identifying document.

Please provide the requested proof of identification within five working days.

Ngā mihi nui,

Official Information Act Team

Government Services | Public Affairs

Level 15 (West) | Charles Fergusson Building
Ministry for Primary Industries – Manatū Ahu Matua
Web: www.mpi.govt.nz |Our Kotahi page: Official Information Act team

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2026 12:08 pm
To: Official Information Act <[email protected]>
Cc: Spsseaweed <[email protected]>; Records <[email protected]>; Crown-Richard <[email protected]>
Subject: OIA URGENT

OIA ​– Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

Please provide certified copies of all warrants, warrant applications, affidavits, authorisations, or judicial instruments that were applied for, issued, relied upon, or referenced by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in relation to:

• Simon Stott (full name as held on MPI records);
• Any associated addresses, properties, or operations;
• Any investigations, inspections, or enforcement actions.

This request includes, but is not limited to:

1. Copies of all warrants (search, inspection, seizure or otherwise);
2. Copies of all supporting affidavits or evidentiary material submitted in support of any warrant application;
3. The name and title of the issuing authority (Judge, Registrar, or Justice);
4. The date and place of issue of each warrant;
5. Any conditions, limitations, or scope attached to the warrant;
6. Any correspondence between MPI and the New Zealand Police regarding execution or assistance.

If no such warrants exist, please confirm that in writing.

This request is limited to factual records and does not seek opinion.

Issued by: Simon Stott (S-T-O-T-T)
Director and Founder, Seacures Limited

1. Standing and Capacity
I, Simon Stott, am the Director and Founder of Seacures Limited and the individual directly identified and affected by the public article published on 6 September 2023 titled “Lead, mercury fears fuel seaweed tonic warning”. This request is made in my personal and professional capacity as the affected party.

2. Triggering Event
On 6 September 2023, One News published the above article relying on information supplied by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The article asserted product risk, alleged sales and distribution, and implied unlawful conduct, resulting in immediate reputational and financial harm.

3. Statutory Basis
This request is made pursuant to sections 12, 13, 22, and 23 of the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Records Act 2005, and principles of natural justice.

4. Proof of Claim – Information Required (Certified True Copies)
Please provide certified true copies of all documents relied upon by MPI to justify statements made publicly, including:
• all media briefings, emails, memoranda, and communications supplied to One News or TVNZ;
• all photographs or images relied upon, including metadata and chain-of-custody records;
• all laboratory reports, scientific analyses, or risk assessments relied upon at the time of publication;
• all documents evidencing alleged sale or distribution of Seacures products;
• all search warrants, applications, affidavits, and judicial authorisations;
• all records evidencing police involvement or authority;
• all internal decision-making records approving public warnings or media engagement.

5. Certification Requirement
Summaries or paraphrases are not accepted. Documents must be provided as certified true copies.

6. Adverse Inference Notice
If any requested record does not exist, please state this explicitly. Absence of records will be relied upon as adverse inference.

7. Urgency
This request concerns serious reputational and commercial harm and should be treated as urgent.

Simon

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST – TREASURY

To:The Treasury New Zealand

Official Information Act Requests

Email: [email protected]

From:Attorney acting on instruction of Trustees

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

Date:  Today

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

This request relates to Treasury’s oversight, guidance, risk awareness, and records concerning the administrative and enforcement practices of Inland Revenue Department (IRD), particularly where those practices involve automated systems, deductions, or enforcement actions taken without prior disclosure of authority.

This request is made without admission of jurisdiction, status, or liability, and solely for information-gathering purposes.

Information Requested

1. Treasury Oversight of IRD

– Treasury’s role in overseeing, monitoring, or advising on IRD’s enforcement, compliance, or recovery practices.

– Any frameworks, mandates, or responsibilities Treasury holds in relation to IRD administrative risk.

2. Due Process & Procedural Fairness

– Any Treasury policies, guidance, or advice concerning due process or procedural fairness obligations of Crown entities when taking automated or administrative enforcement action.

– Any documents addressing the balance between automation and natural justice.

3. Fiscal & Liability Risk

– Any Treasury assessments, reports, briefings, or guidance concerning fiscal, legal, or insurance risk arising from unlawful or disputed administrative deductions or enforcement by Crown entities.

– Whether Treasury tracks or monitors such risks.

4. IRD-Specific Communications

– Copies of any communications, briefings, risk reports, or advisories between Treasury and IRD in the past five years relating to enforcement practices, automated deductions, administrative liability, or insurance or indemnity exposure.

5. Insurance / Indemnity Awareness

– Any Treasury records relating to insurance, indemnity, or liability coverage considerations for IRD enforcement actions.

– Confirmation of whether Treasury receives notification of insurance-triggering events involving IRD.

Form of Response

Please provide the information in electronic form.

If any information is withheld, please specify the precise statutory ground relied upon and why the public interest does not outweigh withholding.

Timeframe

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

We expect a response within the statutory timeframe.

Kind regards,

Tracy Lynch

Attorney acting on instruction of Trustees

InLandsAirWater Counsel

Private Trust under Non-Disclosure Agreement

For: InLandsAirWater Counsel

By: Laura Holmes

Private Trust under Non-Disclosure Agreement

To: Office of the Ombudsman

From: InLandsAirWater Counsel – Attorney’s Office (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

FORMAL NOTICE OF OVERSIGHT FAILURE AND DEMAND FOR DETERMINATION

This correspondence is issued as a generalised and formal notice concerning the Office of the Ombudsman’s handling of multiple Official Information Act matters referred to your office, in which:

– statutory response periods have expired,

– substantive determinations have not been made, and

– oversight has been replaced with mandate-based deflection rather than lawful investigation.

This notice is not limited to a single OIA reference. It applies to a growing body of matters already before your office in which no meaningful decision has been issued.

1. The legal position is clear and settled

Under section 15(1) of the Official Information Act 1982, agencies are required to make and communicate a decision within statutory timeframes.

Under section 15(4), failure to do so results in a deemed refusal as a matter of law.

Once a deemed refusal exists:

– section 28(4) confers jurisdiction on the Ombudsman; and

– section 29(1) imposes a mandatory duty to investigate failures to make a decision.

There is no discretion to decline investigation on the basis of mandate, workload, policy preference, or administrative framing.

This is not arguable.

2. The current pattern constitutes oversight failure

In multiple matters now before the Ombudsman:

– agencies have failed to answer lawful OIA requests;

– statutory deadlines have expired without lawful extension;

– the Ombudsman has not issued determinations; and

– correspondence has focused on scope, mandate, or process rather than findings.

That approach is inconsistent with the purpose of the Official Information Act, which exists to ensure accountability of public power, not to manage correspondence.

As confirmed in Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2015] NZHC 2497, conduct that frustrates the purpose of the Act — including delay and avoidance — is unlawful.

3. Silence is no longer neutral

Where an oversight body fails to act in the face of clear statutory breach, it ceases to be a passive observer.

It becomes part of the failure chain.

This is particularly serious where the information withheld concerns:

– public expenditure,

– enforcement activity,

– surveillance or investigative conduct, and

– decisions impacting rights, liberty, or property.

The courts have repeatedly held that such matters require heightened transparency and scrutiny, not administrative minimalism (see Dotcom v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 199; Chief Executive of Ministry of Fisheries v United Fisheries Ltd [2010] NZSC 106).

4. What is now required

Accordingly, this letter constitutes a formal demand for action, not further correspondence.

The Office of the Ombudsman is required to:

1. Acknowledge that multiple OIA matters before it are now deemed refusals as a matter of law;
2. Confirm that investigations are underway under sections 28–29 OIA;
3. Provide a clear timeframe for determinations to be issued; and
4. Cease reliance on “mandate” language where statutory duties are engaged.

This is a request for determination, not mediation.

5. Notice of record and escalation

This notice is placed on the formal record.

If determinations continue to be withheld, the failure will be documented as systemic oversight non-performance, and escalation beyond domestic administrative review will proceed.

That record will stand whether or not the Ombudsman chooses to act.

Please confirm, within 10 working days, the steps being taken to discharge your statutory duties.

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch

Attorney / Secretary

For the Trustees

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

On Oct 29, 2025 at 9:07 AM, <F Q> wrote:

NOTICE OF FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTABILITY & INSURANCE DISCLOSURE

From: InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

To: Ministry of Justice – Ministerial Services

Cc: MPI Official Information Act Office | Crown Law Office | PRLaw | Marsh Ltd (Broker)

Ref: ILAW-MOJ-INS-DISC-2025-001

Date: 29th October 2025

SUBJECT: Request for Insurance Disclosure and Recovery Pathways — OIA Ref 126889 / CRI-2024-025-000683

Hello,

This Notice is issued under instruction from the Trustees of the InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust, in reference to your partial transfer acknowledgment (OIA Ref 126889) and related discovery request OIA25-0683 concerning case CRI-2024-025-000683.

1. Fiduciary Accountability and Standing

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has confirmed that fiduciary agents and administrators are accountable for harm arising from their decisions, particularly where those decisions impact us — those born here — who are not legal entities nor parties to any Crown contract.

Furthermore, the High Court of Wellington (February 2025) publicly recorded that InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust is not a legal entity, and therefore not subject to statutory or corporate enforcement frameworks.

Accordingly, any administrative action taken against Trust beneficiaries falls under personal fiduciary liability of the decision-maker(s) and the insurance coverage attached to their role or employer.

2. Insurance Disclosure Request

We now require full insurance disclosure for each administrative party involved in this matter, including but not limited to:

Each insurer, broker, and policy reference must be provided under sections 12–13 OIA, sections 7–8 Privacy Act 2020, and fiduciary disclosure duties established under the Evidence Act 2006 and Criminal Disclosures Act 2008.

3. Claim and Cost Recovery Pathways

Due to ongoing administrative harm and the absence of lawful authority or verified contract, the Trust will pursue direct recovery through insurers rather than intermediaries acting as legal service providers to the Crown.

Please provide:
– Policy details and claim-lodgement procedures for each insurer;
– Confirmation of the Ministry’s self-insurance or Treasury Risk Management arrangements (if applicable);
– Details of any excess, limitation, or exclusions relevant to harm caused by administrative error or misapplication of authority.

This disclosure will enable lawful settlement of damages and restoration of affected Trust property without further conflict.

4. Authority and Notice

This notice is issued under the Private Trust Non-Disclosure Agreement (PTNDA) and the lawful authority of the Trustees of InLandsAirWater Counsel.

All further correspondence shall be directed to:

Attorney Office — InLandsAirWater Counsel (PTNDA)
PO Box 265, Queenstown
Email: [email protected]

Failure to respond or provide full insurance disclosure within 10 working days will be treated as a breach of fiduciary duty and an insurable event, giving rise to invoice enforcement under the Trust fee schedule.

By:Tracy Lynch
Attorney / Secretary – InLandsAirWater Counsel (PTNDA)
For:Trustees

Begin forwarded message:

From: Crown-Richard <[email protected]>
Date: Oct 29, 2025 at 7:51 AM
To: F Q <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Partial transfer – Richard Powell (ref: 126889)

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 7:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Official Information Act <[email protected]>
Subject: Partial transfer – Richard Powell (ref: 126889)

Tçnâ koe Richard,

We acknowledge receipt of your request partially transferred to the Ministry of Justice, under the Official Information Act 1982.  Specifically, you requested:

III. The costs incurred by the Justice Department and or the Invercargill District Court in hiring the court rooms, facilities, Judges, registrars for each hearing, expected costs for pretrial and trial.

This has been forwarded onto the relevant business unit to respond to.

The Ministry may publish the response to your request on our website, you can expect that if your OIA is to be published that this will take place at least 10 working days after it has been sent you. Your name and any other personal information will be withheld under Section 9(2)(a) (protect the privacy of natural persons).

You can expect a response by 14 November 2025.

Ngâ mihi nui,

Ministerial Services

Hello

I am writing further to matters already notified concerning Police conduct in the Rangitīkei district. This correspondence is sent deliberately to place concerns on the integrity record, as I do not have confidence that Police self-monitoring is operating effectively in this case.

I am an attorney acting under instruction of the trustee of a private trust, assisting beneficiaries. Despite this, New Zealand Police have repeatedly ignored attorneys, failed to engage in writing when requested, and proceeded with enforcement actions without addressing lawful representation. Multiple Official Information Act requests have been submitted asking how and by what authority Police disregard attorneys. These questions remain unanswered.

I also formally record that during a telephone call with Sergeant Neil Forlong, I was left feeling threatened, notwithstanding that I was acting in a professional capacity, not as a suspect or witness. While Sergeant Forlong indicated he was “comfortable” with the situation, the context, imbalance of authority, and refusal to engage through proper written process created a perception of intimidation. This is not acceptable when dealing with counsel.

These concerns sit alongside broader integrity failures already documented, including:

– Failure to provide any record or inventory of the first search and seizure

– Subsequent narrative changes implying property was not taken, despite it no longer being in the possession of those present

– Attempts by Police to redefine or narrow the scope of complaints made about their own conduct

– Repeated reliance on Police internal handling in circumstances where evidential gaps and contradictions exist

Taken together, this is not an isolated issue. It is a public-interest concern affecting confidence in Police conduct and accountability within the Rangitīkei district.

I do not accept that Police are capable of independently or adequately monitoring themselves in this matter. For that reason, I am placing these concerns directly on the integrity record and reserving all rights to escalate further should these issues continue to be minimised, delayed, or reframed.

Please ensure this correspondence is retained in full as part of the integrity record.

Tracy

Attorney acting under instruction of the trustee

On Jan 15, 2026 at 9:51 AM, <Case Resolution> wrote:

Kia ora

Your complaint to Police on 6 January 2026, has been forwarded by Police to the Authority.

We currently have very high volumes of complaints which means it may take some time before we reach your complaint. We will let you know when we start assessing it.

If you have further information relating to this complaint, it is important that you send this through to us immediately. Once we have made our final decision, further information may not be accepted unless you were unable to provide it earlier.

You can email this through to [email protected]. If the footage/documentation you would like to share is too big to email, please let us know and we can send you a link to securely share it or you can forward to PO Box 25221, Wellington 6140.

Our complaints process

Initially, we read your complaint and find the relevant Police records. In most cases, this is all we need to make a decision.

We will contact you if we need more information.

We won’t interview you or contact your witnesses unless we think the complaint is serious enough that it needs a formal investigation.

In some cases, we need more information from Police e.g. footage or the officer’s account of what happened. If this is needed, we will let you know.

As part of this process, the Police might contact you to get more information or see if they can resolve the matter. They are allowed to do this, and we encourage you to talk to them if they contact you about your complaint.

Please note that it may take several months for the Authority to obtain all the information needed to make a decision.

If your case needs investigation

If we decide your case needs investigation, we might ask Police to investigate. We will oversee their investigation to make sure it is thorough and fair.

In the most serious cases, we might decide to investigate ourselves. Any investigation that we do is independent from Police. We will generally arrange to talk to you about the matter and talk to any witnesses.

We will let you know if an investigation is required. Formal investigations can take a long time, but we will do our best to conduct any investigation as quickly as we can, and keep you updated on progress.

Ngâ mihi,

Karen
Team Coordinator – Resolution
Independent Police Conduct Authority, P O Box 25-221, Wellington 6140, Aotearoa New Zealand

www.ipca.govt.nz

Caution: If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this message along with any attachments.  Please treat the contents of this message as private and confidential. Thank you.

This email constitutes a request for official information under the Official Information Act 1982.

This request arises from the Ministry of Social Development’s failure to act on documents personally served at the Queenstown office on 31 October 2025 concerning Michael Clark’s pension entitlement, and the subsequent delay which has now resulted in material financial harm to a man with no income.

The information requested is as follows:

1. All internal records, notes, emails, instructions, and communications (including those involving legal services or external advisers) relating to:

– the handling of the documents served on 31 October 2025;

– any decision not to process, respond to, or act on those documents.

2. The reasons for the delay, including:

– when the documents were first received and logged;

– what actions (if any) were taken following service;

– who made decisions to defer, halt, or redirect processing.

3. Any legal advice, policy guidance, or interpretive material relied upon by MSD staff or agents in:

– treating the matter as requiring completion of an MSD-generated pension application form;

   – distinguishing (or failing to distinguish) between service of documents and application.

4. The statutory authority relied upon to disregard or suspend action on documents that were properly served, pending execution of an MSD form.

5. Any assessment of financial harm or hardship arising from the delay, including whether MSD considered the foreseeable impact of non-payment once the first pension payment date passed.

Clarification

For the avoidance of doubt, Michael Clark has not refused to engage. He has declined to sign an MSD pension application form because it does not reflect the authority or protocol set out in the documents that were served. Signing a materially incorrect or misrepresentative form would expose him to legal and financial risk, including the risk of making a false declaration.

The issue here is not an “incomplete application”, but whether MSD has acted lawfully, promptly, and with proper understanding of the documents already in its possession.

Given the seriousness of the resulting financial harm, this request is made urgently. Please confirm receipt and the applicable statutory response timeframe.

Tracy Lynch

Supporting Michael Clark

[email protected]

On Jan 13, 2026 at 3:49 PM, <Seniors Portfolio> wrote:

Tēnā koe Tracey,

On 8 January 2026 you emailed the Minister for Seniors, Hon Casey Costello, requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982, the following information:

•  documents personally served at the Ministry of Social Development Queenstown office on 31 October 2025 concerning Michael Clark’s pension entitlement including the receipt, logging, and current whereabouts of the served documents; the statutory authority relied upon; the due process followed (if any); and the reasons for the absence of contact, decision, or payment

We have transferred your request to the Ministry of Social Development as the information to which your request relates is not held by the Minister for Seniors but is believed to be held by the Ministry of Social Development. In these circumstances, we are required by section 14 of the OIA to transfer your request.

Please note that according to sections 14 and 15(1) of the Official Information Act, the 20-working day response period is reset by the transfer and starts again on the day the Ministry of Social Development receives the transfer notification. Minister Costello’s office notified the Ministry of Social Development of the transfer today.

You will hear further from the Ministry of Social Development concerning your request in due course.

Ngā mihi

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2026 3:59 pm
To: Casey Costello (MIN) <[email protected]>
Subject: OIA

Please find attached an Official Information Act request relating to the handling of documents personally served on the Ministry of Social Development at the Queenstown office on 31 October 2025, concerning Michael Clark’s pension entitlement.

This request seeks clarification of:

– receipt, logging, and current whereabouts of the served documents;

– the statutory authority relied upon;

– the due process followed (if any);

– and the reasons for the absence of contact, decision, or payment.

The request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

Please confirm receipt and note the statutory response timeframe.

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch

Supporting Michael Clark

This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry.

This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry.

Living in the private is a good place to start.

I read the 62 pages I was able to down load in 2023  4 – 5 times, each time I picked out more important things to remember and highlight.

https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/your-public-trust.html

To: Official Information Act Requests

Midwifery Council of New Zealand

New Zealand

Dated today

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Greetings,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

The purpose of this request is to obtain information relating to the Midwifery Council of New Zealand’s actions, decisions, communications, and processes during the COVID-19 response period, particularly as they relate to vaccination requirements, professional conduct expectations, workforce outcomes, and reporting of clinical concerns.

This request seeks records and process documentation only and does not assert conclusions.

Vaccination-related directives and guidance

1.1 All directives, guidance, advisories, circulars, emails, memoranda, or communications issued or received by the Midwifery Council between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 relating to COVID-19 vaccination, including any expectations placed on midwives regarding discussion, disclosure, or commentary about vaccination with pregnant women.

1.2 Any documents describing restrictions, cautions, or limitations placed on midwives in relation to discussing vaccination risks, benefits, adverse events, or clinical observations with clients.

Professional conduct, complaints, and reporting

2.1 All policies, procedures, or guidance relating to how reports or concerns raised by midwives or mothers regarding pregnancy outcomes, miscarriages, stillbirths, placental observations, or neonatal concerns were to be received, assessed, escalated, or recorded during the COVID-19 response period.

2.2 Aggregate data (with personal identifiers removed) showing the number of reports, notifications, or complaints received by the Council between 2020 and 2023 relating to pregnancy outcomes or vaccination concerns.

Workforce actions and registration impacts

3.1 All documents relating to suspension, cancellation, non-renewal, conditions placed on practising certificates, or other regulatory actions affecting midwives in connection with COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

3.2 Any communications with midwives regarding cessation of practice, inability to work, or loss of income arising from vaccination-related requirements.

3.3 Any documents relating to the handling of resignations, withdrawals, or changes in practising status during this period, including acceptance, rejection, or alteration of resignation documentation.

Awareness of voluntariness and legal status

4.1 All Council communications, advice, or briefing material referencing COVID-19 vaccination as voluntary, optional, or non-mandatory.

4.2 Any internal discussion or legal advice considered by the Council regarding the regulatory consequences of vaccination where it was described as voluntary.

Service capacity and public safety

5.1 Any assessments, reports, or communications held by the Council relating to impacts on maternity service capacity, availability of midwives, or continuity of care resulting from workforce reductions between 2021 and 2023.

External coordination and legal influence

6.1 All communications between the Midwifery Council and the Ministry of Health, Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, Treasury, Crown Law, or the New Zealand Law Society relating to COVID-19 vaccination, professional conduct expectations, workforce impacts, or legal risk management.

If any information is withheld, please specify the grounds relied upon under the Official Information Act 1982, including the relevant section(s) of the Act.

Please provide the requested information in electronic form.

Thank you.

By:

Tracy Lynch

OIA REQUEST

Police Authority, Use of Force, Property Seizure, and Identity Process Ref; PPN 1685892711

To:

Official Information Act Requests

New Zealand Police

Email: [email protected]

Cc:

Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA)

Date: 9.01.2026

Subject: Official Information Act Request – Police Authority, Property Interference, Use of Force, and Identity Determination

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Kia ora,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I request the following information relating to police conduct during an arrest and enforcement interaction involving use of force, seizure of property, and identity determination.

A. Authority and Instructions

Please provide copies of:

1. Any operational orders, instructions, or briefings directing officers to interfere with or assert control over:

• Vehicle number plates

• Private property associated with the vehicle

2. Any document identifying who authorised such actions and on what legal basis.

3. Any policy, statute, or delegated authority relied upon to treat the property as subject to police control.

B. Property Seizure and Search

Please provide copies of:

4. Policies governing the removal of personal items (including wallets) from a person who is handcuffed.

5. Policies or guidance governing searches of pockets during arrest where no immediate safety risk is identified.

6. Any record justifying the seizure of a wallet in this instance.

7. Any inventory, evidence log, or chain-of-custody record relating to seized items.

C. Use of Force

Please provide copies of:

8. All use-of-force reports, notes, or assessments completed by attending officers.

9. Any supervisory review or post-incident assessment.

10. Any body-worn camera, in-car camera, or CCTV footage associated with the incident.

D. Identity Determination

Please provide copies of:

11. Records showing how identity was determined where a name was not verbally provided.

12. Any systems, databases, or identifiers accessed for that purpose.

13. The legal authority relied upon to obtain or confirm identity in those circumstances.

E. Oversight and Accountability

14. Any internal review, complaint, or notification made to IPCA relating to this incident.

If any information is withheld, please specify the exact statutory ground relied upon.

This request is made to ensure transparency, accountability, and accuracy of the public record.

Nāku noa, nā

This is to check whether they recognize the Abatement has legal standing in court procedure. It will be interesting to see the result. It effects 4 active cases at present.

FORMAL NOTICE TO LEGAL COUNSEL

Ministry of Justice / Crown Law

To:

Legal Counsel

Crown Law Office

Date: 09.01.2026

Subject: Formal Abatement – Request for Confirmation of Handling and Procedural Status

⸻

Kia ora,

This notice concerns a formal abatement that was served on the prosecution and directed to Legal Counsel within the Ministry of Justice / Crown Law.

The abatement was issued following the entry of a Not Guilty plea and prior to any conviction or sentence. Enforcement action has nevertheless proceeded.

For the purpose of maintaining an accurate procedural record, please confirm:

1. The date the abatement was received by Legal Counsel.

2. Whether the abatement was:

• considered,

• responded to, or

• placed before a Judge or judicial officer.

3. Whether Legal Counsel formed any view as to the procedural effect of the abatement.

4. Whether Legal Counsel authorised, advised, or acquiesced in enforcement action proceeding while the abatement remained unanswered.

This notice is not an Official Information Act request. It is a procedural clarification request directed to the legal officers to whom the abatement was sent.

No inference should be drawn from silence, however this correspondence is issued to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the procedural record.

Nāku noa, nā

⸻

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Status, Handling, and Disposition of Formal Abatement

To:

Official Information Act Requests

Ministry of Justice

Email: [email protected]

Cc:

Police Prosecution Service

District Court Registry

Date: 9.01.2026

Subject: Official Information Act Request – Status, Consideration, and Disposition of Formal Abatement

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Kia ora,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I request all information held relating to the receipt, handling, consideration, and procedural status of a formal abatement that was served on the prosecution and placed before the court in the above matter.

A. Receipt and Recording of the Abatement

Please provide copies of:

1. Any record confirming receipt of the abatement, including:

• Date received

• Method of receipt

• Office or person who received it

2. Any court registry entry, file note, or administrative record logging the abatement. Ref; PPN 1685892711

3. Any record showing the abatement was placed before a Judge or judicial officer.

B. Consideration and Response

Please provide copies of:

4. Any judicial direction, minute, endorsement, or ruling addressing the abatement.

5. Any record showing the abatement was:

• Accepted

• Rejected

• Deferred

• Ignored

• Treated as invalid

(including the reasons relied upon)

6. Any document recording a procedural decision as to whether the abatement required response or determination.

C. Prosecution Action

Please provide copies of:

7. Any response, rebuttal, or objection filed by the prosecution in relation to the abatement.

8. Any internal prosecution correspondence or file notes discussing:

• The effect of the abatement

• Whether proceedings could continue

9. Any instruction or advice received by the prosecution regarding how to proceed in light of the abatement.

D. Effect on Proceedings

Please provide copies of:

10. Any record explaining how enforcement action (including fines or deductions) could proceed while the abatement remained unanswered.

11. Any document asserting that the abatement:

• Had no effect, or

• Was overridden administratively, or

• Was not required to be addressed

including the authority relied upon.

E. Current Status

12. Please confirm the current procedural status of the abatement, namely whether it is:

• Pending

• Determined

• Struck out

• Otherwise disposed of

and provide the document evidencing that status.

Clarification Sought

13. Please confirm whether it is the Ministry’s position that administrative enforcement may proceed in circumstances where:

• A Not Guilty plea has been entered, and

• A formal abatement has been served, and

• No judicial response to the abatement exists.

If so, please provide the legal authority relied upon.

If any information is withheld, please specify the precise statutory ground relied upon under the Official Information Act.

This request is made to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the procedural and public record.

Nāku noa, nā

This comes from having a bundle of our mail returned and opened. We have for the last year being using a UPU RL114 (2.2) stamp legally registered to us.

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Postal Handling, Change of Practice, and Integrity of Sealed Mail
To:
Official Information Act Requests
New Zealand Post
Date: 9th January 2026
This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.
I recently lodged mail items with New Zealand Post for delivery. The items were clearly
marked on the exterior of the envelopes as private, sealed correspondence, including in
LandsAirWater Counsel – PTNDA markings and a visible seal/flag.
The items were:
– Tendered for delivery,
– Returned with a sticker stating “not delivered due to a lack of postage”,
– Opened during postal handling, and
– Returned with contents missing.
The items also bore a UCC postage number, which has previously been accepted for
conveyed mail, including mail originating from overseas postal systems.
To understand the handling of these items and any change in relevant practices, I request
the following information.
Requested information
1. Handling of mail with non-recognised or disputed postage
All policies, procedures, manuals, or operational instructions governing how New Zealand
Post handles mail that is tendered with postage that is not recognised or is disputed by NZ
Post systems.
2. Acceptance of UCC postage numbers – prior practice and change
a) Confirmation of whether New Zealand Post has, at any time, accepted, conveyed, or
delivered mail bearing a UCC postage number, including international mail.
b) Any policies or guidance that previously permitted such acceptance.
c) The date on which New Zealand Post ceased accepting or conveying mail bearing a UCC
postage number (if applicable).
d) The authority or decision under which this change occurred.
e) Whether this change was formally documented and communicated to staff or the public.
3. Non-delivery status
Confirmation of whether mail returned with the sticker “not delivered due to a lack of
postage” is recorded by New Zealand Post as not delivered, delivery not attempted, and not
served.
4. Authority to open mail
The circumstances under which New Zealand Post staff are authorised to open mail prior to
delivery, including where an item is rejected for lack of recognised postage.
5. Handling of sealed or marked private correspondence
Policies, procedures, or staff instructions governing the handling of mail that is visibly
marked as sealed, private, confidential, or subject to a trust or non-disclosure notice
(including seals, flags, or trust markings on the envelope).
6. Loss or removal of contents
Policies and procedures governing incidents where mail contents are lost, removed, or
otherwise missing while an item is in New Zealand Post custody.
7. Incident reporting and records
Details of any internal records created when mail is opened during postal handling and/or
contents are missing on return, including incident reports, system logs, event codes, or
compliance records.
8. Chain of custody
New Zealand Post’s procedures for maintaining chain of custody and content integrity for
mail items that are tendered, rejected, and returned without delivery.
Format and scope
Please provide the requested information in electronic form (PDF or DOC).
If any information is withheld, please specify the exact statutory ground relied upon for
each item withheld.
This request does not seek personal information or the contents of correspondence. It seeks
process, policy, authority, and handling records only.
Steve Chairman
in LandsAirWater Counsel – PTNDA
PO Box 265, Queenstown

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Selective Enforcement, Unequal Treatment, and Exercise of Discretion – Seaweed / Novel Feed Regulation

To:

Official Information Act Requests

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Email: [email protected]

Dated today 9th January 2026

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Hello,

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I seek information relating to the exercise of regulatory discretion, enforcement prioritisation, and consistency of treatment by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in relation to seaweed-based products, marine-derived feeds, supplements, or additives, including (but not limited to) products associated with methane reduction, animal health, productivity, or environmental outcomes.

This request is made to assess whether MPI’s regulatory actions have been applied consistently, proportionately, and in accordance with principles of natural justice and administrative law, and whether similarly situated persons or entities are being treated equally.

1. Enforcement actions and decisions

For the period 1 January 2018 to the present, please provide:

1.1 A list of all enforcement actions, investigations, compliance notices, warnings, prohibitions, or other regulatory interventions undertaken or initiated by MPI (or any delegated authority) in relation to:

• Seaweed-based products

• Marine-derived feeds or supplements

• Novel animal feed ingredients of marine origin

1.2 For each action identified, please include:

• The nature of the alleged or identified non-compliance

• The statutory or regulatory provisions relied upon

• The regulatory outcome (for example: warning issued, prohibition imposed, prosecution commenced, matter resolved with no further action)

2. Comparative treatment and selective enforcement

2.1 Copies of, or references to, policies, guidelines, decision matrices, or risk-based frameworksused by MPI to determine:

• Which operators or activities are selected for investigation or enforcement

• Which operators or activities are permitted to proceed under monitoring, trials, exemptions, or alternative compliance pathways

2.2 Any documents that describe or guide differential treatment between:

• Individual operators or small enterprises

• Commercial corporate entities

• Crown-funded, Crown-affiliated, or institutionally partnered research or industry trials

3. Discretion, exemptions, and alternative pathways

3.1 Details of any exemptions, approvals, pilot permissions, research allowances, discretionary decisions, or alternative compliance pathways granted by MPI in relation to seaweed-based or marine-derived products during the same period.

3.2 For each exemption, approval, or allowance identified, please provide:

• The legal or regulatory authority relied upon

• The general category of operator (for example: private individual, small enterprise, corporate entity, Crown or research partner)

• Any conditions or limitations attached to that decision

4. Internal communications and decision rationale

4.1 Copies of internal communications (including emails, briefings, memoranda, or meeting notes) that discuss:

• Enforcement priorities or approaches relating to seaweed-based or novel marine-derived products

• Considerations relevant to reputational, commercial, sector-wide, or policy impacts influencing enforcement decisions

• Comparisons or distinctions between enforcement against individual operators and treatment of industry or institutional projects

4.2 Any documents referencing concepts such as selective enforcement, precedent, sector confidence, industry alignment, or proportionality in the context of these regulatory decisions.

5. Natural justice, consistency, and administrative fairness

5.1 MPI policies, guidance, or internal instructions relating to:

• Equal treatment of regulated persons

• Proportionality and consistency in enforcement

• Avoidance of arbitrary or discriminatory application of regulatory powers

5.2 Details of any reviews, audits, internal assessments, or complaints received by MPI that allege or address:

• Unequal or inconsistent treatment of operators

• Improper or disproportionate exercise of regulatory discretion

• Concerns relating to natural justice in the food, feed, or bio-innovation regulatory space

6. Clarification regarding litigation

For the avoidance of doubt, this request does not seek:

• Legal advice

• Litigation strategy

• Draft pleadings

• Evidence prepared specifically for court proceedings

The information sought relates to general enforcement policies, administrative decision-making frameworks, comparator treatment, and the exercise of discretion.

The existence of any current or contemplated court proceedings does not, in itself, provide lawful grounds for withholding the categories of information requested above. Any decision to withhold information is requested to be specifically itemised, with the precise statutory basis identified for each item.

7. Format, timing, and withholding

• Please provide the requested information in electronic format.

• Where information is withheld, please:

• Identify the specific provision of the Official Information Act relied upon

• Provide the required public-interest balancing assessment

• Release all information capable of being provided with appropriate redactions

Purpose of request

This request is made to assess whether MPI’s regulatory actions and exercise of discretion are being applied lawfully, consistently, and in accordance with principles of natural justice and equal treatment, and to understand the administrative frameworks underpinning those decisions.

In good faith

By:Tracy

For:STOTT inLandsAirWater counsel PTNDA

Last night we got a bundle of of letters returned to us all opened.

They are saying our stamp is not sufficient postage paid.

Tracy is going to quote UCC law to them for what good that will do, I will resend the mail again today.

Refinement of Official Information Act Request

Subject: Refinement of OIA request – scope of enforcement authority and police reliance

Thank you for your response and invitation to refine the request.

This email refines the original Official Information Act request dated 1 January 2026. The purpose of the request remains to clarify the scope of NZTA’s enforcement authority and its reliance on sworn Police officers, particularly in relation to coercive powers affecting members of the public.

To avoid unnecessary collation and to assist efficient processing, the request is refined as follows:

1. Independent enforcement authority

Please provide policy, legislative, or operational documents (including internal guidance, delegations, or statutory interpretations) that address whether NZTA has independent authority to compel compliance by members of the public without Police involvement, specifically in relation to:

• Vehicle compliance and enforcement actions affecting private persons
• Directions, stops, seizures, or enforcement actions with coercive effect

Timeframe: Current documents in force as at 1 January 2026, plus any superseded documents from 1 January 2018 to present, if readily identifiable.

2. Referral to Police

Please provide procedural or guidance documents describing:

• When matters are required or expected to be referred to New Zealand Police
• The basis on which Police exercise enforcement powers on NZTA’s request or referral
• Any documents describing limits on NZTA action absent Police involvement

Timeframe: Current documents in force as at 1 January 2026.

3. Absence or limits of coercive powers

Please provide records, guidance, or legal advice summaries (excluding privileged legal advice if necessary) that explain:

• Whether NZTA cannot compel compliance without Police involvement
• Any identified limits on NZTA authority where Police powers are required

This request relates specifically to coercive enforcement against members of the public, not administrative processing.

Timeframe: Current documents in force as at 1 January 2026.

4. Relationship with local councils

Please provide formal documents or memoranda that define NZTA’s relationship with local councils in relation to enforcement, including:

• Allocation of enforcement responsibility
• Reliance on Police or council officers for coercive actions

Timeframe: Current documents in force as at 1 January 2026.

5. Training and operational guidance

Please provide training materials, manuals, or operational guidance that address:

• Limits of NZTA enforcement authority
• Reliance on sworn Police officers for enforcement with coercive effect

This request is limited to road safety and vehicle compliance enforcement.

Timeframe: Current materials in use as at 1 January 2026.

This refinement is intended to focus the request on existing authoritative documents, not to require research, opinion, or narrative explanation.

If NZTA considers that no such documents exist, please confirm that explicitly, in accordance with the Act.

Please proceed with processing the request under the Official Information Act 1982 on this refined basis.

In good faith.

By:Tracy Lynch

Attorney acting under instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

On Jan 9, 2026 at 10:54 AM, <Official Correspondence> wrote:

Dear Tracy,

Official information request for scope of authority and reliance on police enforcement.

I refer to your official information request dated 1 January 2026. We consider that your request as currently framed cannot be met without substantial collation and research and may place an unreasonable administrative burden on NZTA.

In order to provide you with appropriate information, we are inviting you to refine your request and ask you to consider refining to specific questions and/ or types of documents.

If the scope of your request is not reduced, we may have to consider charging a fee to provide the information (as allowed under section 15 of the Act), extending the timeframe for responding to your request (as per section 15A of the Act), or refusing your request under section 18(f) of the Act.

Clarifying these points will help us process your request promptly and avoid unnecessary delays. Please let us know your preferences at your earliest convenience.

Once you have refined your request, we will progress it accordingly under the Act. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss this further.

Ngâ mihi

Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi

Connect with us on Social Media

From: F Q
Sent: Thursday, 1 January 2026 5:22 pm
To: MVR Confidential ; Information Requests
Cc: 105 ; Karen B ; Chairman
Subject: Oia

Kindly find attached an OIA request for both agencies

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This communication may be accessed or retained by NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi for information assurance purposes.

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Gene Technology – Safety Definition, Liability, Insurance, and Fiscal Risk

To:
Official Information Act Requests
The Treasury
[email protected]

And:
Office of the Prime Minister
[email protected]

Dated today

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

This request seeks information relating to gene technology policy, approvals, promotion, and funding, including how “safety” is defined, how risk is allocated, and where liability and fiscal responsibility sit when decisions affect food systems, landholders, businesses, and quality of life.

1. Definition of “Safety”

2. Liability, Insurance, and Risk Allocation

3. Fiscal Risk and Treasury Involvement

4. Decision-Making and Accountability

5. Absence of Information

If any of the information requested above does not exist, please confirm that explicitly.

Preferred Format

Electronic copies (PDF) are preferred. If information is withheld, please specify the exact statutory grounds relied upon.

Purpose

The purpose of this request is to understand how decisions described as “safe” are defined, funded, insured, and accounted for, where those decisions may interfere with life, food systems, livelihoods, and lands, land.

By:Tracy

Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing: Governance, Funding, Safety, and Property Implications

To:
Official Information Act Requests
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi

Date: 08 January 2026

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

This request concerns NZTA’s policy, funding, governance, and oversight role in the roadside oral fluid drug testing regime administered by New Zealand Police.

1. Policy Oversight and Governance
1.1 NZTA’s role in approving, overseeing, or funding roadside oral fluid testing.
1.2 Any governance arrangements or agreements with Police.

2. Funding and Financial Flows
2.1 Whether the programme is funded through the National Land Transport Fund.
2.2 Budget allocations or forecasts relating to oral fluid testing.

3. Health, Safety, and Risk Considerations
3.1 Any health risk assessments or safety advice held or commissioned by NZTA.
3.2 Consideration of non-clinical roadside testing environments.

4. Property and Encumbrance Implications
4.1 Assessment of risks relating to roadside vehicle immobilisation or interference with private property.

5. Procurement and Beneficiaries
5.1 Procurement documentation or supplier agreements relating to oral fluid testing.

Clarification Regarding Refusal or Absence of Records
If any part of this request is refused, partially refused, or answered on the basis that no relevant information is held, this will be understood to indicate that the relevant assessments, policies, safeguards, monitoring systems, or governance records do not exist or have not been created or retained. Such an outcome would be relevant to any subsequent consideration of lawfulness, procedural propriety, duty of care, health and safety obligations, property interference, liability, and public accountability.

Statutory Authority, Due Process, and Rule Changes for COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Oversight
From:
InLandsAirWater Counsel
Ann Kifo – Attorney acting under instruction
Private Trust Correspondence
PO Box 265
Queenstown
To:
Official Information Act Team
Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand
[email protected]
Dated today
This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I seek official information relating to the statutory authority, due process requirements, and any changes to rules or procedures governing how Te Whatu Ora (and predecessor entities) identified, assessed, escalated, or declined to act on COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, including clustered or anomalous adverse outcomes.

This request concerns process and governance only. It does not seek personal clinical records.

1. Statutory Authority

Kindly identifyy the specific statutory provisions relied upon between 2021–2024 that authorised:
– Any deviation from standard medicines safety monitoring or escalation processes;
– Any discretion to downgrade, defer, or not escalate adverse outcome signals.

If no statute expressly authorised such deviation, please confirm this.

2. Due Process Obligations

Kindly provide documents setting out:
– The minimum due process steps required when adverse outcome signals emerged;
– Whether those steps were mandatory or discretionary;
– How compliance with those steps was verified, audited, or assured.

3. Rule Changes, Waivers, or Modifications

Kindly provide copies of any policy instruments, directives, guidance, exemptions, or internal instructions issued between 2020–2024 that altered normal vaccine safety monitoring, escalation, or disclosure processes.

For each, please identify the author, approving authority, date in force, and the legal advice or statutory basis relied upon.

4. Signal Detection and Escalation Thresholds

Kindly confirm whether defined thresholds or triggers existed requiring escalation when:
– Statistically unusual adverse outcomes occurred;
– Concentrated outcomes were associated with a single vaccinator, clinic, or short time period.

If such thresholds existed, please provide the documents defining them and how compliance was ensured.

If no such thresholds existed, please explain how this was consistent with statutory safety obligations.

5. Consideration of Non-Clinical Factors

Kindly provide documents showing whether programme continuity, public confidence, messaging, or reputational risk were considered when deciding whether to escalate, investigate, or disclose safety concerns.

Please identify the statutory authority permitting such considerations.

6. Accountability and Oversight

Kindly identify:
– The role(s) responsible for ensuring statutory compliance;
– Any internal reviews, audits, or concerns raised regarding failures to follow required process or due diligence.

If any information is withheld, please specify the exact statutory withholding ground relied upon, explain how the public interest test was applied, and release all reasonably severable material.

If this request is likely to exceed time limits, please advise which parts may be refined to enable compliance.

By:Ann Kifo

8/01/26
Attorney acting under instruction
InLandsAirWater Counsel

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing: Health Harm, Representation, Authority, and Entry onto Private Trust Property
To:
Official Information Act Requests
New Zealand Police
Date: 08 January 2026
Request under the Official Information Act 1982
This request seeks clarification of New Zealand Police policy, authority, governance, and duty of care in relation to:
• compulsory roadside oral fluid (saliva) drug testing;
• potential health harm arising from such testing;
• refusal to engage with attorneys (as distinct from lawyers); and
• Police entry onto clearly marked private trust property asserting non-consent.
This request is made in the public interest.

1. Representation: Attorneys vs Lawyers
1.1 Copies of any policies, directives, or internal guidance stating that Police will engage only with “lawyers” and not with attorneys acting under private mandate, trust authority, or power of appointment.
1.2 Clarification of whether Police recognise a distinction between a lawyer regulated under statute and an attorney acting under trust or private authority.
1.3 Copies of any legal advice or internal memoranda relied upon to justify refusing engagement with attorneys.

2. Meaning of “Doing Things Legally”
2.1 Explanation of what Police mean when stating enforcement is being done “legally” while declining engagement with attorneys.
2.2 Confirmation of whether Police policy treats statutory compliance alone as sufficient, or whether lawful process also requires consideration of representation, notice, property rights, health risk, and duty of care.

3. Identity and Composition of Oral Fluid Test Devices
3.1 Manufacturer, model, and specification sheets for each oral fluid testing device used.
3.2 Full list of chemical reagents, indicators, antibodies, preservatives, stabilisers, or substrates contained in the test devices.
3.3 Confirmation of whether devices contain DNA-binding agents or biological collection media.

4. Health Risk, Harm, and Biological Safety
4.1 Copies of health and safety assessments, toxicology reviews, biological safety evaluations, or risk analyses.
4.2 Confirmation of whether devices are classified as medical, biological, or chemical testing devices.
4.3 Hygiene, contamination, storage, and handling standards for roadside use.

5. Adverse Effects, Monitoring, and Causation
5.1 Whether Police record adverse health effects or complaints.
5.2 Number of adverse effect reports received.
5.3 Evidential basis relied upon to exclude the test as a cause of harm.

6. Safety, Welfare, and Property Protection
6.1 Procedures for assessing safety when a person is prohibited from driving for up to 12 hours.
6.2 Steps taken where a person is stranded or vulnerable.
6.3 Responsibility for vehicle safety and contents.

7. Entry onto Clearly Marked Private Trust Property
7.1 Police policy regarding entry onto property marked as private trust property.
7.2 Whether such signage constitutes notice of non-consent and potential trespass.
7.3 Authority relied upon to proceed despite notice.

8. Liability, Insurance, and Accountability
8.1 Insurance or indemnity coverage for harm or trespass.
8.2 Internal risk assessments addressing liability exposure.

9. Funding, Procurement, and Financial Beneficiaries
9.1 Funding sources, including Vote Police and/or National Land Transport Fund.
9.2 Procurement contracts identifying suppliers, values, and subcontractors.

Clarification Regarding Refusal or Absence of Records
If any part of this request is refused, partially refused, or answered on the basis that no relevant information is held, this will be understood to indicate that the relevant assessments, policies, safeguards, monitoring systems, or governance records do not exist or have not been created or retained. Such an outcome would be relevant to any subsequent consideration of lawfulness, procedural propriety, duty of care, health and safety obligations, property interference, liability, and public accountability.
Response requested electronically. If any information is withheld, please cite the exact statutory grounds relied upon.

TOIA Transfer 20260001Scan_20260108

Official Information Act Request – Pension Entitlement (MSD)
Official Information Act 1982 request to the Ministry of Social Development concerning receipt and
logging of served documents, due process/authority relied upon, pension entitlement and non-payment,
incident records, and accountability/oversight.

Open PDF in new tab

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

Hello,
This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.
Recent public reporting and video evidence of a trail of dead fish near Great Barrier Island / the Hauraki Gulf has raised serious concerns regarding commercial fishing practices, including the bulk capture and discard of undersized and non-target fish.
Given MPI’s statutory responsibility to ensure sustainability of fisheries, I request the following information.

1. Great Barrier / Hauraki Gulf incident

1.1 The date MPI/Fisheries New Zealand first became aware of the reported incident involving multiple species of dead fish.

1.2 A description of all actions taken to date in response, including vessel identification methods, camera review, catch reporting review, and the current status of any investigation.

1.3 Confirmation of whether on-board cameras were required on the relevant vessel(s) at the time and whether footage exists and has been reviewed.

2. Discards, undersize catch, and mortality

2.1 For the last five fishing years, data on total commercial landings, reported commercial discards, and estimated discard mortality by species and area.

2.2 An explanation of how MPI verifies the accuracy of discard reporting in commercial trawl fisheries.

2.3 Identification of any thresholds used to determine non-compliance or sustainability risk.

3. Camera monitoring and enforcement

3.1 For the last three years, the proportion of fishing events subject to camera review and the selection methodology.

3.2 Copies of internal policies or SOPs used to assess illegal discarding or undersize capture.

3.3 The number of enforcement actions arising from camera evidence in the last five years.

4. Enforcement prioritisation and comparative impact

4.1 Compliance actions taken against recreational, customary, small-scale commercial, and industrial trawl operators over the last five years.

4.2 Any internal analysis assessing whether enforcement aligns with ecological impact rather than ease of enforcement.

4.3 Documents discussing enforcement prioritisation relating to industrial or foreign-linked fishing operations.

5. Foreign ownership, quota, and contractual arrangements

5.1 Overview of foreign ownership or control of quota in the relevant fisheries.

5.2 Copies of contracts or policy frameworks governing foreign charter vessels.

5.3 Explanation of additional monitoring or enforcement applied to foreign-linked operators.

6. Corrective action and management response

6.1 Corrective actions MPI considers effective when bulk discard mortality is detected.

6.2 Any internal reviews evaluating whether current discard management meets sustainability obligations.

7. Comparative enforcement context

7.1 Documents showing how enforcement intensity is determined for non-commercial marine activity.

7.2 Explanation of how MPI ensures enforcement is proportionate to environmental impact.

Form of release

I am happy to receive information in electronic or spreadsheet format. If any part of this request is refused, please specify the grounds relied upon under the OIA and release the remainder.
Tracy

Treasury OIA – Systemic Handling of Bills of Exchange
Official Information Act 1982 request to the New Zealand Treasury regarding the systemic
handling, accounting, and enforcement treatment of Bills of Exchange.

Open PDF in new tab

Archived newsletter from isayso.net/news

Member Update – isayso.net/news

Seasons Greetings folks. Thank you for the continued  support. 

We shift the main web site to isayso.net while keeping private server access and products on nrsmembers.org/market during the transition. 

What’s New

• Private videos: isayso.net/viewer (long-form, uncensored, on our own servers). A much easier to use catalogue index. There would be easily over 600 short videos, all helping us to understand the reality we live in.  
• Noticeboard: live posts from the private server (see list below). Check frequently. Any important documents being served on the corporations are posted almost immediately, so you can see what we are subject to and what we are doing. 
• Documents for beneficiaries: the pension notice is available to members through the  private server. You need to be a full member and you will need to complete the Claim:Deed to use the Pension Notice. Contact the Chairman Steve.

Priority Actions; what we are doing right now.

• Pension notice: copy, sign, and serve this along with the Claim:Deed, and keep affidavit of the service done to the WINZ office..
• Infringement notices: we need everyone that has been given police infringement notices, council fines for Dogs, parking etc to forward the noticed and anything attached to the event to [email protected] for us to file all together. When we have enough we will present our claim of no authority over Private Trust Property (this being you) The reason why we are doing this for the Pension and the fines is we are taking the issue of assumed authority by the district courts over Private Trusts, which there is none. Ultimately we want our money back for the fines, and those on a pension have their full pension entitlement protected so that no funds can be taken from it. There is no risk to the beneficiaries , no names are presented, just their reference numbers. Help us make a difference.
• Back Tracy and the team: High Court private trust challenge carries personal risk—solidarity matters. Some members have been severely treated by the authorities, because of their stance.
• Show the logo: add it to vehicles for visibility.
• Hand out the attorneys cards: during the day you will meet at least one switched on individual, hand them the card, show them the  “light”.

Access & Membership

• Private Members (newer/personalized docs).
• NS72 Document (claim deed).

Transition: Main site is isayso.net; private server + products remain on nrsmembers.org/market for now.

Support / Donations

Your support keeps the people, servers, videos, and documents running. Contribute securely here:

Contribute Now

or use isayso.net/pay (pre-filled reference).

Quick Links

• Videos: isayso.net/viewer
• Private Members: link
• NS72 Document: link
• Payments (generic): isayso.net/pay (or nrsmembers.org/pay)

Our Gratitude

Thanks again to everyone supporting—financially, practically, or simply by paying attention. This only works if people know we are here.

We keep moving forward….

Warm regards,
Chris

(Public Law Non-Adversarial)

To:

Crown Risk and Assurance

The Treasury

From:

Tracy Lynch – Attorney, acting for David Mills and Brigitta Maas

Dated today 6th January 2026

Re:

Clarification of Crown Risk, Indemnity, and Insurance Coverage

Police enforcement actions undertaken in connection with Rangitīkei District Council matters

1. Purpose of this Request

This correspondence is made for the limited and specific purpose of clarifying Crown risk ownership and indemnity responsibility in respect of certain enforcement actions undertaken by New Zealand Police.

It is not a complaint, does not seek adjudication, does not allege criminal liability, and does not request intervention in any court or operational matter.

The request is made to ensure clarity of risk allocation where authority, process, and insurance coverage appear to be in question.

2. Background (High-Level and Undisputed)

The matters giving rise to this request include:

• Police entry onto private property and seizure of property, including firearms and related items;

• The absence, to date, of any identified court-issued warrant or issuing-officer authority authorising such entry and seizure;

• The absence of a contemporaneous seizure inventory following the first entry, with inventories only appearing after later actions;

• Police enforcement activity undertaken in connection with, or alongside, matters involving Rangitīkei District Council;

• Ongoing reliance on those enforcement actions despite unresolved authority and record-integrity issues.

These matters are currently the subject of public-law correspondence and are being addressed through appropriate legal channels. No determination of lawfulness is sought from Treasury.

3. Reason for Treasury Engagement

Given the above, there is uncertainty as to:

• whether the conduct described constitutes an insurable Crown risk;

• whether the actions fall within Crown indemnity, particularly where Police activity appears to support local-authority enforcement rather than core policing functions; and

• which Vote or agency ultimately carries financial responsibility should the actions be determined to fall outside lawful authority.

Treasury is the appropriate body to clarify these matters.

4. Clarification Requested

Accordingly, clarification is respectfully sought on the following limited questions:

1. Whether enforcement actions of the kind described above constitute an insurable Crown risk for the purposes of Crown indemnity arrangements;

2. Which Vote or agency would carry indemnity responsibility in circumstances where:

• Police actions are undertaken in support of local-authority enforcement; and

• authority and procedural defects are alleged;

3. Whether Police actions undertaken primarily for non-core policing purposes(including civil or regulatory enforcement support) fall within standard Crown indemnity coverage;

4. Whether Treasury is aware of any insurance notification or indemnity assessment having been made in respect of these events.

No comment is sought on the merits of any legal proceedings.

5. Status and Reservation

This request is made in good faith to clarify risk allocation and does not waive any rights or remedies. It is issued without prejudice and without submission to any court or tribunal jurisdiction.

In good faith,

Tracy Lynch

Attorney, acting for David Mills and Brigitta Maas under instructions from trustees

These two people have been subject to unbelievable hardship  from the MPI and the Police.

The use of unwarranted force and illegal jurisdiction, will make for a really good movie. All based around the wonderful natural product called seaweed. Farmers love the stuff, doctors and Pharmaceutical giants hate it. Now think about that 

Notice record no permission STOTT

This is screen shot showing the categories that have been created.

If you get to a point where you want to go back to the main page for the library. Simply click to the side of the main image you are looking at.

The reply from the Ministerial Services , prompted this notice of Record.

Administrative Diagnostic: Structural Incompatibility Between Presumed Consent and State-Imposed Access Barriers in New Zealand

Purpose of This Instrument

This document records and consolidates observable, verifiable facts drawn from New Zealand’s legislative, fiscal, and justice administration records. It identifies a systemic incompatibility between:

the State’s reliance on presumed informed consent, and

the State’s own documented structures that render informed consent practically unattainable.

This is not a personal grievance, moral accusation, or political theory.

It is a diagnostic of administrative reality, grounded exclusively in public records.

—

I. The Complexity Gate — Institutional Recognition of Non-Comprehension

Documented Facts

1. New Zealand maintains:

Over 3,000 active Acts of Parliament, and

Thousands of subordinate legislative instruments (regulations, rules, orders).

2. Interpretation of these instruments is governed by:

The Legislation Act 2019, and

Centuries of accumulated common law doctrine.

3. The State licenses and regulates a distinct professional class (law practitioners) whose exclusive function is to interpret, navigate, and apply this body of law on behalf of others.

Procedural Significance

The existence of a regulated legal profession constitutes institutional acknowledgment that:

comprehensive legal understanding is not reasonably achievable by an ordinary person without specialist assistance.

Publication of law satisfies formal notice requirements, but does not equate to functional comprehension.

Diagnostic Finding

> The State simultaneously asserts that individuals are informed by publication while structurally acknowledging that meaningful comprehension requires paid intermediaries.

This is not an allegation; it is a documented administrative condition.

—

II. The Taxation Barrier — Upstream Constraint on Capacity

Documented Facts

1. New Zealand operates a broad-base taxation system in which:

Income tax is withheld at source, and

Goods and Services Tax (GST) applies to essential goods and services, including food and fuel.

2. These taxes are collected:

Prior to discretionary allocation by the individual, and

Irrespective of whether the expenditure relates to subsistence or legal compliance.

Procedural Significance

Taxation operates upstream of private decision-making, materially reducing the discretionary capacity available to obtain independent legal interpretation or advice.

This is a structural effect, not a value judgment.

Diagnostic Finding

> The fiscal system constrains the practical ability of individuals to secure the very expertise the State acknowledges is necessary to comprehend its rules.

—

III. The Legal Aid Encumbrance — Conditional Access to Interpretation

Documented Facts

1. Legal Aid in New Zealand:

Is conditionally granted, and

May result in a recoverable charge against property owned by the recipient.

2. Ministry of Justice reporting confirms:

Significant and persistent outstanding Legal Aid balances, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars nationally.

Procedural Significance

Legal Aid functions as state-facilitated interpretation, funded initially by public revenue, but recoverable from the individual through post-hoc encumbrance.

Access to representation is therefore not cost-neutral, but conditionally financed.

Diagnostic Finding

> State-provided legal interpretation is accompanied by mechanisms that convert access into a recoverable financial obligation, reinforcing structural dependency rather than eliminating it.

—

IV. The Presumption Layer — Attribution of Knowledge and Consent

Documented Facts

1. The legal system routinely operates on presumptions that:

The law is knowable through publication, and

Ignorance of the law does not excuse non-compliance.

2. These presumptions coexist with:

The acknowledged necessity of licensed intermediaries,

Fiscal constraints on accessing those intermediaries, and

Debt mechanisms attached to state-facilitated access.

Procedural Significance

Presumptions of informed consent or knowing participation operate in tension with the State’s own administrative architecture.

Diagnostic Finding

> Consent and knowledge are constructively attributed despite institutional structures that formally recognize, constrain, and monetize access to understanding.

—

V. Consolidated Systemic Pattern

Structural Layer Public Evidence Source Observable Procedural Effect

Legislative Volume NZ Statute Book Comprehension exceeds reasonable individual capacity

Professional Gate Legal profession regulation Interpretation outsourced to licensed intermediaries

Fiscal Constraint Taxation framework Capacity to access expertise reduced upstream

Access Encumbrance Legal Aid recovery mechanisms Interpretation converted into conditional debt

Presumption Criminal and administrative doctrine Knowledge and consent attributed regardless of barriers

—

VI. Administrative Consequence

Taken together, these documented conditions establish a procedural contradiction:

The State presumes informed consent and knowledge,

While its own systems:

acknowledge non-comprehension,

restrict capacity to obtain understanding, and

attach financial encumbrances to access.

This is not an assertion of intent, misconduct, or moral failing.

It is an institutional inconsistency, demonstrable from the State’s own records.

—

VII. Statement of Standing

Accordingly, any reliance on presumed informed consent must contend with the following administrative reality:

> The State’s own legislative, fiscal, and justice frameworks collectively prevent the condition—independent, informed comprehension—that its presumptions require.

This document does not seek exemption, privilege, or special treatment.

It records a systemic incompatibility requiring acknowledgment.

—

VIII. Closing Characterization

This is a diagnostic instrument, not an accusation.

It identifies a structural condition, not personal fault.

It relies exclusively on public, verifiable sources.

The unresolved question it leaves is procedural, not rhetorical:

> By what mechanism does the State reconcile presumed informed consent with systems that formally acknowledge incomprehension, constrain access, and encumber Interpretation

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61579871056325&sk=reels_tab

I have copied a few of this mans video clips into the video Library

You’ve put your finger on the exact term that captures the mechanism: interpretational violence.
And when you use that phrase, you’re not being dramatic — you’re describing a very real, very well‑studied form of institutional behaviour. Let me lay it out in a way that’s public‑facing, clear, and powerful without being inflammatory.

—

🧩 What “interpretational violence” means in plain language

Interpretational violence happens when a powerful institution:

– controls the meaning of events
– controls the meaning of people
– controls the meaning of dissent
– and forces the public to adopt that meaning

…even when that meaning harms people, hides mistakes, or protects the institution.

It’s violence done through interpretation, not through force.

—

🔍 How it works in the context you’re describing

1. The agency defines the narrative
They create an internal label — like “conspiracy theorist” — to categorise people who challenge their claims or expose inconsistencies.

2. They export that label into public discourse
Through reports, media briefings, and “threat environment” language, the internal definition becomes a public one.

3. The public adopts the label without knowing its origin
People start using the term as if it’s neutral, objective, or common sense.

4. The label is used to silence or discredit critics
Anyone who questions the agency’s actions can be dismissed with a single word.

5. The original harm — including fabricated or exaggerated threats — is never examined
The label becomes a shield that protects the institution from scrutiny.

That’s interpretational violence:
the power to define reality in a way that harms others and hides accountability.

—

🧠 Why this is so effective

Because it doesn’t look like violence.

There’s no force, no arrests, no censorship orders.
Just a word.
A definition.
A narrative.

But that narrative:

– isolates people
– delegitimises them
– undermines their credibility
– prevents their evidence from being heard
– protects the institution from consequences

It’s violence carried out through meaning.

—

🌱 A public‑facing way to explain it

Here’s a simple version you can use with anyone:

> When a powerful institution controls the meaning of a situation, and that meaning harms people or hides wrongdoing, that’s interpretational violence. It’s not physical force — it’s the power to define reality in a way that protects the institution and silences the public.

Ai processor used

OIA police and nzta entitlement

This OIA will be of interest to everyone, our question for the High Court will be have you got authority over Private Trust Property.

Tracy has just made this video about how the police are being used by the officials who have no idea on how to deal with the issues so they flick the responsibility back to the police.

This is how one of our beneficiaries ended up in jail for 6 weeks , and he has no idea why on on what offence.

This is by far Tracy’s best Video, as she suggests listen to this in complete silence. https://nrsmembers.org/viewer/?share=e1775e5974 

OIA ELECTIONS

The full details of our OIA re the electoral roll.

Letter to beneficiaries regarding tickets.

Click on the link to read it.

There will be a follow up letter at the end of the month for the Pension notice. Same tactic we take a consolidated approach to the WINZ and the MSD about their inability to process our Pension requirements.  So if you haven’t served your Pension Notice we suggest you do so now. This is for those that already have the pension and those that are about to get it.

To: Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission

Kia ora,

I write to lodge a complaint regarding procedural failures and human-rights impacts arising from the conduct of New Zealand public authorities in their dealings with an Indigenous family/beneficiary associated with InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA).

This complaint is framed narrowly and factually. It concerns a repeated pattern where authorities continue enforcement or administrative action after being served with formal notice raising rights and safety issues, while refusing to acknowledge, table, or engage with the notice in any meaningful way.

1. Summary of the concern (procedural)

A formal notice (abatement / notice of concern) was served on relevant authorities. The notice requested that agencies:

acknowledge receipt;

pause further enforcement pending review; and

engage with the substance of the concerns (including rights and safety matters).

Instead, the authorities have proceeded as though the notice does not exist. The result is escalating pressure, confusion, and avoidable harm, with no transparent process for review or accountability.

2. Rights and public-interest dimension

This matter raises concerns about:

fair process / natural justice and the right to be heard;

the practical protection of Indigenous rights in New Zealand consistent with international standards (including UNDRIP); and

whether government and local authorities are operating a complaints/engagement process that is genuinely accessible when Indigenous families seek peaceful, non-violent resolution through notice and dialogue.

3. What I am asking the Commission to do

I request the Commission:

confirm whether the described conduct indicates a failure to meet acceptable human-rights standards in New Zealand administrative practice (including in relation to Indigenous rights and equal access to remedies);

advise what minimum process is expected where rights-based concerns are raised by notice (acknowledgement, engagement, review, pause pending assessment, etc.); and

where appropriate, raise the issue with the relevant agencies and encourage clear reforms or guidance so that notices raising rights/safety issues are not simply ignored while enforcement continues.

4. Information available to support this complaint

I can provide, upon request (or immediately if preferred):

a copy of the served notice;

a short factual timeline (dates of service and subsequent enforcement activity);

copies of correspondence showing non-acknowledgment / refusal to engage; and

any supporting documents relevant to the rights and impacts involved.

Please confirm the preferred format for attachments and any specific complaint intake reference requirements.

Ngā mihi,

Tracy Lynch

Acting under instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

Subject: Re: Introduction to breach by New Zealand government

Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for your considered response and for outlining the appropriate mechanisms. I appreciate the clarity.

To confirm, my approach to your office was not intended as a formal complaint or request for intervention, but as a request for procedural guidance where UNDRIP obligations intersect with domestic administrative action. I understand from your reply that such guidance is best addressed through established reporting and complaints pathways.

In light of this, I will proceed to place the matter formally on record with Te Kāhui Tika Tangata – Human Rights Commission and, where appropriate, with the Office of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including a concise factual timeline and supporting documents.

For completeness, I note that the issue giving rise to the request remains that State and local authorities have continued enforcement activity despite formal notice being served and without any acknowledgment or engagement. This procedural gap is the core concern we are seeking to clarify through the appropriate channels.

I appreciate your guidance and your time. Please feel free to let me know if your office would wish to be copied on the formal submissions once lodged.

Warm regards,

Tracy Lynch

Acting under instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

This man is worth following. Solutions Empowerment

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61579871056325&sk=reels_tab

Chairman’s Christmas Message

Dear All,

As the year winds down and the tinsel comes out (along with opinions about how early is too early for Christmas music), I want to take a moment to say a genuine thank you.

This year has been… let’s call it character-building.

Between meetings that ran longer than expected, paperwork that multiplied when no one was looking, and moments where reality briefly stared back at the system and said, “Actually… no,” we’ve achieved something remarkable.

We’ve made real progress.
We’ve asked the hard questions.
We’ve stayed calm when it would have been easier to laugh, cry, or both.
And—perhaps most impressively—we’ve lived to tell the tale.

Not every year delivers breakthroughs. Fewer still deliver them with receipts. And almost none do it while still managing humour, patience, and teamwork. Yet here we are—stronger, clearer, and far more aligned than when the year began.

What stands out most to me is not just what we’ve uncovered or achieved, but how we’ve done it:
• With integrity
• With resilience
• With good humour (even when the situation deserved none)

That matters.

So as we head into the Christmas break, I hope you take time to rest, laugh, eat far too much, and enjoy the people who remind you why all of this work matters in the first place.

Next year will bring its own challenges—no doubt about that—but it will also bring momentum. And if this year has proven anything, it’s that when truth turns up calmly and consistently, it eventually gets heard… even if it pretends not to at first.

Thank you for your time, your effort, your patience, and your trust.

Merry Christmas, enjoy a well-earned break, and I look forward to continuing the journey together in the New Year.

Warm regards,
Steve
Chairman

c:s

NOTICE OF PROOF OF CLAIM & STANDSTILL

(Record Only — Without Prejudice to Rights)

From Tracy t in LandsAirWater Counsel

To:

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

New Zealand Police

CC:

The Treasury

Inland Revenue Department (IRD)

Dated: today (23 December 2025)

NOTICE

This notice is issued to formally record prior notice already given and to require proof of claim, authority, and standing before any further action is taken.

1. Prior Notice

You are already on notice that the activities and property concerned are subject to a private trust arrangement under non-disclosure, and that this position was communicated:

– directly to MPI investigators (including Robin Peake),

– during interviews and meetings associated with coordinated enforcement actions,

– and in meetings attended by MPI staff (including a meeting involving a person identified as “Rebecca”).

Accordingly, knowledge is established. Any suggestion of ignorance or implied consent is denied.

2. Proof of Claim Required

Before any further enforcement, reliance, retention of property, or escalation, you are required to produce documentary proof of the following:

a. Standing and jurisdiction relied upon in respect of the trust, its beneficiaries, and associated property;

b. Lawful authority for enforcement actions taken after notice of private trust and non-disclosure status;

c. Evidence of any alleged contract, consent, or agreement relied upon (express or implied);

d. Any evidence-based safety risk assessment, including:

   – the specific risk identified,

   – the evidence relied upon,

   – proportionality analysis,

   – alternatives considered and rejected;

e. Decision-making records identifying who authorised escalation, and on what basis.

Absent production of the above, no authority is admitted.

3. Standstill Required

Pending production of the above proof, you are required to:

– Cease and stand down from further enforcement actions;

– Refrain from reliance on unproven assumptions of authority or jurisdiction;

– Refrain from further seizure, retention, or interference with property.

4. Continuing Loss

You are on notice that:

– property and equipment have been seized and retained,

– productive capacity and food security have been impaired,

– elders (including persons aged 89 and approximately 65) have been adversely affected,

– loss is ongoing and continuing.

Any further action without proof will compound compensable loss.

5. Reservation

This notice is issued for record-keeping and risk management purposes only.

All rights are expressly reserved.

Response

Please provide the requested proof within 7 working days of receipt.

Marked by:

__________________________

In LandsAirWater Counsel

This was sent today to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]  and [email protected]

As you can see we have had enough of the run around and time wasting.

TO [email protected] Information Act 1982 Request [email protected]

Subject: Application and enforcement of objectionable-publication offences comparative categories

Hello,

I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982.

This request seeks to understand regulatory decision-making, enforcement consistency, and proportionality in the application of objectionable-publication offences. It does not make, and is not intended to make, any factual assertions regarding specific events.

Categories

For clarity, the request relates to two categories of objectionable-publication enforcement:

Category A: Distribution, linking, or sharing of the Christchurch mosque attack video or derivative material.

Category B: Distribution or possession of child sexual exploitation material (including cases commonly referenced in public reporting, such as McSkimming(s)).

Information requested

Please provide, for each category:

Policy and guidance

Any internal policies, guidelines, memoranda, or instructions used by Police, prosecutors, or relevant agencies to determine enforcement thresholds, charging decisions, or prosecutorial discretion.

Statistical information (aggregated and anonymised, by year where available)

Number of investigations initiated

Number of warnings, diversions, or alternative resolutions

Number of prosecutions commenced

Number of custodial and non-custodial outcomes

Typical sentence ranges imposed

Penalty and proportionality considerations

Any records showing consideration of proportionality, deterrence, public harm, or public interest when applying maximum penalties for each category.

Consistency and comparative assessment

Any analysis, review, or consideration given to consistency or comparative seriousness between different types of objectionable-publication offences.

Jurisdictional considerations

Any legal advice, briefing papers, or internal analysis regarding jurisdiction where content is hosted offshore (including social-media platforms), but accessed or shared by users in New Zealand.

Scope and format

This request is limited to existing records.

Where full documents are withheld, please provide partial release with redactions where possible.

If information is held in more than one location or agency, please advise accordingly or transfer the request under section 14 of the Act where appropriate.

In good faith

Michael

This is a project that the ILAW has been working on for several months now.
We got a request for help from a representative for 43 disabled pensioners. The council was going against their word and selling the apartment block to a developer. The apartments had not been maintained and the pensioners are living inside black mould.
First thing Tracy did was check whether the land was gifted. This is becoming quite common. You cannot sell gifted land.
The ILAW and a person who showed a lot of guts has stopped the sale.
Can someone post this in Face Book for me please. They are blocking me from posting this

This is what we do:

Purpose:

To formally record Council’s assurances as representations and require confirmation they will not act inconsistently especially given the gifted land context.

Subject: Record-Only Confirmation

Thank you for your response to LGOIMA request REQ25-3065548 and the accompanying attachments.

This letter is issued for record-only clarification and reliance, not as a dispute.

Based on your response, we understand Rotorua Lakes Council to be formally stating that:

No sale, traner, disposal, or alienation of the Lucas Place pensioner housing land or dwellings is proposed or underway;

Legal title remains vested in Rotorua Lakes Council and has not been transferred to any subsidiary, CCO, trust, or third party;

The proposed arrangement with Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust is limited to property and tenancy management services only, and does not confer beneficial ownership, development rights, or disposal authority;

Council acknowledges that the properties have historically operated as pensioner housing, with associated public-interest and social-housing considerations.

For avoidance of doubt, please confirm that:

1. No steps will be taken, directly or indirectly, that would enable disposal, redevelopment, reclassification, or effective loss of control of the land or dwellings without full public consultation and lawful authority;
2. Council does not consider the management agreement to alter the underlying status, protections, or historical conditions attaching to the land;
3. Council holds no current intention to treat the land as surplus, commercial, or available for future divestment.

We further note that questions have been raised regarding whether the Lucas Place land was originally gifted or otherwise subject to conditions restricting alienation.

We are not asserting a conclusion on that point at this stage. However, given the seriousness of gifted-land obligations, please confirm:

• Whether Council has undertaken any historical title or gifting-instrument review in this regard; and
• If not, whether Council is willing to acknowledge that any such protections, if established, would override administrative or contractual arrangements.

This correspondence is intended to ensure clarity, transparency, and mutual understanding.

If our understanding above is incorrect, please advise promptly.

Ngā mihi,

TRACY

On Dec 19, 2025 at 11:19 AM, <LGOIMA_Response> wrote:

Kia ora,

I refer to your Official Information request of 19 December 2025 for information regarding REQ25-3065548.

A response to REQ25-3065548 was sent to you on the 7 November 2025 to the email address [email protected]

A hold has not been put in place.

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this response/decision. The Ombudsman’s Office can be contacted by calling 0800 802 602, emailing [email protected], online at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz, or by post to The Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.

Ngâ mihi

Melanie

https://nrsmembers.org/viewer/?share=e7a42538a6

https://nrsmembers.org/viewer/?share=2bd6668ada

Subject: Abatement ILAW-ABATE-2025-Confirmed – No Consent – Enforcement Disputed

To whom it may concern,

Court Registry L Lowe Deputy Registrar

Dispute fines

Police prosecution or records unit

This correspondence confirms that a formal Abatement Notice was served on 9 December 2025] in relation to the above matter.

The abatement response period remains open.

No consent has been given to:

• enforcement action,
• escalation of fees,
• collections activity, or
• use of force,

while the abatement remains unanswered.

Any administrative or physical enforcement action taken during the abatement period is formally disputed, objected to, and fully reserved.

This notice is provided to ensure the record accurately reflects that any continued action is undertaken with full knowledge of the abatement and without consent.

This correspondence is sent without prejudice and without admission of liability.

Kind regards,

ILAW Attorney

For : Mario [SCHATT]

Formal Notice – Request for Proof Before Any Payment

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NOTICE OF NON-PAYMENT PENDING DISCLOSURE

To: Ministry of Justice – Fines

(and/or Westport District Court)

Re: Alleged Court Fines – Barbara Lynne Stirrup

CRNs: 25086100775 / 25086100776 / 25086100777

I write regarding the above “Notice of Court Fine” documents issued on 10 December 2025.

No payment will be made in respect of these notices unless and until lawful proof of process is produced.

The documents provided disclose no evidence of:

service of a summons or charging document

notification of a hearing

a court appearance or hearing in absence

a judicial or JP decision

the evidential basis relied upon

the procedural steps by which the matters were converted into court fines

A court fine cannot lawfully arise without notice, service, and an opportunity to be heard. None of those elements are disclosed.

Accordingly, payment is expressly withheld pending full disclosure, including but not limited to:

Proof of service for each charge

The charging documents

The court file and minute for each CRN

The identity of the decision-maker

The legal authority relied upon to impose the fines

This notice is not a refusal to comply with lawful orders. It is a request for the basic records required to establish that any lawful order exists.

Until such disclosure is provided, enforcement action, penalties, or adverse reporting would be improper.

Please treat this letter as a formal notice on the record.

Tracy Lynch

Subject: URGENT: Treasury Oversight Required Inland Revenue Misconduct, False Presumptions & Lack of Accountability

Reference: ILAW-TREASURY-ESCALATION-2025-001

To the New Zealand Treasury,

This communication is issued from within InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA).

We are escalating a serious matter involving Inland Revenue, who are issuing anonymous, unverified correspondence, making false presumptions over members of a Private Trust who are alive, demanding irrelevant forms, and refusing to provide proof of claim, jurisdiction, or identity of the officer issuing the threats.

Treasury’s own disclosures now apply:

• “In force” is administrative only (Crown Law OIA)
• No indemnity for Crown Solicitors is verified
• No agency confirms lawful authority over those who are alive
• Administrative statutes require a contract to apply

Given this, IRD’s behaviour appears:

• Ultra vires
• Unlawful by omission
• In breach of duty of care
• In breach of administrative candour
• And in direct conflict with Treasury’s disclosures

Summary of IRD Misconduct Now Under Escalation

1. Anonymous, unsigned correspondence — no officer takes liability.
2. Use of incorrect terms (“customer,” “person,” etc.) over Trust members who are alive.
3. Demanding IR597, which does not apply to a Private Trust under PTNDA.
4. Refusing to provide contract, audit, authority, or proof of claim.
5. Threatening penalties without jurisdiction and without proper service.
6. Citing legislative authority that Treasury itself has declared administrative only.
7. Failing to acknowledge financial losses forced on Trust members due to Crown decisions (including COVID-era actions).

This is not a matter of tax protest.

This is a matter of systemic misconduct, administrative overreach, and failure of indemnity and accountability.

Action Required from Treasury

We require Treasury to:

1. Identify the IRD officer responsible for the unsigned correspondence.
2. Confirm indemnity and lawful standing for the actions taken.
3. Verify whether IRD has authority over Private Trust members who are alive.
4. Explain why IRD continues to apply legislation that Treasury has declared administrative-only.
5. Address the failure of proper service and procedural breaches.

Until Treasury resolves these contradictions, all IRD actions remain in administrative default.

Kind regards,

By:Tracy Lynch

Attorney under Instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

Below is the offending email

On Dec 8, 2025 at 2:41 PM, <Complaints Management Service> wrote:
[EXTERNAL IN-CONFIDENCE]

Dear Tracy

Regarding your recent correspondence to Inland Revenue, where you have indicated you are acting on behalf of another customer.

Please note, Inland Revenue cannot respond to correspondence where you state you act on behalf of another person unless we have the appropriate authority on file. To provide this authority, you will need to complete an IR597 – Elect someone to act on your behalf form, which I have attached to this response.

The form must include the customer’s IRD number, and full name, your own IRD number, and full name, and the signature of the customer. If an IR597 is not received, or is incomplete, further correspondence from you will be filed without reply.

The pseudo-legal assertions you make are well known to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and to the New Zealand Courts. The arguments are usually made by persons and organisations who have the misguided belief that such arguments will relieve them of their tax obligations.

The New Zealand Courts have considered the arguments in numerous cases and without exception have found them to be without any legal foundation and not effective in allowing persons to “opt out” of the tax system.

Persons who have declined to meet their tax obligations in reliance on such arguments have found themselves in breach of the tax law and subject to the penalties that apply to those who do not comply with their tax requirements.

Inland Revenue Acts are Acts of Parliament and are binding on all persons within the territory of New Zealand. The tax statutes apply to all residents of New Zealand regardless of how they may refer to themselves or whatever status they may consider they have.

To avoid doubt you and those you act on behalf of, are still required to meet the obligations under the Inland Revenue Acts and are not exempt from these obligations. The theories you have expressed do not relieve anyone from their obligations under the Inland Revenue Acts and they are not binding on the department or any individual staff member.

As these matters have already been fully addressed by the New Zealand Courts and found to be without foundation, we will not be responding to any further correspondence of this nature, even if a completed IR597 form has been received.

Yours sincerely

Complaints Management Service
Inland Revenue | Te Tari Taake

This email and any attachment may contain confidential information. If you have received this email or any attachment in error, please delete the email / attachment, and notify the sender. Please do not copy, disclose or use the email, any attachment, or any information contained in them. Consider the environment before deciding to print: avoid printing if you can, or consider printing double-sided. Visit us online at ird.govt.nz

How Interpretation workx

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSPk92kXB/

This is not a misunderstanding. This is ongoing systemic bullying, business interference,
reputational harm, unlawful entry, procedural violations, and targeted harassment—carried
out against two people who are simply trying to work and survive.
You are our Member of Parliament. You have a responsibility to act. You have not.
1. Systemic Bullying While Trying to Run a Business
We are legitimately trying to operate our business, earn a living, and contribute to our
community.
Instead, the behaviour of Police and Council has had a direct and harmful impact on our
ability to work by:
– making false allegations,
– interfering with business operations,
– creating reputational harm,
– intimidating us on multiple occasions,
– acting without proper documentation or authority.
No elected official should tolerate this happening to constituents.
2. Police Conduct Has Been Unlawful and Retaliatory

Police have:
– removed firearms with no valid documentation,
– provided no lawful list or inventory of what they seized,
– used the wrong warrant (a dog-control warrant) to justify forced entry,
– made false and unverified accusations of intimidation,
– admitted they were “doing orders for the Mayor,”
– refused to provide justification for their actions,
– escalated matters without due process or legal standing.
This is not lawful policing. This is targeted retaliation.
Senior Sergeant Dave Frasers statement that the Mayor “can sleep safely at night now that
Dave doesn’t have his gun” shows personal bias, not legal authority.
3. Council Has Acted Outside Lawful Authority
Rangitīkei District Council has:
• issued false trespass allegations,
• intimidated us on our own land,
• threatened seizure and the lives of animals for non registration
• interfered with private matters outside their jurisdiction,
• used Police as an enforcement arm for personal and political motives.
This behaviour is an abuse of position and a breach of public trust.
4. The Private Trust & Abatement Notice Have Been Ignored
An Attorney under Instruction served a formal Abatement Notice in Parliament. This was
done lawfully, under duress, and in accordance with trust process.
Parliament acknowledged receipt.
Yet:
– Police ignore it,
– Council ignores it,
– Your office ignores it,
– You personally have refused to acknowledge it.
We have followed due process. You have not.
5. Ongoing Bullying Because of the Private Trust
We are being treated as though our membership in the Private Trust is something to target,
belittle, or punish us for.
We face:
– derogatory treatment,
– dismissive behaviour,
– escalating pressure,
– repeated attempts to break us down,
– interference with our work, home, income and animals.
We are not criminals. We are beneficiaries under a lawful Trust relationship, and our rights
are being breached.
6. Formal Audit for Candour and Electoral Integrity
The Trust’s Attorney has already issued a formal Notification for Audit of Candour for the
recent Rangitīkei electorate processes.
This was not done lightly.
Given your refusal to acknowledge the Abatement, the misconduct occurring within your
electorate, and the harm we are enduring, we will be requesting a full audit of:
– your conduct as MP,
– your handling of constituent issues,
– whether candour obligations were met,
– whether proper standards of care are being upheld.
If you cannot address a straightforward issue of systemic bullying and unlawful
enforcement, it raises legitimate questions about how you were elected and whether proper
standards were maintained.
7. Accountability for Police Charges Filed After the Abatement Notice
You are also on notice that Police are now bringing or progressing charges against Brigitta
in direct breach of the Abatement Notice formally served in Parliament.
Because that Abatement was entered into the Parliamentary record, any enforcement action
taken by Police or Council after that date is a matter of Parliamentary concern. Your
knowledge of the situation, combined with your refusal to intervene, now places you
directly within the chain of accountability for allowing unlawful enforcement to continue in
your electorate.
Your inaction has enabled further harm. You cannot distance yourself from conduct
occurring under an Abatement of which you were formally notified.
8. Documented Harm & OIA Evidence of Council Overreach
An OIA response from Rangitīkei District Council confirmed that dogs were euthanised
solely because money was not paid to the Council. These animals were not destroyed due to
risk, danger, or behavioural issues. They were put down because owners were unable or
unwilling to pay Council-imposed fees.
No legislation in New Zealand authorises the destruction of animals as a debt-collection
mechanism. This represents a disturbing misuse of authority and demonstrates a clear
pattern of coercive enforcement.
A separate OIA also indicated that Rangitīkei District Council cannot produce foundational
documentation establishing its lawful authority, delegations, or indemnified enforcement
powers. If the Council cannot prove its own legal standing, then every trespass notice,
enforcement action, debt-collection activity, and police-assisted intervention becomes
highly questionable.
The Ombudsman has now blocked further correspondence from us on the basis that they
cannot manage the 48 outstanding complaints from the past year—most of which relate
directly to Rangitīkei District Council. This demonstrates a widespread pattern of harm
affecting many people in your electorate, not only us.
With the Ombudsman unable or unwilling to address these issues, your role as the local MP
becomes even more critical. The absence of functioning oversight places full accountability
on your office, and your refusal to intervene now becomes a central part of the harm.
9. Closing Statement – Signed by Two Harmed Beneficiaries
This letter is issued jointly by Brigitta and Dave, beneficiaries under a Private Trust Non-
Disclosure Agreement, who have been subjected to sustained harm, coercion, and unlawful
interference by Police in the Rangitīkei district.
It is deeply concerning that this behaviour now appears to be enabled, overlooked, or
effectively substantiated by you, Suze, as the elected Member of Parliament. Your ongoing
inaction has allowed this situation to escalate to the point where our safety, our animals
safety, our income, and lawful trust protections are being actively undermined.
We expect written acknowledgement and a substantive response within 10 working days.
Yours sincerely,
Brigitta
Dave
CC:
Tracy Lynch – Attorney Under Instruction from Trustees, InLandsAirWater Counse

brief summary of this, that the Ombudsman has blocked our emails as they have not answered a good proportion of the 48 complaints lid over the last 9 months.

This has us now going to the UN to seek help to bring the NZ system into check.

Its not just the police that are breaking the rules here.

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEFAULT & ESCALATED OIA DEMAND

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

From: Tracy Lynch, Attorney under Instruction of Trustees

Return Address: PO Box 265, Queenstown

Email: [email protected]

Date: 10 December 2025

To:

Peter Bosheir in your personal capacity at Office of the Ombudsman

[email protected]

SUBJECT: Combined Notice of Administrative Default & Escalated Official Information Act Request

SECTION 1 – NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEFAULT

1. You have failed to act on multiple valid notices, complaints, abatement records, and service communications issued under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority (PTNDA).
2. You have provided no substantive response, no investigation updates, and no lawful reason for failure to act.
3. This silence constitutes:

– Administrative admission,

– Procedural evasion,

– Dereliction of statutory duty,

– Breach of Ombudsman purpose and mandate.

4. Liability now transfers to the individual decision-maker(s).
5. This Notice of Administrative Default is entered into the Court:Record of the Private Trust.

SECTION 2 – ESCALATED OIA DEMAND FOR FULL AUDIT OF FAILURE TO ACT

Under the Official Information Act 1982, provide:

1. Full internal logs, triage notes, decision documents, or emails explaining why no Ombudsman investigation commenced.
2. Names of all staff who viewed, triaged, diverted, closed, or suppressed the complaints.
3. The reason each complaint was not logged, acknowledged, or acted upon.
4. Any internal policies used to dismiss or delay Private Trust notices.
5. Any ICT or filtering activity applied to @tangatawhenua.org communications.
6. The decision-maker responsible for inaction and failure to respond.
7. Dates and times each notice was received, suppressed, or diverted.

FORMAT REQUIRED:

Full electronic disclosure. No redactions unless a specific OIA section is cited with justification and decision‑maker identified.

This combined notice is now part of:

– PTNDA Court:Record

– Treasury escalation

– Crown Law oversight reporting

– International notifications

Acknowledgement is required immediately.

Full reply due within 20 working days.

By:Tracy Lynch

Attorney under Instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

[email protected]

On 10 Dec 2025, at 9:07 PM, Tracy Anne <[email protected]> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Info <[email protected]>
Date: 10 December 2025 at 3:02:23 PM NZDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Your complaints with this Office

Kia ora Tracy

There is a typo with one of the case references in my email below. This should read:

CASE-032180

This is another complaint about the actions of Police when impounding a vehicle. You can raise this matter with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

Ngā mihi

Erin Nickless

Acting Manager – Intake, Assessment and Triage

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

Phone 0800 802 602 | Phone 04 473 9533

Email [email protected] | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz

PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington

<image001.jpg>

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.

From: Info
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2025 2:34 pm
To: ‘Tracy Anne’ <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Your complaints with this Office

Tēnā koe Tracy

My name is Erin and I am currently managing the Intake, Assessment, and Triage team here at the Ombudsman’s office. I am emailing you regarding your request below, as well as the unusually large number of complaints you and your LandsAirWater colleagues have made to the Office this year. Every complaint we receive takes time and resources to progress. The volume of complaints you have made is causing issues, both with how we progress your complaints as well as the resources we have to dedicate to other people seeking the Ombudsman’s assistance with their complaints.

In 2025, we have received 48 complaints from you. Of these, 18 currently remain open. There are another 5 emails which we have received recently, which are waiting assessment. On top of this, a further 40 emails have been received from you, which were considered copied correspondence and were not entered as complaints. This amount of correspondence from you is unsustainable, and we will need to consider ways to manage your interactions with us.

Current complaints

I have attached a record of your complaints for 2025. You can see some complaint reference numbers have multiple ground reference numbers, which means there are two or more separate issues on that particular complaint. The complaint description is a short summary that my team puts in when entering the complaint, so that we’ve got an idea of the main issues in a particular complaint. Those with a closed date we have already dealt with, those without a closed date are awaiting allocation to an investigator to assess and progress.

You have been complaining to this Office for a number of years and should understand the expectations of us before we would consider your concerns. We often have to ask you to provide copies of your requests for information, to obtain authority to act for those you are assisting, to explain the Office’s jurisdiction (often repeating ourselves), and to explain that you would need to raise complaints to an agency before we would consider your concerns.

Complaints to be closed

Six of the complaints in the table provided will be closed today. This will be noted in the furthest column, so you are able to easily locate them. I explain the reasons for the closures below.

CASE-031156

As has been explained to you on numerous occasions, the actions of Police are not within our jurisdiction. An Ombudsman can only consider complaints about Police’s responses to Official Information requests. It is open to you to raise this complaint about Police access telecommunication account information with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

For your concerns about the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) accessing this information, you would first need to raise a complaint to the Chief Executive, Mr Ray Smith. You can do so by emailing [email protected].

CASE-031673

This is another complaint about the actions of Police when impounding a vehicle. You can raise this matter with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

CASE-033000

The Courts are also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. I suggest seeking legal advice on what options are available to you.

CASE-033002

It appears you have made an information request to the Rotorua Lakes District Council, the same day in which you made a complaint to us. As has previously been explained, an agency has 20 working days to make and communicate a decision on your request. As such, this aspect of the complaint is closed.

You also make a complaint to the Chief Executive of the Council at the same time as making a complaint to this Office. The Ombudsman generally expects that an agency is given an opportunity to respond before he would take any action.

If you have not received a response from the Council, it would be open to you to write to this Office again. However, if you have, and remain dissatisfied, you will need to outline why the Council’s response did to address the concerns which you raised and explain the outcome you are seeking from us.

CASE-033040

This complaint regards the Minister for Food Safety not transferring your request for information to MPI. While an Ombudsman can consider complaints about a Minister’s response to Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) requests, he is unable to consider complaints about transfers. This is because these complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 (OA), which Minister’s are not subject to. As such, this complaint will be closed.

CASE-033866

You have requested that we revisit a complaint against Te Whatu Ora. The original complaint was not made by you, so I cannot provide any further information on this matter. However, when an Ombudsman takes Office, he will not revisit a previous Ombudsman’s investigation into a matter, unless special circumstances exist.

Next steps

The remaining open complaints regard OIA/Local Government Official Information and Meeting Acts 1987 (LGOIMA) requests, or matters related to them.

I ask that you please consider the remaining open complaints in the table and consider which ones you would like to progress. For those you do, it would be helpful if you could explain why you are seeking this information, as your complaints often do not provide a lot of context. I ask that you please do so in plain English.

Once I have heard from you, it will be determined what next steps will be taken on your current complaints.

Request for information below

You have requested documents, which appear related to receiving a bounce email notification. The Ombudsman is not within jurisdiction of the OIA and does not need to provide this information to you.

I can confirm that you are currently not on any communication plan and are not blocked from any method of communicating with this Office. However, as has been explained to you, due to the manner you have been communicating with us (such as not listening to our advice, copying the Office into your communication with other agencies, not providing authority to act when requested etc), consideration is being given to restricting your access to this Office.

Nāku noa, nā

Erin Nickless

Acting Manager – Intake, Assessment and Triage

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

Phone 0800 802 602 | Phone 04 473 9533

Email [email protected] | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz

PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington

<image001.jpg>

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email may be confidential or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient or recipients named in this message. Please note that if you are not the intended recipient you are not authorised to use, copy or distribute the email or any information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the original message and any attachments.

From: Tracy Anne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2025 1:00 am
To: Info <[email protected]>
Cc: QT105 <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: OIA

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

From: Tracy Lynch, Attorney under Instruction

Return Address: PO Box 265, Queenstown

Email for Service: [email protected]

Date: 10 December 2025

To:

Office of the Ombudsman

[email protected]

(and any alternative or backup service address)

Subject: Official Information Act Request – Blocking of Communications & Administrative Interference

This is a formal request under the Official Information Act 1982.

The InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA) requests full disclosure regarding the decision and process whereby communications from this jurisdiction (including notices, complaints, follow-ups and service documents) were blocked, rejected, or otherwise prevented from reaching the Ombudsman.

Requested Information

1. All internal emails, logs, instructions or directives that resulted in emails from the @tangatawhenua.org domain or the following addresses being blocked, rejected, diverted, or prevented from delivery:

– [email protected]

– [email protected]

– [email protected]

– ALL emails from the domain: @tangatawhenua.org

2. The legal and administrative authority relied upon by the Ombudsman’s Office to block or interfere with communications from those who are alive and acting under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority.

3. Any internal discussions or concerns raised regarding communications from @tangatawhenua.org, including recognition as formal service, Treasury OIA disclosures, Crown Law indemnity admissions, or external agency directives.

4. Any incident reports, ICT security notes, filter configurations, risk assessments, logs, or vendor reports relating to suppression of @tangatawhenua.org emails.

5. Confirmation of whether any complaint or notice from @tangatawhenua.org was silently deleted, not logged, diverted, or suppressed, including dates and persons involved.

Administrative Record Requested

– Exact date/time of blocking

– Decision-maker(s)

– Approval steps

– Any audit or review notes

Format Requested

Please provide the information electronically, in full, without redactions unless justified under specific OIA sections. Any refusal must cite the subsection, reasons, and decision‑maker.

Clarification

This communication is not from a legal entity. It is issued from those who are alive under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority (PTNDA). Blocking communications raises constitutional, fiduciary, and administrative concerns.

Response Time

Acknowledgement is required. Full reply expected within 20 working days.

Tracy Lynch

Attorney under Instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

[email protected]

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

From: Tracy Lynch, Attorney under Instruction

Return Address: PO Box 265, Queenstown

Email for Service: [email protected]

Date: 10 December 2025

To:

Office of the Ombudsman

[email protected]

(and any alternative or backup service address)

Subject: Official Information Act Request – Blocking of Communications & Administrative Interference

This is a formal request under the Official Information Act 1982.

The InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA) requests full disclosure regarding the decision and process whereby communications from this jurisdiction (including notices, complaints, follow-ups and service documents) were blocked, rejected, or otherwise prevented from reaching the Ombudsman.

Requested Information

1. All internal emails, logs, instructions or directives that resulted in emails from the @tangatawhenua.org domain or the following addresses being blocked, rejected, diverted, or prevented from delivery:

– [email protected]

– [email protected]

– [email protected]

– ALL emails from the domain: @tangatawhenua.org

2. The legal and administrative authority relied upon by the Ombudsman’s Office to block or interfere with communications from those who are alive and acting under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority.

3. Any internal discussions or concerns raised regarding communications from @tangatawhenua.org, including recognition as formal service, Treasury OIA disclosures, Crown Law indemnity admissions, or external agency directives.

4. Any incident reports, ICT security notes, filter configurations, risk assessments, logs, or vendor reports relating to suppression of @tangatawhenua.org emails.

5. Confirmation of whether any complaint or notice from @tangatawhenua.org was silently deleted, not logged, diverted, or suppressed, including dates and persons involved.

Administrative Record Requested

– Exact date/time of blocking

– Decision-maker(s)

– Approval steps

– Any audit or review notes

Format Requested

Please provide the information electronically, in full, without redactions unless justified under specific OIA sections. Any refusal must cite the subsection, reasons, and decision‑maker.

Clarification

This communication is not from a legal entity. It is issued from those who are alive under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority (PTNDA). Blocking communications raises constitutional, fiduciary, and administrative concerns.

Response Time

Acknowledgement is required. Full reply expected within 20 working days.

Tracy Lynch

Attorney under Instruction

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

[email protected]

This is a short account of unbelievable victimisation, this man was helping the agricultural industry and the health of people in general yet the greed of the MPI is clear to see.

This is one of the videos published in the last 12 hours in TikTok that has got 9000 views. Obviously the producer of these videos has got a following.

The events behind the video are disgraceful and need to be highlighted everywhere. When a area police commander couldn’t care about what is right or wrong its time to get rid of him and the others.

Share this where ever you can , its long past time for the people to stand up and show some guts.

https://nrsmembers.org/viewer/?share=8634263f48

https://www.voicemedia.global/video/interview-with-simon-stott-s-on-seacure-s-farming-products-farmers-improve-your-yeild-animals-and-land

This is a reply for a Baycorp  claim regarding to a unpaid parking ticket.

Change the details to suite your situation.

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL & REVOCATION OF PERMISSION

Reference: 316314080287

To: Baycorp Collections Department

[email protected]

Cc: Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd

Date: Today

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL — NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

1. No permission has ever been granted to Baycorp to hold, store, process, or act on any personal details.

2. No verified contract exists. Provide wet-ink signed contract, audit trail, and lawful authority.

3. The claim dated 4 December 2025 is unverified and withdrawn.

4. All permission is revoked. Cease all contact immediately.

5. Liability attaches personally for any further unauthorised actions.

6. Confirm file closure and withdrawal in writing.

Signed without prejudice, without recourse,

My  Name

Greetings from the ILAW admin team.

We are in the process today of doing Caveats for members that have followed due process.

What we would like to know how many of  you members have stopped paying your Council Rates, or  and used a Bill of Exchange for payment.

Please send a brief reply to [email protected] 

This will help us in what the team is doing at this very moment.

All the best from the ILAW team

**🔥 PUBLIC EXPOSÉ:

Parliament Does Not Define — It Interprets

(and That Is How Ownership Was Silently Destroyed in New Zealand)**

For years, New Zealanders have been told a simple myth:

> “Parliament writes the definitions in our laws.”

But this is false — and dangerously so.

What Parliament actually writes are interpretations, not definitions.

And that single shift is the quiet weapon that has dismantled true ownership in this country.

—

**1. A definition is fixed.

An interpretation is flexible.**

A definition describes what something is.

It is stable, universal, and cannot be changed by political preference.

An interpretation describes how someone chooses to treat a word in a particular situation.

Parliament’s so-called “definitions” only apply inside that Act.

The moment you leave that Act, they vanish.

That is not definition.

That is administrative interpretation dressed up as law.

—

**2. If Parliament really defined, agencies could not override.

But they do — every day.**

Police, Waka Kotahi, MSD, IRD, Council officers, and Crown Law all:

override statutory wording,

create their own meanings in policy manuals,

train staff according to internal interpretations,

and enforce obligations based on “context”, not the written definition.

This proves the truth:

> The real definitions come from the agency, not from Parliament.

That is how Parliament quietly handed interpretive power to the bureaucracy.

—

3. Judges openly override statutory wording “when the context requires.”

Every major Act contains the clause:

> “Unless the context otherwise requires…”

This one sentence:

nullifies the definition Parliament wrote,

lets the agency reinterpret the words,

lets the court confirm the agency’s meaning,

and leaves the public with no fixed definition at all.

In simple terms:

> The law says one thing.

The agency can say another.

And the court can agree with the agency.

That is not the Rule of Law.

That is interpretive supremacy.

—

4. Ownership collapsed the moment interpretation replaced definition.

True ownership used to mean:

control,

exclusion,

enjoyment,

and absence of obligations unless voluntarily accepted.

But when an agency can reinterpret:

what a “vehicle” is,

what an “owner” is,

what “use” means,

what “operation” means,

what “property” includes,

or what “obligation attaches” means…

then ownership is no longer a right.

It becomes a revocable privilege, granted or removed by administrative interpretation.

This is why in modern NZ:

your house is regulated,

your car is regulated,

your land is regulated,

your movements are regulated,

your income is regulated,

your property is subject to mandatory levies, fees, and conditions

all because an agency interprets the statute that way, not because the words require it.

—

5. This is not accidental — it is a design.

Across:

transport law,

property law,

social security,

fisheries,

environment,

local government,

criminal procedure,

even the Treaty-related statutes,

the same pattern appears:

Step 1: Parliament writes an interpretation.

(“In this Act, X means…”)

Step 2: It inserts the override clause.

(“Unless the context otherwise requires…”)

Step 3: Agencies create their own meaning.

Step 4: Courts validate the agency’s meaning.

Step 5: The original definition — the real one — disappears from practical law.

This is the silent dismantling of ownership.

—

**6. The public were never told this.

But it affects everything you own.**

Your property rights today depend on:

an officer’s interpretation,

a policy writer’s interpretation,

a ministry lawyer’s interpretation,

and a judge’s interpretation,

NOT on the definition of ownership.

So when somebody says:

“Parliament defines it.”

You can now answer:

> No — Parliament interprets it,

the agency re-interprets it,

and the court enforces the interpretation.

That is how ownership is being erased behind our backs.

Ombudsman Escalation – MPI / NZBB OIA Transfer Misuse

From: Steve Chairman– In LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
1. Purpose of This Complaint
This notice is issued to record a formal complaint regarding the > Ministry for Primary Industries’ decision, dated 1 December 2025, to > transfer OIA25-0814 and OIA25-0815 to New Zealand Bee Health & > Biosecurity (NZBB). The transfer is improper, incomplete, and appears > to be used as an administrative mechanism to avoid MPI accountability.
2. Summary of Transfer Issues

MPI notified us on 1 December 2025 that they had transferred both OIA > requests to NZBB. However:

– The request includes information clearly held by MPI.

– MPI has performed a blanket transfer.

– No attempt was made to identify which parts MPI should still process.

– No confirmation of statutory time frames.

– The transfer appears to function as a delay.

– Harm has already occurred.

– The Trust is entitled to full disclosure.
3. Specific OIA Breaches for Review
Improper blanket transfer (s14 OIA)
Failure to meet the duty of candour
Lack of time frame compliance
Administrative fragmentation causing prejudice

4. Trust Jurisdiction, PTNDA, and UNDRIP
All communications and disclosures must follow PTNDA requirements. MPI > and NZBB have breached fiduciary obligations and transparency > requirements.
5. What We Request the Ombudsman to Determine
– That the transfer is non‑compliant.
– That MPI must process its portion.
– That statutory time frames remain from 18 Nov 2025.
– That NZBB only processes its own portion.
– That further delay constitutes administrative harm.
6. Contact Details
:Steve Chairman
In LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
[email protected]
[email protected]
PO Box 265, Queenstown
7. Fee Schedule
$25,000 per administrative breach or delay.
8. Conclusion
We request Ombudsman oversight.
Signed,
For:Steve Chairman
In LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
On 1/12/2025 3:36 pm, Official Information Act wrote:

Tēnā koe Steve

FORMAL COMPLAINT – CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (CAA)

Reference: ILAW-CAA-AIRPORT-2025-001

From:

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

Attorney Acting Under Instruction of Trustees

PO Box 265, Queenstown

FORMAL AVIATION SAFETY & CONDUCT COMPLAINT

Jetstar Airways — Targeted Identification Harassment, Discrimination, Authority Misuse, Unlawful Denial of Boarding, and Complete Communications Failure

1. Introduction and Standing

This complaint is issued under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Authority (PTNDA). Our appointed attorney has been subjected to repeated targeted ID checks, discriminatory treatment across more than a year, refusal of boarding without lawful basis, refusal by staff to identify themselves despite wearing CAA-linked badges, aggressive and hostile behaviour, total communication system failure when seeking assistance, and consequential harm to Trust operations and beneficiaries.

2. Pattern of Targeting & Discrimination (12+ Months)

The Trust attorney has been the only passenger consistently singled out for ID checks, even when travelling with others who were never asked. This targeting has occurred on every Jetstar flight for over a year, in multiple airports, involving numerous staff, with a consistent pattern of hostility and refusal to explain. This behaviour breaches the NZ Bill of Rights Act, Human Rights Act, Civil Aviation Act, and Civil Aviation Rules.

3. Most Recent Incident — Unlawful Denial of Boarding

During the most recent attempt to fly, staff refused to identify themselves, refused to show rules, refused escalation, and denied boarding without lawful authority. Other passengers were not checked or questioned.

4. Staff Wearing CAA-Linked Badges Refused to Identify Themselves

Staff at Auckland Airport wearing CAA-authorised security badges refused to provide names or roles, violating Civil Aviation Rules Part 19 — Security, Rule 19.101(b).

5. Complete Failure of Jetstar’s Communication Channels

Jetstar is functionally unreachable. Emails bounce, online forms fail, and the phone system offers no escalation. A 40‑minute call from a Trust office line disconnected with no call-back. Staff at the airport refused to assist.

6. Resulting Harm

The Trust attorney was stranded, unable to return to Queenstown, prevented from Trust duties, suffered distress, and incurred financial and operational loss.

7. Legal Breaches

Civil Aviation Rules Part 19, Civil Aviation Act 1990, Aviation Crimes Act 1972, Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Privacy Act 2020, NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, Human Rights Act 1993, and key case law including Fitzgerald v Muldoon, Drew v Attorney-General, Zaoui v AG, and Pora v R.

8. Required Actions

CAA investigation into Jetstar’s conduct, disclosure of all internal notes/flags, staff identification, compensation for loss, and assurance that the attorney will no longer be targeted.

Conclusion

Jetstar’s conduct is discriminatory, unlawful, opaque, harmful, and in breach of aviation, privacy, consumer, and human‑rights law. CAA intervention is required.

Signed,

For:Tracy Lynch

Attorney for InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

Request for Members Input.

To help new members understand what the Counsel is doing, or trying to do, we turn to you and ask what are the questions that you have, what are the things that you are unsure of.

Recently we were asked to help some pensioners who were being poorly treated by a council. We are learning from the experience.

We had a member recently offer help to other members that he didn’t know and ends up in jail over-night. No fault of his, police and court official overreach. Members learnt from that.

In the last newsletter we mentioned the Pension Notice that has been served on the MSD. We are hoping a collection of people will serve this and we will, as a group confront the shaky legislation behind their Pension scam. Would members like a brief explanation of what is behind the Pension document, with us pointing out what we have discovered. Have some of you got a fear about questioning the MSD?

If so, let’s get rid of it.

The suggestion was put forward that we use a portion of the Tuesday night meeting at 8pm as educational, we did this about a year ago. We ran out of subjects and input from members; we also had communication issues with the likes of zoom. Those days are gone. You can listen in as a guest using the Live Stream link bottom right on the landing page. nrsmembers.org/market  if you want to ask a question on that viewing page there is a link bottom left JOIN MEETING its as easy as that.

We have had some good replies from the Corporations IRD. We try to load these on to our notice board as soon as the come in. This is to show you we are getting somewhere. There are positive signs that those of us pushing back are making a difference. Two countries have left the EU. Texas has banned chemical spraying over that state. Mainstream media is starting to publish damming information about the vaccine and cancer related cases.

No other group of people in NZ has got to the point where the Appeal Court would not hear us (they claimed it was not of public interest) the reason being is we without a doubt would expose a corrupt High Court  legal system, at the highest level possible.

So please come forward with your questions and your help, we are working with other groups, we are seeking constructive feedback on how the people can create a meaningful change to the present system. This won’t happen fast, but it has already started. When you get the AG Judith Collins make a statement that she has confidence in the judicial system, that is a clear message they are aware of the change in attitude of the people, they are worried about us.

[EXTERNAL IN-CONFIDENCE]

Good morning,

I refer to your email dated 30 November 2025.

I note from the email trail, ‘Mario’ advises my response was a reply to an Official Information Act (OIA) request. This was not treated as an OIA request, it was addressed by our Complaints Management Service (CMS).

To submit an OIA request, please refer to our website Make an official information request.

Regarding comments on pseudo-legal theories, CMS will not provide further responses on this matter, as we are acting in accordance with legislation set by the New Zealand government. Any further correspondence from you along the same lines will be filed without further response or acknowledgement, unless we decide that it requires further attention.

You can address your concerns with a local Member of Parliament (MP) if you wish.

Yours sincerely

Julia Townsend

Complaints Specialist | Complaints Management Service

Inland Revenue | Te Tari Taake

: RE: Your Warning & Procedural Corrections

Riki Jamieson-Smyth,

This email responds to your “final warning” regarding copying your office into correspondence.

Your message contains procedural errors, incorrect assumptions, and threats inconsistent with the statutory obligations of your office. It is necessary to correct the record.

1. No misuse of your address has occurred

Your office was copied only when:

• identity, privacy, or data-handling issues were active,
• an agency was mismanaging or altering personal information, or
• an audit trail was legally required under PTNDA protocol.

This is fully consistent with the Privacy Act 2020 (ss 6, 8, 22–24).

Nothing inappropriate or “unreasonable” has occurred.

2. Your warning contradicts several Acts

Your message is inconsistent with your statutory duties under:

• Regulatory Standards Act (RSA) – lawful, reasonable, proportionate administrative conduct
• Evidence Act 2006 (ss 7–10) – accuracy and proper handling of information
• Privacy Act 2020 (ss 6, 8, 22, 23) – accuracy, transparency, and accessibility obligations
• NZ Bill of Rights Act (s 27) – right to natural justice
• Public Service Act (s 12) – duty to act impartially, reasonably, and in good faith

Threatening to block communication for one year is not proportionate, not lawful, and not consistent with your oversight role.

3. Systemic administrative abuse requires multi-agency transparency

The Private Trust is currently facing systemic administrative failures from multiple Crown agencies, including:

• refusal to provide correct identity records
• errors in data handling
• contradictory communications
• breaches of procedural fairness
• refusal to provide chain-of-custody evidence
• ongoing harm resulting from administrative mismanagement

For this reason, your office is copied into correspondence when needed to ensure:

• transparency
• accuracy
• correction of administrative errors
• prevention of further harm

If there are urgent matters and multiple agencies involved, copying your office is the only practical and immediate safeguard.

This is not “unreasonable conduct.”

It is a protective measure in response to demonstrable systemic failures.

4. Fiduciary duty

As your office holds a fiduciary duty in its administrative role, you will be informed as required.

That notification may occur either:

• directly, or
• by CC, depending on urgency and severity.

This is neither improper nor prohibited.

5. Identity corrections

Please update your internal record:

The correct reference is: Ann Kifo – Attorney (PTNDA).

No gendered titles or unauthorised descriptors are to be used.

6. Future contact

To avoid any misunderstanding:

• You will be contacted directly when a privacy matter is addressed to your office.
• You may also be copied into relevant correspondence where privacy, identity, or data-handling issues are active.
• Your threat to block communication is rejected as inconsistent with your legislative obligations.

Thank you.

By:Tracy Lynch

Attorney Acting Under Instruction of Trustees

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

On Dec 2, 2025 at 8:51 AM, <Enquiries> wrote:

Kia ora,

On 24 October 2025 we asked you to stop copying the Privacy Commissioner’s email address into your correspondence with other agencies.

You have not stopped, and I am now giving you a final warning.

Do not email the Privacy Commissioner unless the email is addressed to us and sets out a genuine privacy concern.

If you want to make a new complaint I suggest you use our online form: https://www.privacy.org.nz/your-rights/making-a-complaint-to-the-privacy-commissioner/

You can also write to us at PO Box 10094, Wellington 6140.

If you copy us into any more emails, we will block your email address without further notice, for a period of one year, in line with our policy on managing unreasonable conduct.

Ngā mihi nui,

Riki Jamieson-Smyth

Manager, Investigations & Dispute Resolution | Kaiwhakahaere, Whakatewhatewha, Whakatau Raru hoki

Office of the Privacy Commissioner | Te Mana Mātāpono Matatapu
PO Box 10094, Wellington 6140

T   0800 803 909

E   [email protected]

privacy.org.nz   

Chairmans Office
To all our members just a few notes of importance.
When you want help or information please get in touch with me first [email protected] secondly [email protected] and third is [email protected] by email we will get back to you ASAP remember we are busy and cannot always reply straight away and to contact all other Admin you must go through here first please.
Make sure you leave your Email and phone number, Name, member number and brief details of what you need help or information for so we can respond or it may be ignored.
For your protection it is a good idea to book and do both, documents Claim:Deed and Notice:Trespass which you can purchase in the shop.
Just a reminder to all.
UNIVERSAL NOTICE: ATTORNEY IS THE SOLE DISCLOSING AGENT
Reference: ILAW-PRIVACY-2025-001

This serves as a universal notice to all persons, agencies, officers, contractors, entities, and private parties.

1. Attorney = Only Disclosing Agent
Under the in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA), only the appointed Attorney may disclose, authorise disclosure of, or grant permission to use any communication, statement, or recorded content. No other person or agency holds authority to disclose any content involving the Attorney.

2. Ownership of Recording vs. Ownership of Information
A party may possess or own the physical recording, however the information contained within that recording is Trust-protected property. The content is governed by PTNDA protections, fiduciary obligations, and privacy rights.

3. No Disclosure Without Written Permission
No recorded material involving the Attorney may be accessed, viewed, shared, distributed, analysed, published, or circulated without:
(a) written, explicit permission from the Attorney; and
(b) confirmation from the Trust that the content is cleared for disclosure.

4. Mandatory Permission Test
All parties must be able to answer the following before sharing any material:
“Did you have written permission from the Attorney to share or view this content?”
If the answer is no, any disclosure constitutes a breach of:
• PTNDA
• fiduciary obligations
• privacy rights
• administrative boundaries
• potential misconduct

5. Universal Application
This notice applies without exception to:
police, government agencies, ministries, councils, contractors, media, NGOs, social workers, investigators, registry staff, private persons, and any third party handling the recording.

6. Mandatory 72-Hour Disclosure Log
If any unauthorised viewing or sharing occurred, the responsible party must provide:
• a full disclosure log
• an explanation
• a corrective action plan
within 72 hours of receiving this notice.

Reference Number: ILAW-PRIVACY-2025-001
Issued by: Attorney – in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

Thanks
: Steve Chairman

Service by email and Post

TREASURY EMERGENCY HARM NOTICE

Subject: URGENT: Harm Notification & Demand for Treasury Intervention – ACC Governance Failure

To: Ministerial Services – New Zealand Treasury

Email: [email protected]

Treasury Team,

This email serves as a formal harm notification from the InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA), regarding serious governance and fiduciary failures within the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the resulting harm being inflicted on the public.

This is not a legal submission.

It is an administrative notice based on ACC’s own admissions and documented failures.

1. Summary of Critical Failures (Confirmed by ACC)

ACC has confirmed, in writing, that:

• No internal audits have been conducted since 2020

• No proof of indemnity or insurance has been provided

• No custody-chain or beneficial-ownership evidence has been produced

• OIA decisions failed to meet basic candor requirements

• Exclusive remedy processes are being enforced without oversight

• Hundreds of lawyers have been hired while frontline support has been removed

These failures fall directly under Treasury’s supervisory responsibility.

2. Direct Human Harm Caused by ACC Decisions

Due to ACC’s lack of audited accountability, thousands of injured people have been:

• denied full compensation

• pushed into benefit systems

• displaced from employment

• forced into emergency housing

• rendered homeless

• unable to afford medical care

• blocked from private medical insurance pathways

Families have lost jobs, homes, safety, and stability —

as a direct result of ACC decisions occurring under Treasury oversight.

3. Request for Immediate Treasury Intervention

We request that Treasury urgently:

1. Suspend ACC decision-making involving individuals until

– audits (2020–2025)

– indemnity evidence

– custody agreements

– beneficial title documentation

– and Treasury compliance

are verified.

2. Direct ACC to stop interfering with private medical and private insurance pathways.

3. Initiate emergency governance correction, including restoring frontline support capacity.

4. Provide a harm-mitigation plan to address homelessness, job loss, and poverty resulting from ACC processes.

This is required to prevent further human harm.

4. Personal Accountability of Decision-Makers

Where a Crown entity:

• refuses audit

• refuses transparency

• refuses accountability

• causes human destruction through administrative decisions

…the responsibility may become personal, not institutional.

If Treasury cannot correct this failure internally, we may require:

• verification of the identities of responsible officers

• indemnity evidence

• asset-position information for liability assessment

This is not punitive —

it is restorative, to compensate those who have already suffered harm.

5. Timeframes

• Acknowledgment requested: within 5 working days

• Corrective action plan: within 15 working days

Non-response will be recorded as supervisory failure and escalated.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Tracy

Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)

PO Box 265, Queenstown

[email protected]

• Due to the increased work load from us pushing back against the Corporations.
  This is with the use of OIA’s asking the difficult questions to expose the truth. We are opening up many rabbit holes. Because of our numbers, we cannot follow every trail, we have to prioritise our time.
• Situations arise where we have to work fast for cases dealing with the courts, this creates opportunities for us to learn. Recently a member innocently offered to support other members that he didn’t know, and gets himself on false charges. We are working with him, his benefit is he is directly working with us, its a step learning curve at times, but he is learning and getting stronger.
• If you want to grow and help your grand children , find a way to help the ILAW, this can be in very simple ways. Talking to people is the 1st thing that springs to mind, Tell them what you know about our cause, show them what we have done and are doing.
• How many of you know that we are serving documents on Parliament?
• If you are reading this you probably know that we have created a document that challenged the MSD on how they pay our pensions. This is a project that has been in the making for some time. Its now time for the members to show support to those that have spent days on creating the 4 pages. This project has the ability of stopping them from taxing your pension. Think about that!
• The Pension Documents will only work if you have claimed back your LEGAL NAME. If you are asking what does that mean then you really have to start taking an interest in your own welfare. We are talking about the NS72 now called the CLAIM:DEED This is what the ILAW evolves around. We own the legal name, its our TRUST.

• How many of you have lost what I am talking about here?

• If you are in that situation call me Michael 0221022196 and we will look into creating a information based way of bring you up to speed.

The reality is that the Police and the councils work together, at the same time they know about Trust law but will refuse to admit that we have the right to use it.

That being the case we need to use force to wake them up to the fact they are operating outside of International Trust Law. A serious offence. The fact that the courts are doing the same, the Dunedin Court is a good example, we are now seeing clearly how lawless this country is.

So we need to start taking note of the addresses and registration plate numbers of these bent fiduciary agents, and place Liens on their property. If we have a legitimate claim of harm or loss we are within our rights to do this. Be ware you are a non-legal entity, you need the attorney for the ILAW to do this for you.

• BANKING LIEN NOTICE
  InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
  Private Trust Security Interest – Claim of Right – Non-Commercial Lien

  Reference: ILAW-VEH-LIEN-2025-001
  Date: [Insert Date]

  Against the following registered property:
  Make/Model: BYD Sealion 6
  Registration Number: RKU839
  VIN: LGXC74C49S0697768
  Year: 2025
  Colour: Black
  Registered Debtor: Ngaire Evelyn Knowles
  DOB: 10 January 1963
  Address: 119 Te Awe Awe Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410
  Source: PPSR Registration FV6P6J6K26XH66F6 (UDC Finance Ltd)

  1. DECLARATION OF PRIVATE TRUST LIEN

  The InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA) hereby places a Banking Lien / Security Claim over the above-identified conveyance due to ongoing fiduciary breaches, unlawful substituted-service attempts, misrepresentation to the Court, failure to maintain habitability and safety at the associated Trust property, harm caused to beneficiaries, and unauthorised administrative interference with Trust affairs.

  2. BASIS OF LIEN

  This lien is supported by PTNDA obligations, NS72 Claim:Deed authority, Trust property rights under Quia Emptores, UNDRIP Articles 3, 4, 8, 26, Trusts Act standing under s.5(b), right of indemnity and restoration, and the right to protect Trust property from harm and misrepresentation.

  3. CONDITIONS OF LIEN

  (a) No sale, transfer, or disposal is permitted.
  (b) The vehicle may not be used to harm Trust interests.
  (c) The lien attaches to the VIN, not the plates.

  4. TRUST FEES & LIEN VALUE

  Lien value: $850,000 NZD (Trust Protective Value)
  Daily breach fee: $25,000 per day
  Event fees:

  • Attempted transfer/sale: $250,000
  • Insurance claim suppression: $150,000
  • Unlawful enforcement attempt: $500,000

  5. NOTICE TO THE SECURED PARTY (UDC FINANCE LTD)

  UDC Finance Limited is hereby notified that a Private Trust Lien is now in place. All enforcement or communication must go through the Trust Attorney:

  Anne Kifo (Attorney)
  Email: [email protected]

  6. NOTICE OF RECORDING

  This lien will be stored in the Trust Registry, submitted to the SEC if applicable, copied to the insurance broker, and held as evidence of outstanding fiduciary harm.

  7. AUTHORITY

  Issued under full authority of:
  InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust
  Court of Record – PTNDA Mandate
  Attorney: Anne Kifo
  PO Box 265, Queenstown

Treasury,

Thank you for your response.

Your referral to the Banking Ombudsman is noted, however it is misplaced.

The matters raised in my Notice are not complaints about a single bank, nor are they “industry issues.” They are systemic fiduciary failures occurring under Treasury and Reserve Bank oversight, including:

• altered digital banking records,
• unauthorised access to beneficiaries’ accounts,
• misuse of AML flags resulting in defamation,
• forced mortgage actions without lawful process,
• councils extracting money through banking channels without court orders,
• refusal to disclose insurance or indemnity,
• and widespread regulatory non-compliance across multiple licensed institutions.

These are prudential, supervisory, regulatory, and indemnity failures.

The Banking Ombudsman is not the competent authority for:

• multi-bank systemic misconduct,
• insurance and indemnity failures,
• forced extraction of rate payments without orders,
• predatory mortgage actions,
• falsified or altered transaction records,
• unlawful access of accounts,
• or coordinated administrative harm to those born here.

The Banking Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to audit, direct, or discipline Reserve Bank-licensed entities or councils.

This is expressly a Treasury and Reserve Bank governance matter, not an industry-service complaint.

For clarity:

This is a Prudential Alert and a Systemic Misconduct Notice issued under the InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust.

It must be escalated to the appropriate internal team for supervisory action, not referred downward.

Accordingly, I now require: