A Registry refusal to file does not extinguish the notice but evidences obstruction

On Aug 27, 2025 at 8:57 AM, <Michelle Belk> wrote:

Good morning

Registry have replied twice notifying you we are unable to enter any correspondence with you regarding this matter.

We will not be taking any further action with the document which is also filed incorrectly.

Any further correspondence needs to be made through my manager Tracey Butler [email protected]

Michelle Belk
Deputy High/District Court Registrar |High & District Court, Whanganui  
10 Market Place, Whanganui | DX PX10280
06 349 0748 | Ext 53748
www.justice.govt.nz



-----Original Message-----
From: Claims <[email protected]>  
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 5:38 PM
To: Belk, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Tracy :) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: CIV-2025-083-000053

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Court of in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust PO Box 237, Gore | Ph:03 244 9516
26 August 2025
Michelle Belk
Deputy High/District Court Registrar
High & District Court, Whanganui
10 Market Place, Whanganui | DX PX10280
Re: CIV-2025-083-000053 – Rangitīkei District Council v. [Not a Legal Entity – Protected Private Trust Property] Dear Ms. Belk, Thank you for your reply dated 25 August 2025.
Your position that correspondence will not be entered into because I am "not a lawyer" is noted. However, it must be restated for the record:
1. Trust Authority – I act as Attorney under instruction of Trustees for in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust. This standing is not dependent on Crown licensing nor on membership of the New Zealand Law Society. Recognition under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), as well as the recorded High Court acknowledgement that in LandsAirWater Counsel is not a legal entity, confirms that statutory definitions of “lawyer” do not govern this jurisdiction.
2. Invalid Service – No lawful service has been made. The name “David John Mills” is Trust Property and not a legal entity. It is not a defendant, not a debtor, and not subject to statutory enforcement. Attempted substituted service via private contractors (Debt Management Central / Manawatū–Whanganui LASS Ltd) is void.
3. Lack of Verified Authority – No attorney, solicitor, or purported representative has produced any lawful proof of authority to act for Rangitīkei District Council in this matter. Without a verified contract of engagement, disclosure of liability cover, and two-wet-signature confirmation of agency, their standing is void. Any attempt to proceed without this proof constitutes misrepresentation, fraud upon the court, and trespass upon Trust Property.
4. Judicial Inconsistency – The High Court itself has acknowledged that in LandsAirWater Counsel is not a legal entity. To deny filings on that basis while simultaneously permitting proceedings against Trust-held names is contradictory and amounts to constructive fraud.
5. Judicial Admission of No Standing – The Court of Appeal, per Chris Abraham, has already admitted on the record: “You’re not a legal entity. You can’t be in court.” This statement establishes that in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust is outside Crown jurisdiction. If this Trust is barred from standing as claimant or applicant, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a defendant. To attempt both is a fundamental contradiction: the court system is enforcing a legal fiction against a lawful reality. Such conduct is not procedure; it is fraud, and it exposes the proceeding as a securities instrument without lawful foundation.
6. International Escalation – As set out in our notice, this matter is subject to reporting under Executive Order 13818 and has been copied to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury (OFAC), and the UN Human Rights Commissioner (South Pacific). Failure by the Court Registry to process or properly respond to filed notices will be recorded as fiduciary breach and complicity.
7. Securities Misrepresentation – The creation of case number CIV-2025-083-000053 and its use for enforcement constitutes the unlawful creation of a financial security. No verified authority, no lawful defendant, and no consented contract exist. This renders the instrument fraudulent. The Court Registry’s refusal to process valid notices while simultaneously allowing circulation of an unbacked security demonstrates complicity in securities fraud. This is why escalation is now directed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and OFAC for enforcement.
8. Trustees Act Duties – Under the Trusts Act 2019, trustees are accountable for their decisions (see ss 12–13, 23–25, 52–54). Attorneys duly instructed by trustees have standing to act. By contrast, Crown officers and legal practitioners purporting to act for Rangitīkei District Council have not produced proof of authority, engagement, or liability cover. Ignorance of law is no excuse: the absence of lawful authority while generating securities instruments is wilful breach of fiduciary duty.
For the avoidance of doubt: this is not a request for discretionary correspondence, but a formal record of objection, motion to strike out, and counterclaim already filed under Trust Seal. Your refusal to process does not remove liability; it simply evidences obstruction of remedy.
This matter is not legal, it is lawful. The Private Trust is not a legal entity, and therefore Crown courts, registries, or contracted agents hold no jurisdiction or authority.
Accordingly, we require confirmation that the document filed on 21 August 2025 has been placed on the court record. If the Registry continues to refuse, we will proceed to escalate as notified.
Kind regards,
Tracy Lynch
Private Attorney under Trust Instruction in LandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (NDA)