Here is another example of officials failing to preform their duties.

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 11:41 AM
To: Darby, Heather <[email protected]>
Cc: 105 <[email protected]>; Claims 2 <[email protected]>; Private Trust <[email protected]>; Records <[email protected]>; Chairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: REVIEW OR RECALL OF JUDGMENT

Request for Full Disclosure and Statement on Procedural Misconduct

From: InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust
To: Heather Darby – Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court
Date: 30 July 2025

Subject: Interpretation Required – Refusal to Action Application for Review or Recall of Judgment (CIV-2024-454-74)

Dear Heather,

Your response states:
“Unfortunately, I cannot action this application as it does not comply with Part 5, Subpart 2 of the High Court Rules 2016.”
We request a full and complete interpretation of this sentence, including not limited to:

1. Specific Rule Breach

– What exact clause or requirement in Part 5, Subpart 2 is not met?
– Is it a formatting issue (form cover sheet, affidavit, or party name)?
– Is the objection based on the fact that InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust is not a legal entity?

1. On Trust Structure and Authority

You are hereby advised, and it is on permanent public record, that:
– InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust does not identify as a legal entity.
– The Trust is represented by attorneys appointed under private NDA.
– Trustees are unnamed for private and fiduciary reasons.
– The Respondent (Horizons Council) was lawfully served, as confirmed by a licensed professional process server (James Dixon).
– This service was filed with the court and also acknowledged in the Appeals Court, yet disregarded without basis.

1. Pattern of Systemic Obstruction

This rejection mirrors a broader pattern:
– In the Appeals Court, the waiver application was denied on grounds that the Trust was “not in the public interest”—a subjective and discriminatory finding.
– The same court also declared that no legal entity existed, despite acknowledging that service had been completed.
– You are now refusing to process a legitimate request, despite full documentation and judicial evidence that service was conducted and ignored.

This constitutes administrative misconduct and appears to violate basic standards of procedural fairness.

1. Trust Standing and Fiduciary Notice

We assert the following for permanent record:
– No harm has been alleged by your office.
– No disclosure has been provided regarding why this application cannot proceed.
– This rejection will be recorded as a strike against your office and will be included in future communications to oversight bodies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and international fiduciary watchdogs.

We demand either:
– An immediate and complete breakdown of what is required for compliance;
– Or a formal statement from a Judge declaring why a lawfully documented, professionally served application cannot be processed when the Respondent has already had multiple opportunities to respond.

1. Final Note

The Trust does not waive any rights, and we remind all officers involved that obstruction of lawful remedy or concealment of court-recorded service is a serious breach of duty.

Please respond with a full itemised explanation — not a general reference — within 72 hours. This will be entered into our public records as part of a formal audit of ongoing judicial obstruction.

InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust
By instruction of our Chair
Attorney Contact: Tracy Lynch
PO Box 237, Gore
Phone: 03 244 9516

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 1:22 AM
To: WellingtonHC <[email protected]>; Judicial Conduct <[email protected]>
Cc: 105 <[email protected]>; Claims 2 <[email protected]>; Private Trust <[email protected]>; Records <[email protected]>
Subject: REVIEW OR RECALL OF JUDGMENT

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OR RECALL OF JUDGMENT

To: The Registrar

High Court of New Zealand – Palmerston North Registry

CIV-2024-454-74 | [2025] NZHC 351

Filed by:

Tracy Lynch – Attorney for InLandsAirWater Counsel (Private Trust)

PO Box 237, Gore | Email: [email protected]

1. Overview

This application is submitted to seek review or recall of the judgment dated 28 February 2025 by Associate Judge Skelton in proceeding CIV-2024-454-74, due to the material omission of a valid affidavit of service filed by a licensed process server, James Dixon of The Investigators New Zealand Limited.

1. Grounds

– An affidavit of service by James Dixon (licensed process server) was duly sworn and filed, confirming lawful service on Michael McCartney at Horizons Regional Council, via his assistant Angie Barrett, on 17 October 2024.

– A second affidavit of service was also submitted by Mike Ritter.

– The judgment failed to acknowledge the affidavit by Mr Dixon, instead describing service as ‘alleged’, which materially prejudiced the outcome. This omission may constitute a miscarriage of justice under High Court Rule 11.9(b) or justify review under Rule 15.23.

1. Relief Sought

That the Court recall or review its judgment under CIV-2024-454-74 and issue a corrected ruling acknowledging full service, including the affidavit by James Dixon, which supports the standing and process compliance of the plaintiff Trust.

1. Procedural Irregularity in Court

During the hearing in February 2025, the plaintiff presented a printed copy of the affidavit of service by James Dixon. This was physically present in court and was referenced clearly as an official court document.

Despite this, the presiding Judge declined to acknowledge or accept the affidavit, stating it was not admissible. This is inconsistent with normal judicial procedure, where Judges frequently accept service documents in court if available or confirm their existence on file.

The affidavit in question was also included in the written submissions filed with the Court. The Court’s refusal to accept, acknowledge, or even reference the affidavit within the final ruling, despite being provided both in person and by submission, constitutes a serious procedural irregularity and potential miscarriage of justice.

ADDENDUM: SEC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURE

To: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – Office of the Whistleblower

Subject: Ongoing Fiduciary and Procedural Obstruction in Foreign Court Proceedings – New Zealand High Court

Summary of Concern

The applicant notifies the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that material evidence supporting a liquidation application brought by a Private Trust has been disregarded by the New Zealand High Court. This includes a formally sworn affidavit of service from James Dixon, a professional process server, whose filing was not considered in the judicial determination by Associate Judge Skelton in [2025] NZHC 351.

Relief or Action Requested

– That the SEC acknowledge and investigate the concealment of fiduciary evidence within case CIV-2024-454-74;

– That this matter be incorporated into any broader review of foreign administrative abuses impacting fiduciary obligations;

– That protections be extended to the Private Trust parties who are seeking remedy through lawful and private jurisdictional structures.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Formal Complaint – Registry Misconduct

To: Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Email: [email protected]

From: InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust

By Attorney: Tracy Lynch

PO Box 237, Gore

Phone: 03 244 9516

Email: [email protected]

Date: 31 July 2025

Subject: Formal Complaint – Registrar Refusal to Clarify Filing Rejection (Heather Darby – Wellington High Court)

Dear Commissioner,

This is a formal complaint regarding Deputy Registrar Heather Darby of the Wellington High Court, in her capacity as officer over the file CIV-2024-454-74. The matter concerns a serious and ongoing refusal to clarify the basis of filing rejection under the High Court Rules, despite multiple formal written requests.

The correspondence demonstrates:

1. Registry refusal to identify which exact rule(s) were breached, instead citing an entire subpart (Part 5, Subpart 2) without specificity.

2. Dismissive disengagement from further communication, despite the lack of procedural clarity.

3. Obstruction of remedy, given that the application involved a documented and sworn affidavit of service ignored by the presiding judge (NZHC 351).

The Court has now stated that no further communication will be responded to, effectively terminating access to remedy for a lawfully served, Trust-held application. A detailed rebuttal was served to Registrar Darby and is attached to this complaint for your review.

We assert this conduct falls within your oversight mandate as it compromises the integrity and accessibility of judicial process. This includes the refusal to provide administrative clarification where required to maintain fair access to remedy.

We request:

– A full review of the Registry’s conduct under CIV-2024-454-74.

– A directive that Registry staff clarify rejections with specific rule-based reasoning in future.

– A public record of this breach for inclusion in any systemic oversight proceedings.

Respectfully,

Tracy Lynch

Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel Private Trust

________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OR RECALL OF JUDGMENT

To: The Registrar

High Court of New Zealand – Palmerston North Registry

CIV-2024-454-74 | [2025] NZHC 351

 

Filed by:

Tracy Lynch – Attorney for InLandsAirWater Counsel (Private Trust)

PO Box 237, Gore | Email: [email protected]

 

1. Overview

This application is submitted to seek review or recall of the judgment dated 28 February 2025 by Associate Judge Skelton in proceeding CIV-2024-454-74, due to the material omission of a valid affidavit of service filed by a licensed process server, James Dixon of The Investigators New Zealand Limited.

2. Grounds

– An affidavit of service by James Dixon (licensed process server) was duly sworn and filed, confirming lawful service on Michael McCartney at Horizons Regional Council, via his assistant Angie Barrett, on 17 October 2024.

– A second affidavit of service was also submitted by Mike Ritter.

– The judgment failed to acknowledge the affidavit by Mr Dixon, instead describing service as ‘alleged’, which materially prejudiced the outcome. This omission may constitute a miscarriage of justice under High Court Rule 11.9(b) or justify review under Rule 15.23.

3. Relief Sought

That the Court recall or review its judgment under CIV-2024-454-74 and issue a corrected ruling acknowledging full service, including the affidavit by James Dixon, which supports the standing and process compliance of the plaintiff Trust.

4. Procedural Irregularity in Court

During the hearing in February 2025, the plaintiff presented a printed copy of the affidavit of service by James Dixon. This was physically present in court and was referenced clearly as an official court document.

Despite this, the presiding Judge declined to acknowledge or accept the affidavit, stating it was not admissible. This is inconsistent with normal judicial procedure, where Judges frequently accept service documents in court if available or confirm their existence on file.

The affidavit in question was also included in the written submissions filed with the Court. The Court’s refusal to accept, acknowledge, or even reference the affidavit within the final ruling, despite being provided both in person and by submission, constitutes a serious procedural irregularity and potential miscarriage of justice.

ADDENDUM: SEC WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURE

To: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – Office of the Whistleblower

Subject: Ongoing Fiduciary and Procedural Obstruction in Foreign Court Proceedings – New Zealand High Court

Summary of Concern

The applicant notifies the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that material evidence supporting a liquidation application brought by a Private Trust has been disregarded by the New Zealand High Court. This includes a formally sworn affidavit of service from James Dixon, a professional process server, whose filing was not considered in the judicial determination by Associate Judge Skelton in [2025] NZHC 351.

Relief or Action Requested

– That the SEC acknowledge and investigate the concealment of fiduciary evidence within case CIV-2024-454-74;

– That this matter be incorporated into any broader review of foreign administrative abuses impacting fiduciary obligations;

– That protections be extended to the Private Trust parties who are seeking remedy through lawful and private jurisdictional structures.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________