iSAYSO
A good example of what the Admin is up against now, from the Justice Depts.
On Sep 17, 2025 at 8:03 AM, <Rachel Green-Brough> wrote:
Good morning,
Please do not send me emails as I am not the case officer.
I have no jurisdiction to accept this email.
Many thanks
Nga Mihi Nui,
|
Rachel Green-Brough Deputy Registrar | Dunedin Family Court CNR Dunbar and Stewart Street Dunedin DDI: 03 4715146 | EXT: 52146 |
From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 1:56 AM
To: Green-Brough, Rachel <[email protected]>
Cc: Louise <[email protected]>; Private Trust <[email protected]>; 105 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Notice. ( invoice may be issued)
Subject: Re: Notice to Court — Record of Breach and Insurance Claim
Good morning Ms Green-Brough,
Thank you for your email. For clarity, the correspondence you received was not an application or memorandum before the Court. It was a formal Notice issued under Private Trust mandate, recording fiduciary breaches and notifying the Court of an active insurance claim.
As such, the Notice is not dependent on Court process for its validity. It was sent to the Court, and copied to relevant parties, for the purposes of:
Recording that the Court has been notified of the failures of due process and harm caused.
Ensuring that the Court’s officers cannot later claim lack of knowledge of these matters.
Preserving the record for insurance, fiduciary, and escalation purposes.
It is therefore not a matter for the Registry to “accept” or “reject” in the sense of filings — it is a matter of record. Notices of this nature are served, not filed.
Accordingly, I ask that you retain the Notice with the case record. Any refusal to do so will be treated as concealment and will form part of the insurance escalation.
Respectfully,
By:Tracy Lynch
Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
PO Box 237, Gore
From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:53 AM
To: Green-Brough, Rachel <[email protected]>; ContactUs <[email protected]>
Cc: Private Trust <[email protected]>; 105 <[email protected]>; Cvita Amelia <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT Breach of duty
Subject: Re: Notice to Court — Record of Breach and Insurance Claim
Good morning Ms Green-Brough,
Your recent response is noted. However, I must correct several points:
- Registrar Accountability
All Registrars are public officers who provide lawful services to the Court. They are accountable for their decisions, a principle recently confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that you “have no jurisdiction” or that you can disclaim responsibility.
- Nature of the Notice
The correspondence issued was not an application or memorandum requiring acceptance or rejection under Court process. It was a Notice served under Private Trust mandate. Such Notices are:
- Served, not filed.
- Directed for record and accountability.
- Binding on all service providers who receive them.
- Trust Jurisdiction
The InLandsAirWater Counsel is not a legal entity. Notices are issued under Private Trust Non-Disclosure mandate. Accordingly, attempts to dismiss or deflect them misunderstand their jurisdictional basis.
- Tone of Reply
Your response was highly inappropriate and dismissive. As an officer of the Court, it is improper to respond rudely to formal correspondence that places the Court on notice of fiduciary breaches and insurance claims.
Required Action
The Notice must be retained with the record. Any refusal to do so will constitute concealment and will be treated as further breach, escalating liability under the insurance claim already in effect.
Respectfully,
By: Tracy Lynch
Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
PO Box 237, Gore
For: InLandsAirWater Counsel
By: Tracy LYNCH
Private Trust under Non-Disclosure Agreement