MSD – FORMAL NOTICE – FINAL DEMAND FOR PROOF OF CLAIM, PARTICULARS OF DECISION, AND PRODUCTION OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY

This guys is where we are with the MSD with my Pension. 

( for those that dont know what this is about, I presented 4 lawful pages giving proof that I  was now entitled to receive the pension. I will not sign a document that I clearly do not understand, from my observations, this M12 will enable them to administer my entitlement, that is deduct from it reduce it for what ever reason they see fit )

They keep coming back with the same answer, even the Ministers office. 
If they don’t answer this time we will file for court. 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHTS 

FORMAL NOTICE – FINAL DEMAND FOR PROOF OF CLAIM, PARTICULARS OF DECISION, AND 
PRODUCTION OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY 

This correspondence constitutes a final opportunity for the Ministry of Social 
Development (“MSD”) to identify and produce the legal authority, evidential 
basis, and decision-making process relied upon before this matter proceeds to 
further complaint and, if necessary, legal proceedings. 

For many months, (8) MSD has been repeatedly asked a simple legal question. 

That question has not been answered. 

Instead, MSD has responded with administrative correspondence, policy 
statements, procedural explanations, and requests that do not address the issue 
in dispute. 

The issue is not complicated. 

Michael Clark has not refused to establish his identity. 

Michael Clark has not refused to provide verified bank account details. 

Michael Clark has not refused to comply with any lawful statutory requirement. 

The sole issue is whether MSD possesses lawful authority to require execution of 
its preferred administrative form as a mandatory condition precedent to payment 
of New Zealand Superannuation. 

If MSD maintains that such authority exists, MSD must now identify it precisely. 

General references to policy, operational practice, administrative convenience, 
internal guidance, or standard procedure are not an answer. 

Accordingly, MSD is required to produce the following: 

 1. The exact statutory provision, regulation, delegated authority, or other 
    lawful source of power relied upon to require execution of the disputed form. 
 2. The legal status of that form. 
 3. The legal effect said to arise from signing that form. 
 4. The legal consequence said to arise if the form is not signed. 
 5. The lawful authority permitting MSD to withhold, delay, redirect, suspend, 
    or otherwise interfere with payment of Michael Clark’s entitlement where his 
    identity and verified banking information have been supplied or offered. 
 6. The complete evidential basis relied upon in making that decision. 
 7. The identity, office, and delegated authority of every decision-maker involved. 
 8. Copies of every document, instruction, internal policy, memorandum, legal 
    opinion, delegation, or record relied upon. 
 9. The statutory review rights applicable to that decision. 

If MSD asserts that no statutory provision exists and that its position is based 
only upon internal administrative policy, MSD is required to identify the 
legislation authorising that policy to operate as a mandatory condition of payment. 

If MSD cannot identify that lawful authority, MSD is required to explain why 
payment has not been made. 

This request extends beyond the pension issue. 

MSD has also made adverse statements concerning Tracy Lynch while acknowledging 
that CCTV is unavailable, incident reports have not been located, documentation 
has not been produced, and the relevant security personnel are no longer available. 

Accordingly, MSD is also required to identify the evidential basis upon which 
those adverse statements were made, including the author, the date of creation, 
the records relied upon, and every file upon which those statements have been 
recorded or disseminated. 

No inference adverse to Michael Clark or Tracy Lynch can properly be maintained 
without identifying the evidence upon which MSD relies. 

This letter requires proof, not assertion. 

It requires evidence, not assumption. 

It requires lawful authority, not administrative preference. 

Please do not respond with general policy statements or standard explanatory 
material. 

Please identify the precise legal authority relied upon, produce the evidence 
supporting the decision, and provide a final reviewable decision with full reasons. 

If MSD is unable to do so, it should expressly state that no such authority or 
evidence exists and immediately remove any administrative barrier preventing 
payment of Michael Clark’s lawful entitlement. 

Any continued failure to answer these questions directly, or failure to produce 
the authority relied upon, may be relied upon in subsequent proceedings as 
evidence that MSD has been unable to identify a lawful basis for the decision 
under review. 

MSD is expected to provide a complete and substantive response to every matter 
raised in this notice. Silence, partial responses, or reliance upon generic 
policy material will not be accepted as answering the issues identified above. 

Tracy 

 

On 29 Jun 2026, at 10:10, OIA_Requests (MSD) <[email protected]> wrote: 

IN-CONFIDENCE 

Tēnā koe Tracy Lynch 

Thank you for your request which was transferred by Treasury on 25 June. Please note that the Ministry did not receive your email dated 17 June 2026 as [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> is 
not a valid email address. Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate officials at National Office to respond. 

The information you have requested may contain the names and contact details of our staff. Please let us know by 30 June 2026 whether you require these names and contact details. We will need to consult our staff before deciding whether we can release this information, and this will take a bit more time. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you do not require staff names and contact details. 

Ngā manaakitanga, 

*Official Information Team **|**Ministerial and Executive Services * > >

*Ministry of Social Development* 

 

*Our Purpose: 
*We help New Zealanders to help themselves to be safe, strong and independent 

Ko ta mātou he whakamana tangata kia tū haumaru, kia tū kaha, kia tū motuhake 

*From: * F Q <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
*Sent: * Wednesday, 17 June 2026 7:37 am 
*To: * Ministerial Services <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Ministerial Services Inbox [TSY] <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 
*Cc: * Records <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
*Subject: * WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHTS / FORMAL NOTICE / REQUEST FOR URGENT DECISION AND REASONS 

*WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHTS / FORMAL NOTICE / REQUEST FOR URGENT DECISION AND REASONS * 

*To: * 

*Chief Executive, Ministry of Social Development * 

*General Manager, Ministerial and Executive Services * 

*Minister for Social Development and Employment * 

*Minister for Seniors * 

*Copy to: * 

*The Treasury * 

*Office of the Ombudsman * 

*Controller and Auditor-General * 

*From: Tracy Lynch * 

*Re: Michael Clark disputed legal form, non-payment/direct-payment of pension, Queenstown Community Link incident, recordkeeping failures, and demand for lawful authority * 

*Date: 17 June 2026 * 

*I write further to MSD’s letter dated 16 June 2026 and to earlier correspondence concerning Michael Clark, his pension/payment position, the disputed MSD form, and the incident at Queenstown Community Link on 31 October 2025. * 

*This is a formal notice requiring MSD to give a straight legal answer, not a policy response. * 

*Michael Clark wants his pension paid to him directly, immediately. He does not refuse to provide identity information. He does not refuse to provide bank account details. He does not refuse to comply with any lawful requirement. * 

*What is disputed is MSD’s use of a legal/administrative form as a condition of payment, where MSD has not identified the statutory authority requiring Michael Clark to sign that form or accept its wording. * 

*MSD is requested to answer the following directly: * 

*1. What exact section of the Social Security Act 2018, regulation, welfare programme, delegation, policy, or other lawful authority requires Michael Clark to sign MSD’s preferred form as a precondition to receiving his New Zealand Superannuation/pension payment? * 

*2. If MSD says the form is mandatory, what is the legal status of that form? * 

*3. What legal consequences does MSD say arise from signing the form? * 

*4. Does MSD accept that the form is disputed by Michael Clark? * 

*5. Does MSD accept that a person may provide verified bank account details without being compelled to sign disputed wording that appears to shift responsibility, risk, consent, or liability onto the signer? * 

*6. If Michael Clark has provided the required information legislatively, why has MSD not paid him directly? * 

*7. Who is currently receiving, controlling, redirecting, withholding, delaying, or benefiting from the payment if it is not being paid directly to Michael Clark? * 

*8. What lawful authority allows MSD to withhold, delay, redirect, or refuse direct payment in those circumstances? * 

*MSD’s public guidance states that a person changing bank account details must tell Work and Income and that it takes five working days for account details to be changed. The bank account form guidance also refers to proof of bank account details, such as a bank statement or deposit slip. Michael Clark’s objection is not to proof of account or identity. His objection is to being forced to sign a disputed legal form that MSD has not proved it can lawfully require. * 

*This is not a minor administrative dispute. It concerns payment of pension money to an entitled person, the use of Crown power, the use of public money, and the apparent conversion of an administrative document into a compulsory legal condition. * 

*MSD is also on notice that there is evidence concerning the Queenstown Community Link incident on 31 October 2025, including video/audio evidence and affidavits. MSD’s 16 June 2026 letter says MSD no longer holds CCTV, has been unable to locate reports or documentation, and cannot discuss the matter with the security guard because the guard is no longer based there. Despite that, MSD repeated an adverse allegation that I behaved aggressively. * 

*That is not acceptable. * 

*If MSD has no CCTV, no incident report, no located documentation, and no available security guard evidence, MSD must explain the evidential basis for repeating that allegation. MSD must also identify who made the allegation, when it was recorded, where it was recorded, who relied on it, and whether it has been placed on any MSD, contractor, security, Police, interagency, risk, client, or internal file. * 

*MSD is further on notice that the incident involved alleged assault, abuse, and public slander by or in the presence of Crown agents or Crown-contracted personnel. MSD cannot simply say CCTV is no longer held and then ignore evidence held by the affected people. * 

*MSD is required to preserve and disclose all remaining records concerning: * 

*1. the 31 October 2025 Queenstown Community Link visit; * 

*2. any incident note, staff note, site note, security note, contractor note, client note, risk note, or internal file note; * 

*3. communications between MSD staff, security contractors, Police, Ministerial Services, Work and Income, or any other agency; * 

*4. any records referring to alleged aggression, sovereign citizen material, risk, trespass, refusal of service, refusal to process documents, or refusal to accept authority; * 

*5. any record of forms allegedly lost, later found, returned, rejected, classified, or treated as legally ineffective; * 

*6. any decision to classify documents as “sovereign citizen” documents; * 

*7. the exact document or documents relied on for that classification; * 

*8. the decision-maker who made or approved that classification; * 

*9. the legal consequence MSD says followed from that classification.*** 

*MSD’s generic explanation of “sovereign citizen documents” is not an answer. MSD must identify the actual document, actual wording, actual decision-maker, actual legal basis, and actual consequence relied on in this case. If MSD cannot do that, MSD must correct or retract any internal or external record that implies Michael Clark, Tracy Lynch, or any associated person was properly classified in that way. * 

*This matter now raises broader public accountability issues. It appears MSD is requiring people to sign legal forms that shift responsibility onto the signer while refusing to identify the statutory authority for doing so. I am aware of others who want their pension paid but do not agree to sign disputed forms they consider misleading, prejudicial, or legally unsafe. * 

*That is a systemic concern. * 

*Treasury is copied because this concerns the lawful administration of public money appropriated for New Zealand Superannuation and related payments. Treasury is not being asked to case manage an individual MSD file. Treasury is being put on notice that MSD appears to be withholding or delaying payment of pension money unless an entitled person signs a disputed legal form that MSD has not shown is required by law. * 

*The Ombudsman is copied because this matter now concerns unreasonable administrative conduct, failure to give proper reasons, failure to answer the actual legal question, possible recordkeeping failure, adverse allegations made without disclosed evidence, and harm caused by forced administrative compliance. * 

*The Controller and Auditor-General is copied because this may concern systemic use of public money, public administration, Crown-contractor conduct, and accountability for payment systems affecting pensioners. * 

*MSD is now requested to do the following urgently: * 

*1. Pay Michael Clark’s pension directly to him without further delay, using verified bank account details already supplied or re-supplied. * 

*2. Confirm in writing the lawful authority, if any, requiring Michael Clark to sign the disputed form before payment can be made. * 

*3. If no such authority exists, confirm that MSD will process payment without requiring the disputed signature. * 

*4. Confirm whether MSD has recorded Michael Clark, Tracy Lynch, or any associated person as “sovereign citizen,”“aggressive,”“risk,”“non-compliant,” or any similar adverse descriptor. * 

*5. Provide copies of all records supporting any such descriptor. * 

*6. Correct or retract any unsupported adverse record. * 

*7. Preserve all evidence and records concerning the 31 October 2025 Queenstown Community Link incident. * 

*8. Provide the evidential basis for MSD’s statement that I behaved aggressively, given MSD’s admission that CCTV, reports, documentation, and security guard evidence are unavailable or not located. * 

*9. Confirm whether MSD accepts that evidence exists outside MSD’s own records, including video/audio evidence and affidavits. * 

*10. Provide a final reviewable decision with reasons. * 

*This letter is also a final opportunity for MSD to answer the actual question before further complaint, pre-action court correspondence, and/or urgent court application. * 

*For clarity, the question is: * 

*Where is the lawful authority requiring Michael Clark to sign MSD’s disputed legal form as a precondition to receiving his pension, where he is willing to provide identity and verified bank account information and has demanded payment directly to him? * 

*If MSD cannot answer that question, MSD must stop relying on the form as a barrier and pay Michael Clark directly. * 

*Please respond urgently and no later than [insert deadline, e.g. 5 working days from receipt], given that this concerns pension payment, personal welfare, public money, and ongoing harm. * 

*Yours faithfully, * 

*Tracy Lynch * 

This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry. 

This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry.