This is a typical correspondence with MPI. Often the information provided is questionable

  Nick,

 

 
I do not accept MPI’s attempt to treat this matter as frivolous, vexatious, or an unreasonable use of the Official Information Act process.

 

 
This is not an ordinary information request.

 

 
This is a serious pre-court matter concerning the conduct, decisions, authority, and accountability of MPI officers, inspectors, agents, contractors, and associated persons in relation to horses connected with Kathy Andrus and subsequent holders or caregivers.

 

 
MPI has been put on notice that this matter is proceeding toward Court. 

MPI must therefore treat this correspondence as a pre-litigation notice and a request for preservation of relevant records.

 

 
The issue is not simply whether I am authorised to receive private information about other individuals. The issue is whether MPI and its agents lawfully acted in relation to the horses, whether MPI correctly identified the owner, holder, person in charge, care, custody, possession, and control of the horses, and whether MPI relied on accurate, complete, and lawful information when taking or continuing enforcement steps.
 

 
If MPI says its officers and agents acted lawfully, then MPI should be able to identify the records, decisions, statutory authority, and evidence relied upon.

 

 
MPI cannot avoid accountability for the conduct of its own officers and agents by recasting a pre-court disclosure and preservation request as a broad or frivolous OIA request.

   
This matter is serious

 It concerns allegations of unlawful conduct, improper decision-making, failure to verify ownership and holder status, reliance on incomplete or misleading material, and serious consequences for the horses and people involved.

 

 
MPI now has a clear choice:
 

 
1. review the conduct of its officers and agents properly;

 

 
2. preserve and identify the records relied upon;
 

 
3. provide a lawful and accountable response; or
 

 
4. have these matters placed before the Court, where MPI may be required to account for its decisions, records, authority, and conduct.
 

 
For the avoidance of doubt, I require MPI to preserve all records connected with this matter, including but not limited to:
 

 
– emails;
 
– file notes;
 
– inspector notebooks;
 
– photographs;
 
– videos;
 
– text messages;
 
– phone logs;
 
– internal memoranda;
 
– legal advice records;
 
– case management records;
 
– enforcement records;
 
– Court-related records;
 
– records involving contractors, agents, or third parties;
 
– records concerning ownership, holder status, care, custody, control, possession, transfer, seizure, removal, relocation, sale, disposal, or death of any horse;
 
– records concerning flooding, emergency circumstances, land arrangements, lease arrangements, community assistance, and subsequent horse condition.

 

 
MPI must not delete, alter, overwrite, destroy, or allow the destruction of any relevant records.
 

 
Please confirm by return email:
 

 
1. that MPI accepts this is a pre-court preservation and accountability matter;
 

 
2. that all relevant records have been preserved;
 

 
3. that all MPI officers, inspectors, agents, contractors, and associated persons have been instructed to preserve relevant records;
 

 
4. that MPI will identify the decision-makers and statutory authority relied upon;
 

 
5. that MPI will provide a schedule of relevant records; and
 

 

6. whether MPI maintains that its officers and agents acted lawfully in relation to each horse.

 
If MPI refuses to engage voluntarily, that refusal will be relied upon in Court and before any relevant oversight body.

   
Nothing in this email limits any Court application, subpoena, discovery request, complaint, claim, or other legal step available in relation to MPI’s conduct.
 

 
Tracy Lynch