iSAYSO
OIA Urgent Parliamentary Confirmation Required Abatement Notices Served on Parliament – Tabling Required Under Standing Orders
ORMAL JURISDICTIONAL & PROCEDURAL NOTICE
From:
InLandsAirWater Counsel – Attorney’s Office
PO Box 265, Queenstown
To all agents of the crown
Date:16 January 2026
Re: Notice of Jurisdictional Objection, Administrative Standing, and Duty to Identify Authority
1. Purpose of this Notice
This correspondence is issued to formally place your office on notice of a continuing jurisdictional objection and to require clarification of the lawful authority relied upon for ongoing administrative and enforcement 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 and accountability.
2. Status of the Persons Affected
The persons affected by the actions of your agency are Tangatawhenua (one word), being people born to and of this land.
That status has been formally recorded by relevant Crown bodies, including acknowledgement that certain Treaty‑based jurisdictions do not apply. In these circumstances, no presumption of jurisdiction or delegated authority may be relied upon without explicit identification of lawful source and scope.
This notice is not an application or request for recognition. It is a statement of standing and a demand for procedural clarity.
3. Absence of Identified Authority
Despite repeated correspondence, your agency has continued to administer, enforce, extract resources, and/or make determinations affecting rights and property without identifying:
(a) the decision‑maker,
(b) the statutory or lawful authority relied upon,
(c) the scope of that authority as it applies to Tangatawhenua, and
(d) the mechanism by which jurisdiction or consent is asserted.
In public law, authority is not presumed where jurisdiction is disputed. 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 authority relied upon, and provision of a mechanism for review or challenge.
Internal recording or filing does not discharge this duty where enforcement or extraction continues.
5. Effect of This Notice
Your agency is required to:
1. Identify the lawful authority relied upon for any continuing action;
2. Identify the responsible decision‑maker;
3. Confirm whether Tangatawhenua status has been considered, and if so, how jurisdiction is asserted notwithstanding that status;
4. Confirm whether enforcement or extraction will be paused pending resolution.
6. Reservation of Rights
All rights are expressly reserved. Nothing in this notice constitutes consent, acquiescence, or submission to jurisdiction.
7. Response Requested
A written response is requested within 14 working days. If your office lacks authority to respond, please identify the office that does.
Issued by:
Tracy Lynch
Attorney / Authorised Representative
InLandsAirWater Counsel
Begin forwarded message:
From: F Q <[email protected]>
Date: Dec 10, 2025 at 11:24 AM
To: Suze Redmayne <[email protected]>
Cc: 105 <[email protected]>, Claims 2 <[email protected]>, Records <[email protected]>, Karen B <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent Parliamentary Confirmation Required Abatement Notices Served on Parliament – Tabling Required Under Standing OrdersUrgent Parliamentary Confirmation Required
Subject: Friendly follow-up – Confirmation needed today on abatement notices served on Parliament
Suze and Connor,
I hope you are both well.
This is a friendly reminder regarding the two abatement notices that were served in person on Parliament on 27 November 2025, relating to:
1. Simon Stott – which now has a court matter scheduled tomorrow in Invercargill, and
2. David and Brigitta – who have unfortunately experienced further police attendance and harassment, despite the abatement being active and unresolved.
At this stage, we have not received any confirmation from Parliament that these abatement notices have been formally tabled or recorded, nor have we been provided with any reference numbers or correspondence confirming who is dealing with them.
Because of the hearing tomorrow, and because police have already breached the abatement again with David and Brigitte, we urgently need to know:
1. Has Parliament tabled both abatement notices?
2. What is the reference number or record associated with each?
3. Which Minister or office is responsible for responding?
Even a brief note confirming the status would be greatly appreciated.
If we do not receive confirmation today, we will have no option but to proceed on the basis that Parliament has not fulfilled its responsibility, and we will then file a claim directly with the Court regarding administrative failure and breach, including naming the responsible offices.
We are genuinely trying to resolve this cooperatively, so a quick clarification from you today would be extremely helpful.
By:Tracy Lynch
Attorney under Instruction of Trustees
InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
PO Box 265, Queenstown
On Dec 8, 2025 at 3:43 PM, <F Q> wrote:Dear Suze,As discussed with Connor, I am formally requesting that you table the two Abatement Notices that were personally served on Parliament on 27 November 2025. These documents were handed directly to the Office of the Clerk, are already in Parliament’s possession, and now require tabling under your powers as a Member of Parliament. This is a matter requiring immediate Parliamentary oversight due to the documented harm and systemic issues affecting the beneficiaries involved.
I am therefore forwarding the complete submission package so you may place these abatements before the House in accordance with Standing Orders.
For clarity and completeness:
• We travelled to Wellington in person to serve the abatements.
• I was accompanied by a witness.
• Parliamentary Security formally logged our entry at 3:18pm and 3:19pm, under the designation MEETING | HUI.
• These logs verify proper service.
• The attached Proof of Service page includes the Parliamentary Security stickers documenting this.
When serving the documents, one staff member identified himself only as “Tim”, and another woman — later understood to be Mary — refused to provide her name. I advised them that they were acting in an administrative capacity, that they may be personally accountable for their decisions where indemnity is uncertain (as confirmed through Treasury correspondence), and that the documents were being served for the purpose of tabling in Parliament. They disengaged, and Mary stated the documents would “go to the guards”, creating concern that they might be discarded.
Despite this behaviour, the documents were physically accepted at the Office of the Clerk, and service was completed.
The accompanying package outlines:
• The serious procedural and administrative issues affecting the Rangitīkei and MPI matters
• Four years of unanswered OIA requests to RDC
• Reconstructed evidence and duty-of-candour breaches
• Evidence Act inconsistencies
• The removal of an 89-year-old beneficiary from her home in June 2025, without documentation or a court order
• Two beneficiaries now displaced from their home due to police and administrative actions
• The increasing life-safety risk and documented pattern of systemic elder abuse
Given the seriousness of these matters and the Trust’s PTNDA jurisdiction, a public court process is neither safe nor appropriate at this stage. Parliamentary oversight via tabling is the correct and necessary pathway.
Please confirm once both Abatement Notices have been tabled.
Thank you for your assistance.
By:Tracy Lynch
Attorney under Instruction of Trustees
InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
PO Box 265, Queenstown