More Explidit Statement of Claim

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT                                                             CIV-2009-092-1072
MANUKAU

 

 

BETWEEN                                        

                                                            PLAINTIFF

 

AND                                                   MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVLEOPMENT

                                                            DEFENDANT

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO THE DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
SEEKING A MORE EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO
TRANSFER OF PROCEEDING FROM DISTRICT COURT MANUKAU TO WELLINGTON

30 APRIL 2009


TAKE NOTICE that on the                        day of                            2009 the plaintiff has filed and served the defendant the following:

  1. That the plaintiff filed and served a more explicit statement of claim to the defendant on 30 April 2009.
  2. That the plaintiff filed and served a Notice of opposition to deny the case CIV-2009-092-1072 transfer from District Court Manukau to Wellington.
  3. Denied to pay any costs on the transfer of the case CIV-2009-092-1072

Answer to the defendant more explicit Statement of Claim

UPON THE GROUND:
As to the application that the plaintiff file and serve a more explicit statement of claim
THE Plaintiff said:

  1. On 13 April 2009 the plaintiff served the defendant a more explicit statement of claim as they required. This is the second time the plaintiff served the defendant the statement of claim by email, fax and letter. Have the receipt and email confirmed from them. (Evidence 7 from Crown Law)
  2. On 17 April 2009 the defendant required again for a more explicit statement of claim. This is the third time.

Due to the lawyer from the crown law for the defendant can not read the basic evidences sent to the defendant by the plaintiff as the parts of my application for the case CIV-2009-092-1072. Now the plaintiff served them for the third time and hopes no more requiring for more explicit statement of claim any more.

  • Under Defamation Act 1992,  s 2, Defamation includes libel and slander
  • Under Defamation Act 1992, s 37 unless that meaning is evident from the matter itself.

I remember I am the Plaintiff. A plaintiff has the responsible to provide the defendant the related evidences. The plaintiff has no liability to teach the defendant word by word how to read the evidences, i.e. dismissed or not dismissed. One is full protected under the Employment Law, Employment Agreement. If your implied license has cancelled without authorized to any of the workplace, you could be a trespass, theft or robber anything. It is not only just untrue but also malicious. So I am still lucky the police only treated me as a trespass. It could be more serious as you know that day after the plaintiff was arrested violently by the Police. They searched my personal belongings if they could find some stuffs in my bag now I maybe still in the Prison because I am a theft or something else. I think it is enough to remind you the serious of defamation, false allegation and malicious prosecution. That is why there are huge amount of penalty for the court case of false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation. You required me for so many times for more explicit statement of claim. If I didn’t make mistake probably you mean the penalty or compensation I require in my case CIV-2009-092-1072 $120, 000, 00 is not enough because what the false allegation the defendant made is more serious to me than this amount. I could tell you why. Because the false allegation spread very quickly and widely, as soon as it came out from the defendant, it came to the Wellington Free Ambulance, NZ Police, District Court Wellington, Ministry of Justice, Ombudsmen, Department of Labour, Privacy Commission, from Wellington to Auckland, from NZ to China. It had abused all the top NZ legal processing, NZ police, District Court, judge and lawyer. It already abused all of the NZ judicial system. It also seriously abused the employee and immigrant and here it is the plaintiff.  That is the malicious prosecution. It resulted seriously to me the plaintiff violently arrested by the NZ Police, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched my belongings, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment, unlawfully charged with trespass and resisting Police and violently to the NZ Police which I got in the violently arrested by the Police on 5 of November 2008.  Could you say it is not seriously enough? As the defamatory how long it could be last? I am sorry I couldn’t predict. But I know from the 5 of November 2008 until now, probably 10 years or 20 years or damage all my life. Because who would like to employ a person dismissed, hysterically, psychiatric suicidal, violently to the NZ Police? That’s why I need the defendant to withdraw the dismissal, to write an evidence letter I shouldn’t be arrested and charged with trespass and resisting Police. I have no offence before as a reference in case I need to declare. That is why I require the defendant to pay me the compensation $120, 000, 00 dollars. Compare to probably I can't find jobs in NZ and the injury damaged to me the compensation of $ 120, 000, 00 dollars could be not enough. I will think about it as what amount I should require from the defendant to match the damage they hurt to me. I will inform to you as soon as I am ready.
And also I would like to remind the defendant not only the defendant made defamatory to the plaintiff but also they did it as what they said. That is the seriously issue of the defendant and due evidences for the plaintiff. I have the evidences from the NZ Police and said it is the Ministry of Social Development gave the NZ Police the Authorized to remove me the plaintiff from the building of the Ministry of Social Development (Evidence 3 from NZ Police). They retrieved the computer and building access card from me. They forbid me as an employee to go back to the office to correct my person belongings or talk and ring any colleagues. That is the bail the defendant required the NZ Police and District Court Wellington (Evidence 4 from Police and Court bail.) It could be the due evidence that how the defendant treated me dismissal before my implied license cancelled on the 23 of December 2009. They have plenty of time to remedy what the defamatory they made the injury to me but they didn’t. Because after I arrested violently by the Police, the Police informed the defendant (evidence 5 from statement of defence) I was charged for trespass and resisting Police. They could immediately declare to the Police the plaintiff is not a trespass on the Ministry of Social Development as they are the managers they should be very clear. It could immediately stop the Police to prosecute the plaintiff me to the court. She is a lawful employee of the Ministry. That resulted the plaintiff went to the court for many times and to pay the lawyer Peter Gilbert acting fee to withdraw the charges from the court. The serious result is if the plaintiff doesn’t have the money to pay for the lawyer she has to get the charges with her all her life.  
If it is not explicit enough to be another part of my statement of claim, I would serve you and show you how the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation by the defendant are still hurting me.
   
Notice of Opposition to transfer the proceeding from District Court Manukau to Wellington

  1.  As to the case CIV-2009-092-1072 transfer to the District Court Wellington. The plaintiff denied. It should remain in Auckland under the District Court Rules 1992 s 112,113. The other reason as why it should be in Auckland because the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation the defendant made damaged the plaintiff’s health. After the injury on the 5 of November 2008, the plaintiff can not sleep, eat well every day and rely on medicine (Evidence 6 from the doctor.) and every day in bad situation of depressed, been worried to be arrested again if some one made a false allegation again, because the person made the false allegation is protected under the NZ Privacy Act, because until now I was told the person made the false allegation could not disclosed to me as the victim. The third reason is the plaintiff can not afford to pay the ticket and daily cost. Because the defendant the Ministry of Social Development refused to pay the plaintiff benefit. The plaintiff doesn’t have any income from last year after dismissal until now. The plaintiff every day even suffer from hungry and worry about where to loan the money so she could have her case to the court and to the judge to get it resolved because until now though she complained but no department could sort out for her. But as to the welfare for the NZ the defendant the Ministry of Social Development is every rich. They knew this kind of false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation could result very seriously and huge penalty. So they offered me the plaintiff compensation $20,000 dollars after the injury. They could pay for the lawyer from the Crown Law Office from the taxpayers’ money and it is really a small case for the defendant to pay the ticket from Wellington to Auckland. The other reason because as for the welfare of the NZ the defendant Ministry of Social Development I am unemployed, the client of them suffer hungry and can’t afford to pay the ticket. I think they should and they can support their client not to transfer the case CIV-2009-092-1072 to Wellington but remain in Auckland under the NZ Human Rights and NZ Bills of Rights. As every one knew the first priority is NZ Human Rights and NZ Bills of Rights then the District Court Rules.

TAKE notice that I the Plaintiff reserve the right to wait the response from the defendant for 7 days from the date of the letter otherwise the plaintiff will require the judgment from the court by default.

I think this could answer all your questions.

30 April 2009
TO: The Registrar of the District Court Manukau Auckland
AND TO: The Defendant

 

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.