iSAYSO
REPLY TO MINISTRY OF JUSTICE — OIA / PRIVACY REQUEST PAR 127016
This here proves they have lied. It shows you the depth of our commitment to helping people, and exposing their legal system.
Date: Nov 18, 2025 at 8:58 AM
To: official correspondence <[email protected]>, Peter Boshier <[email protected]>
Cc: Da <[email protected]>, Karen B <[email protected]>, Private Trust <[email protected]>, Records <[email protected]>
Subject: Privacy claim breach return, these boys Request for information (PAR/OIA 127016)
REPLY TO MINISTRY OF JUSTICE — OIA / PRIVACY REQUEST PAR 127016
InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
Court Notice – Without Prejudice
Reference: LANWJ Dunedin 2025-001-RESB
PO Box 265 Queenstown
To:
Jacquelyn Shannon
Group Manager, Courts & Tribunals
Ministry of Justice
From:
Tracy Lynch
Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel (PTNDA)
Re: PAR 127016 – Administrative Refusal, Regulatory Standards Bill Compliance, and Evidence of File Suppression
Introduction
Tēnā koe,
This notice acknowledges receipt of your letter dated 17 November 2025 responding to my Privacy Act and Official Information Act request relating to DSC 126408. After reviewing the Ministry’s document pack released under PAR 127016, it is clear that the Ministry does in fact hold administrative information relevant to this matter, contrary to the position taken in your response. This notice outlines the issues and confirms the outstanding matters requiring correction.
- Evidence Contradicting the Ministry’s Claim That “No Information Is Held”
The Ministry’s refusal relies on section 18(g)(i) of the OIA, claiming no information is held. However, the Ministry’s own released documents show:
– Crown Law forwarded internal correspondence to the Ministry.
– The Minister of Justice transferred the complaint to the Ministry.
– Dunedin Court staff, Regional Service Delivery, and Ministerial Services reviewed and discussed the matter.
– Staff analysed the concerns, attachments, and references.
These records demonstrate that administrative documents were held, circulated, stored, and used. The refusal was therefore incorrect.
- Administrative Functions Are Executive Functions — Not Judicial Exemptions
Your response incorrectly conflates judicial deliberation (which is exempt) with administrative tasks (which are not). The material held by the Ministry includes internal routing, email chains, staff commentary, ministerial transfers, and administrative handling. None of this falls under judicial secrecy. All such information is subject to disclosure.
- Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) – Non-Compliance
Under the RSB, all public-office decisions must be transparent, justified, evidence-based, and assessed for harm impact. Your refusal does not:
– disclose the reasoning used,
– identify evidence relied upon,
– provide harm-impact assessment,
– assess community effect or proportionality,
– or show Treaty/tikanga considerations.
This omission constitutes non-compliance with the RSB.
- Harm Must Be Recognised Under the RSB
Administrative handling failures contributed to:
– file suppression,
– police misinformation,
– arrests based on incomplete data,
– risk to children in DSC 126408,
– obstruction of Trust records,
– international escalation requirements.
The RSB requires recognition of harm. None was provided.
- Clarification and Disclosure Now Required
To correct the deficiencies in PAR 127016, please provide:
- Confirmation of Records:
- Confirmation of administrative documents held, including internal emails, referrals, routing, and staff discussions.
- Confirmation of DX routing logs, access logs, or suppression markers relating to DSC 126408.
- RSB Compliance Report:
A full regulatory compliance assessment, including justification, evidence, harm assessment, and Treaty considerations.
- Authority Instrument:
Provide statutory authority allowing the Ministry to assert non-custody of information while simultaneously holding and circulating it.
- Notice of Escalation
If clarification is not provided, escalation will proceed to:
– Ombudsman,
– Privacy Commissioner,
– international insurance auditors,
– SEC Whistleblower Office,
– PTNDA Court of Record.
- Response Deadline
Please provide the requested clarifications within 10 working days.
By:Tracy Lynch
On Nov 17, 2025 at 3:29 PM, <official correspondence> wrote:
@font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Aptos;}@font-face {font-family:UICTFontTextStyleEmphasizedBody;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#467886; text-decoration:underline;}p.s2, li.s2, div.s2 {mso-style-name:s2; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;}p.s4, li.s4, div.s4 {mso-style-name:s4; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;}p.s6, li.s6, div.s6 {mso-style-name:s6; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;}p.p1, li.p1, div.p1 {mso-style-name:p1; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;}p.paragraph, li.paragraph, div.paragraph {mso-style-name:paragraph; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;}span.bumpedfont15 {mso-style-name:bumpedfont15;}span.s1 {mso-style-name:s1;}span.normaltextrun {mso-style-name:normaltextrun;}span.eop {mso-style-name:eop;}span.spellingerror {mso-style-name:spellingerror;}span.EmailStyle30 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif; color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
Tçnâ koe Tracy
Please find attached the response and corresponding pack of documents regarding your request of 20 October 2025.
Ngâ mihi nui | Kind regards,
|
Ministerial Services Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture DX Box SX 10088 | Wellington |
From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 20 October 2025 9:55 pm
To: correspondence, official <[email protected]>; Peter Boshier <[email protected]>; Da <[email protected]>; Humans rigths Geneva <[email protected]>; Debtmanagement <[email protected]>
Cc: Karen B <[email protected]>; 105 >> QT105 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Response to your correspondence (Ref: 126408)
Ref: ILAW–MOJ–DUNEDIN–2025–002-OIA
Date: 20 October 2025
To:
Official Information Act Officer
Ministry of Justice – Te Tâhû o te Ture
Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street | Wellington 6011
Cc: Hon Paul Goldsmith – Minister of Justice | Registrar Dunedin High Court | Ombudsman | IPCA | Marsh Insurance
From: PO Box 265 Queenstown | [email protected]
Sent via: Email & Recorded Fax
OIA Demand and Forensic Audit Request – Registrar Conduct & Judicial File Suppression
Under the Official Information Act 1982 and in accordance with public-office fiduciary obligations, this is a lawful demand for disclosure and forensic audit regarding matters arising from Ministry letter Ref DSC 126408 (20 Oct 2025).
- Request for Official Information
Please provide, within 20 working days as required by the Act:
- All communications, memoranda, and directives between the Ministry, Dunedin High Court registrars, and Family Court officers referring to or arising from the correspondence by Tracy Lynch (26 Sep – 2 Oct 2025).
- Audit logs showing when and by whom the protection order and related evidence were entered, removed, or suppressed from the Court file.
- Name, position, and authority instrument of every official who viewed or altered the Dunedin High Court file after 26 September 2025.
- Internal policy documents or directives relied upon by Jacquelyn Shannon when stating that the Ministry cannot intervene or correct a Court file.
- Any communications between the Ministry and Crown Law, Police, or the Minister’s office concerning this matter.
- Forensic Audit and Beneficial Owner Identification
This demand also constitutes a forensic audit request under the Ministry’s public-trust and financial-custodian duties.
- A complete beneficial-owner ledger of any public or private trust accounts, registries, or security holdings connected with the Dunedin High Court file, including the names of the beneficial owners and any trustee entities.
- Identification of any third-party data handlers, contractors, or legal firms with access to those files and accounts.
- The legal basis for treating Court records as outside the Ministry’s administrative jurisdiction, given the Ministry’s direct handling of DX routing and file storage.
Failure to provide these records or to justify withholding will be treated as refusal without lawful cause and recorded as administrative default and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Purpose and Context
This request forms part of the ongoing investigation under ILAW–MOJ–DUNEDIN–2025–001 and will be included in the Private Trust’s international insurance filings for record transparency. The intent is not to interfere with judicial function but to verify who has exercised administrative control over evidence and beneficial records within the Court system.
Tracy Lynch
Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private trust
On Oct 20, 2025 at 4:52 PM, <official correspondence> wrote:
Tçnâ koe Tracy,
Please find attached the Ministry’s response to your correspondence.
Ngâ mihi,
| Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Te Tâhû o te Ture |
From: correspondence, official
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Failure introducing duties (Ref: 126408)
Tçnâ koe Tracy,
The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) acknowledges your correspondence of 26 September 2025, which was transferred from the Office of Hon Paul Goldsmith.
The Ministry previously acknowledged your correspondence on 1 October 2025 (attached).
You can expect a response as soon as practicable.
Ngâ mihi nui,
Ministerial Services
| Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture |
From: Paul Goldsmith (MIN)
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:16 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: correspondence, official
Subject: FW: Failure introducing duties
Kia ora Tracy
On behalf of Hon Paul Goldsmith, Minister of Justice, thank you for your email.
The issues you have raised in your correspondence are believed to be more closely connected with the functions of the Ministry of Justice. Your email has been transferred to the Ministry of Justice to consider.
Thank you for writing.
| Office of Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage | Minister of Justice Minister for Media and Communications | Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations |
|
| Ministerial Email: [email protected] | Web: www.beehive.govt.nz
Freepost Parliament: Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand |
Authorised by Hon Paul Goldsmith, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
From: F Q <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 26 September 2025 4:59 pm
To: Crown Law Office (Criminal) <[email protected]>; Dunedin Family <[email protected]>; Hon Paul Goldsmith <[email protected]>
Cc: Karen B <[email protected]>; Da <[email protected]>; Integrityandconduct <[email protected]>
Subject: Failure introducing duties
Subject: Urgent – Dunedin Court / Police / Registrar Misconduct – Immediate Action Required
To: Ministry of Justice – Chief Executive
Cc: Deputy Registrar Dunedin High Court; NZ Police (Commissioner’s Office); Marsh Insurance / Lloyd’s
Dear Sir / Madam,
Please find attached a formal notice (ILAW–MOJ–DUNEDIN–2025–001) confirming a call made this afternoon (Friday, 26 September 2025, 4:40 pm NZDT).
This concerns serious, immediate risks to two boys in the Dunedin High Court matter. The Court has been served with evidence – including a protection order, IRD fraud, embezzlement, and attempted harm – yet registrars appear to have blocked disclosure and instructed Police not to investigate. Judges have not seen the facts.
This Trust operates strictly under Private Trust Non-Disclosure Agreement (PTNDA) jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with “citizens” or “sovereign” labels. Any dismissal on such grounds is false and breaches fiduciary duty.
We request urgent confirmation today that the Court file is corrected and the presiding judge made aware. Registrars will be held accountable if suppression continues.
Yours faithfully,
Tracy Lynch
Attorney – InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
image001.jpg
image002.jpg