iSAYSO
This is how we work, this is why we dont back down.
For those that don’t know , Brigitta was being harassed by the police in Marton to the point she felt unsafe. A officer went about stopping her for no apparent reason, she slowly continued driving until she was outside he house in safe view of others, these cops have verbally said to them we will destroy you, they have hung a hammer on her living room wall, if thats not intimidation what is. Because she drove on and didn’t stop immediately he impounded her car for 6 months. We are looking for the authority that they have to do that. We are working on a similar case where my car has been green stickered. I want to taken them to the high court.
Subject: Re: OIA 2026-0002 Response Brigitta Maas
Thanks — I’ve reviewed the document you uploaded. Here’s a clear, practical breakdown of what this response does, what it does not do, and what your next steps are.
What this document confirms (and locks in)
- The OIA request is valid and properly framed
Te Kawa Mataaho (Public Service Commission) explicitly acknowledges receipt of the OIA dated 16 December 2025, received 8 January 2026, and lists the five precise information items you requested relating to the 2 October 2025 impoundment of the Mitsubishi Lancer (BHB112) .
This is important:
No refusal
No narrowing
No claim of ambiguity
No request for identity verification
That means the scope is now fixed.
- Formal Section 14 transfer to NZ Police is complete
The Commission confirms it does not hold the information and has formally transferred the request to New Zealand Police under section 14 of the Official Information Act 1982 .
This triggers:
A new 20 working-day statutory clock for Police
Police now carry full responsibility for compliance
They cannot reset, reframe, or ask you to re-submit.
- Police Integrity Unit complaint is now on record with Police
Your separate letter titled “Request for Immediate Restoration of Property”, addressed to the Police Integrity Unit, has been forwarded in full to NZ Police .
This matters because:
Police cannot later claim they were unaware
The restoration issue is now formally linked to the OIA trail
It ties operational conduct to evidential disclosure obligations
What this response does
not
do
❌ It does not answer any of the five OIA questions
❌ It does not justify the impoundment
❌ It does not provide statutory authority, approvals, reports, or proof of service
❌ It does not stop the clock — it starts Police’s clock
This is purely an administrative transfer — nothing more.
What must happen next (procedurally)
- Police deadline
Police must respond within 20 working days of receiving the transfer (count from 20 January 2026, unless Police notify a lawful extension).
Failure to do so = deemed refusal.
- What Police must now produce (or admit they don’t have)
They are locked into answering exactly these five items:
Statutory authority relied upon for the impoundment
Time and date of supervisory approval
Time and date offence and fleeing-driver reports were first completed
Communications with Wanganui Towing 2019 about this vehicle
Proof of service (including DX tracking) for charging / disclosure documents prior to Nov 2025
Any “we don’t hold this” answer is itself evidential.
Strategic significance (why this is strong)
If statutory authority is missing → unlawful seizure
If supervisory approval timing post-dates impoundment → procedural breach
If reports were completed after the fact → reconstruction risk
If towing communications pre-empted authority → agency overreach
If no proof of service exists → disclosure and fair-trial breach
This OIA is now a forensic map, not a fishing exercise.
Recommended next step (I can draft this immediately)
If you want, the next clean move is either:
A short “acknowledgement of transfer” letter to Police, confirming the statutory deadline and scope (keeps pressure tight), or
A pre-written Ombudsman escalation notice, ready to file the moment Police miss the deadline or provide evasive answers, or
An affidavit paragraph preserving this transfer as evidence of notice, knowledge, and duty (useful if this goes before a court).
Just tell me which one you want — or if you want all three prepared together.
On Jan 20, 2026 at 5:20 PM, <Brigitta Maas> wrote:
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Enquiries <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026, 3:37 pm
Subject: OIA 2026-0002 Response Brigitta Maas
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Enquiries <[email protected]>
Kia ora Brigitta
Please find attached our response transferring your below OIA request New Zealand Police.
Ngā mihi nui
Enquiries Team
īmēra: [email protected]
Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission
www.publicservice.govt.nz | www.govt.nz
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Confidentiality notice: This email may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please tell the sender immediately by reply, remove this email and the reply from your system, and don’t act on it in any other way. Ngā mihi.