Plaintiff's Notice of Opposition and Rejection 1

 

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

BETWEEN                                       
                                                            PLAINTIFF

AND                                                   MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVLEOPMENT

                                                            DEFENDANT

 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF OPPOSIATION AND REJECTION TO THE DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SEEKING REMOVAL OF MATTER FROM LIST PENDING APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DATED 4 AUGUST 2009
AND PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AS THE DEED OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE DATED 23 JULY 2009
AFTER 10AM 12 AUGUST 2009 COURT HEARING THE PLAINTIFF NOTICE TO CANCEL THE DEED OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND HER REQUIREMENT FOR THE CASE CIV-2009-092-1072 STILL REMAIN AS HER STATEMENT OF CLAIM

10 August 2009


TAKE NOTICE: that on the                        day of                      2009, at                  
the above named plaintiff file and serve the defendant this Notice of Opposition and Rejection to the defendant memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009 and the plaintiff‘s interlocutory application to the Court for ORDER to the defendant the Ministry of Social Development to pay the plaintiff the amount of compensation as their Deed of Settlement and Release dated 23 July 2009.

I the plaintiff
(1) Opposed and rejected the defendant’s memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009
(2) File and serve this Interlocutory application to the court for order to the defendant to pay the compensation as the Deed of settlement and Release signed on 23 July 2009 
(3) After the court hearing, at 10 am 12 August 2009 the plaintiff notice to cancel the Deed of Settlement and Release because of the defendant breach the Deed and the plaintiff’s requirement for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 still REMAIN as the Statement of Claim.

________________________________________________________________________  

  • Refer to memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out

The plaintiff opposed and rejected the defendant’s memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009. The reason as why the plaintiff oppose and reject the defendant’s memorandum dated 4 August 2009 detailed in the plaintiff’s Notice of opposition and rejection served the defendant on the dated of 19 July 2009. (See the detail from page 4 in this document.) 

 

  • Refer to defendant memorandum dated 4 August 2009 paragraph:
  1. On 23 July 2009 counsel informed the Court, on the basis of a signed deed of settlement, that this matter had settled and that a notice of discontinuance was to be filed by 12 August 2008.

As to the above statement I the plaintiff apply to the Court for serious punishment to the defendant because they cheat the judge in this Court now that they said the matter had settled and that a notice of discontinuance was to be files 12 August 2008.

Actually I the plaintiff confirm to the judge I never signed any thing with the defendant on 12 August 2008.
And also the case CIV-2009-092-1072 had never been settled because until now the defendant hadn’t paid the compensation to the plaintiff according to their Deed of Settlement and Release. Because the defendant agree after the plaintiff get all the amount of compensation paid then the plaintiff sign the Notice of Discontinuance. The defendant again is in the breach of their Deed of Settlement and Release. Based on the defendant breach the Deed of Settlement and Release I the plaintiff require the judge and reserve the right for immediate judgment by the Court according to the requirement as her Statement of Claim.

  1. His Honour Judge Andree Wiltens directed that the matter be in the list for 12 August 2009 to confirm the discontinuance.

As to the above statement, I the plaintiff confirm to the Judge the matter CIV-2009-092-1072 hasn’t been settled because during the processing of Deed the defendant is in the breach of Deed:
(a) The defendant adds extra terms and condition to the Deed and said it is the defendant to file the Notice of Discontinuance to the Court. Actually it should be my right the plaintiff.
(b) During the processing of the Deed the defendant instructed the plaintiff to cheat the Court about the Notice of Discontinuance "There is no issue as to the cost." in the Notice of Discontinuance. Actually there is the compensation of cost claimed.
(c) The defendant didn't comply the Standard NZ tax rate and instruct me to pay the wrong tax rate 38% for the compensation.
(d) During the processing of the Deed the defendant is in the breach of the Deed and they agreed on the 23 July 2009 to pay me the compensation first and wrote the paper for me and undertake to ensure I get paid the amount as the Deed first and as soon as I get paid I sign the Notice of Discontinuance of the case CIV-2009-092-1072. That is why they agree I came to the Crown Law office on 30 July to get paid of compensation. Since that day the defendant suddenly instruct me to pay the wrong tax rate, not pay me the cheque for immediate cash, to cheat the court in Notice of Discontinuance and cancel the plaintiff right to file the Notice of Discontinuance. That is reason the processing of the Deed can’t go on. That cause the plaintiff hasn’t got paid and the matter hasn’t been settled until now. 

Based on all these the defendant is the breach party. I the plaintiff reserve the right to cancel the Deed that I have signed and cancel that all I have agreed in the Deed of Settlement and Release. I the plaintiff would not sign the Notice of Discontinuance for the case CIV-2009-092-1072. I would only wait for the defendant to fix as we agreed 1. The compensation deduction tax, 2. Pay the plaintiff by immediately cash cheque, the plaintiff would file the Notice of Discontinuance only after she get cash, 3. It is the plaintiff’s right to file the Notice of Discontinuance 4. The reference should be signed by Rol Lovell. 5. The processing of Deed should all be done before 10 am until 12 August 2009 the court hearing. After the 10am 12 August the plaintiff cancel the Deed of Settlement and Release (Notice of cancelling of the Deed is attached.) because the defendant is the breach party and at the same time the Deed of Settlement and Release is in valid. I would attend the court hearing at 10am 12 August 2009 for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 and require the judge for immediate judgment as the Statement of Claim since the defendant though signed their Deed of Settlement and Release but again in the breach of their Deed.

  1. The plaintiff has advised the defendant that she will not discontinuance her claim.

Since the defendant couldn’t be trusted and the plaintiff hasn’t got paid of the compensation she wouldn’t sign the Notice of Discontinuance. Only when the plaintiff gets paid of the full amount of compensation then the plaintiff would inform the Judge and Court about her Notice of Discontinuance. I have a paper written and signed by the defendant lawyer Antoinette Russell on dated 23 July 2009 to ensure that the defendant the Ministry of Social Development would comply with the Deed of Settlement and Release to pay the plaintiff the compensation of ($??,985+2,500 and reference) before sign the discontinuance and also I have written that ??? would not sign the Notice of Discontinuance only after I get the full amount paid of the compensation. (Paper attached and I also have the witness for what Antoinette agreed on 23 July 2009.)

  1. The defendant intends to apply to have the plaintiff’s pleadings struck out on the basis of the deed, and anticipates filing that application early next week. In the interim, the defendant respectfully requests that the matters be removed from the list for 12 August 2009.

Since the defendant couldn’t provide the Court that the plaintiff had signed her Notice of Discontinuance for the case CIV-2009-092-1072, the defendant can never represent for the plaintiff to strike out the plaintiff’s case CIV-2009-092-1072 or removed the matter from the list for 12 August 2009 for her. The plaintiff would remind the defendant it is the plaintiff’s right to discontinue her case CIV-2009-092-1072 or not, but not you defendant. Especial since the defendant is in the breach of their Deed, not pay the plaintiff any compensation until now so the plaintiff has the due reason not to discontinue her pleadings and the defendant requests that the matter be removed from the list for 12 August 2009 is invalid. The plaintiff opposed and rejected the defendant request to have the matter be removed from the list for 12 August 2009.

Upon the grounds:
Those who break the law are subjected to justice.
违法者要受到法律制裁。
All person should be treated with justice in NZ.
人人都应受到公平待遇。
______________________________________________________________________

  • As to the plaintiff interlocutory application to the Court for ORDER to the defendant the Ministry of Social Development to pay the plaintiff the amount of compensation as their Deed of Settlement and Release dated 23 July 2009, the Specified interlocutory application for Order are as follows:

Since the defendant though signed the Deed of Settlement and Release on 23 July 2009 but they are in the breach of Deed. In order for the plaintiff to get the compensation from the defendant for their false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damager and for unlawful arrested, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment and unlawfully charged because of the Defendant the Ministry of Social Development, the plaintiff file this interlocutory application to the court and judge for order to guard the Settlement processing and to order the defendant to pay the full compensation to the plaintiff as the Deed of Settlement and Release ( the amount $????? ) and the Career Transition Assistance $2,500 (including GST) and reference, details see the Deed of Settlement and Release until the plaintiff get full paid. If the defendant still doesn’t pay the plaintiff any compensation until 12 August 2009 the court hearing, I the plaintiff would not sign the Notice of Discontinuance. I the plaintiff also cancel all I agreed in the Deed of Settlement and still reserve the right to keep my requirement for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 as the Statement of Claim.   

________________________________________________________________________

  • Refer to the defendant memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009

The plaintiff opposed and rejected the defendant’s memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009. The reason as why the plaintiff oppose and reject the defendant’s memorandum dated 4 August 2009 reference see the plaintiff’s Notice of opposition and rejection served the defendant on the dated of 19 July because:

There are no Rules, Act and Bills in NZ to support the defendant to strike out plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings or remove of the matter from list pending application to strike out. I think the defendant use too much of “unlawful remove and violently remove of the employee and now this proceeding”. They seems like terrorism to the lady, employee and immigrant but not like a Government Organization otherwise how they are so rude and cruel. Since the cause of this action to this proceeding stated in the plaintiff Statement of Claim is exactly what happened to the plaintiff on the 5 of November 2008 because of the false allegation, malicious prosecution and Defamation made by the defendant. That all the evidences from NZ Police, District Court Wellington, Wellington Free Ambulance and Independent Police Complaint Authority and already verified by affidavit could support this proceedings. That the cause of action in this proceeding is neither an abuse the process of the Court nor cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding or is frivolous or vexation. The plaintiff decided to sue such a powerful Government Organization to the court after she carefully examined all the Rules, Act and Bills that there are no Rules, Act and Bills to support the defendant by making a false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation cause the serious injury to the plaintiff. There are not Rules, Act and Bills in NZ that if some one made false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation the case should be stricken out or dismissal. There are no Rules, Act and Bills in NZ that some one made the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation don’t need to take the liability for what the serious criminal offence they have done. There are no Rules, Act and Bills in NZ that the evidence to support this proceeding from NZ Police, District Court Wellington, Police Independent Complain Authority and Wellington Free Ambulance couldn’t be trusted. So total in all only it is unjustified because the defendant is powerful Government Organization Ministry of Social Development otherwise there are not reason as this proceeding should be stricken out or dismissal. I trust the NZ Court, the judge and the judicial system why they have so high reputation just because they are justify not matter the defendant is a powerful Government organization or the plaintiff is an unjustified dismissed or unemployed lady. 

Refer to paragraph 1,
The plaintiff sues the Ministry of Social Development for “false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage.”

Yes, the plaintiff wrote in her statement of claim to sue the defendant the Ministry of Social Development because the employee of the Ministry Ms Katie Musk, Mr. Hamish McIntyre make false allegation about the plaintiff on 5 of November 2008..
Unemployed, dismissed, Chinese student been dismissed, hysterical, psychiatric suicidal, violent police must secure;
I am an assistant to the Minister. I am covertly recording the Minister’s private conversation for which I am immediately dismissal. Because I refused to hand back my computer and building access card police were called.
Trespass on the Ministry of Social Development, after being warned to leave that place by Hamish McIntyre, an occupier, neglected to do so.
It is Hamish McIntyre the Ministry of Social Development authorized the NZ Police to remove me, actually violently arrested me with handcuffs on both my hands for the charge of trespass and resisting arrest.
It is the Ministry of Social Development agreed the charges of trespass and resisting arrest when police informed the Ministry 2 days later after the incident on 5 of November 2008 but actually the plaintiff is a lawful employee of the Ministry.

Refer to paragraph 2,
It is submitted the proceedings are fundamentally misconceived, purporting to pursue criminal matters through the District Court’s civil jurisdiction and seeking remedies that could not flow from the matters asserted.

From the above statement even the defendant agreed the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage made by the defendant is a criminal offence. So it is nothing wrong that the plaintiff seek remedies amount of $120,000,00 and jurisdiction for serious damage by the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation from the defendant in this Civil Court. The plaintiff is never purporting to pursue the criminal matters through the District Court’s civil jurisdiction.

Refer to paragraph 3,
The statement of claim also suffers from the following flaws: a failure to particularize the claims adequately; the claim is unintelligible; a statutory bar on proceedings where the claim is based on personal injuries as defined in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001; and a jurisdictional bar on proceedings in the District Court where the plaintiff is seeding to challenge her dismissal or any aspect of it.

In the plaintiff Statement of Claim for this proceeding she wrote very clearly the particular claim is the defendant on the 5 of November 2008 made a false allegation about the plaintiff, the plaintiff claim from this false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage which include Special Damages, General Compensatory Damages, Aggravated Ted Damages, Punitive and Exemplary Damages from the defendant the Ministry since they are the due criminal person caused the serious criminal offence to the plaintiff. The cause of action to this proceeding is particulars reasonable and intelligible. 

It is not a normal personal injury. The injury is caused by the defendant on purpose because of their false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and caused serious injury and damage to the plaintiff. Because they are the managers of the plaintiff they know I am not dismissed. Unemployed, not a Chinese student but a lawful NZ resident, I am not hysterical or psychiatric suicidal but cried by threaten of them. I am not an assistant of the Minister and I never covertly recording the Minister’s private conversation. I am never violent to anyone or intimating or aggressive to any one.

In this proceeding the plaintiff only seek remedies for serious damage but not challenge her dismiss. Because the plaintiff could challenge the unjustified dismissal in the Employment Court later after this proceeding, because unjustified dismissal is in the serious breach of Employment Act especially the defendant got the due reason to dismiss the plaintiff  by making false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation.

Refer to The plaintiff fails to sufficiently particularize any factual basis that might support her allegations of defamation and malicious prosecution. 
I the plaintiff remind you the defendant you are disqualified lawyer. I think you are a lawyer from Crown Law the expert lawyer of NZ but now you seem even don’t know what is malicious prosecution and defamation.
I the plaintiff now explain to you the action for malicious prosecution is when the judicial system has been misused. The other words is abuse all the judicial systems i.e. by making false allegation “dismissed” then the plaintiff violently arrested, got the charges of trespass and resisting arrest . As the incident happened on the 5 of November 2008 to the plaintiff the NZ police and Wellington District Court, the lawyer and judge are all involved and the plaintiff from violently arrested with handcuffs, unlawfully searched, custody, imprisonment, charged for trespass and resisting arrest to instruct the diversion, guilty or not and court appealing. Could you the defendant say it is not misused the judicial system and is not abuse all the judicial system and what? So I sue the defendant for malicious prosecution is exactly the crime for them.
As to the defamation, which include libel and slander  as the defendant you yourself already admit in your Statement of Defence that you made this false allegation unemployed, dismissed, a Chinese student been dismissed, hysterical and psychiatric suicidal, covertly recording the Minister’s private conversation, trespass on the Ministry of Social Development. As these allegation are all false, if they are not true they are not defamation as what? Especially as those false allegation came out from the defendant the Ministry of Social Development, within the second to the Wellington Free Ambulance, from Wellington Free Ambulance to the NZ Police and then the District Court of trespass and resisting arrest, from Wellington to Auckland, from NZ to China, from the Ministry of Social Development to all of my families, my friends, known and unknown person. It is not defamation as what? As you know after the incident one day when I came back to collect my personal belongs I was not allowed to get access and I rang the police for help. You know how the policewoman told me you are a trespass. You can’t be back to the office of Ministry of Social Development in 2 years. And you know in the incident on 5 of November 2008 when I was violently arrested in the sick room and taken away by the police with handcuffs on both my hands no one would think I was a trespass on the Ministry of Social Development because the colleagues only know I am a lawful employee of the Ministry but must be a serious fraud of the Ministry, at least a theft or robbery probably murder otherwise how could deserve an immediate dismissal, violently arrested with handcuffs and taken away from the office of the Ministry of Social Development to police prison by the police. It is not defamation as what? No one could believe this false allegation and malicious prosecution and defamation are so successful. Usually the defamation as everyone knows only by words, only hurt in the mental but this false allegation and defamation not only by words also by physical. Could you say this false allegation and defamation is not serious enough? It is only a person very expert and plan well on purpose who could make a false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation so perfect. The worse thing is even the defendant has a lot of chance to declare, the defendant didn’t but choose to authorize the Police to removed and violently arrested the plaintiff, agreed the charges of trespass when police informed them, it is not on purpose and what? That is why the defendant you have to take the whole liability for what you have done. As the defendant said that the plaintiff fails to sufficiently particularize any factual basis that might support her allegations of defamation and malicious prosecution is totally nonsense.

Refer to paragraph 4,
Accordingly, the defendant submits that:
4.1 the pleadings should be struck out in their entirety on the basis that the pleadings reveal no reasonable cause of action and are likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay and otherwise an abuse of the process of this Court; or
4.2 The proceedings should be dismissed in their entirely because no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; the proceeding is frivolous and vexatious and the proceeding is an abuse of the process of this Court.

There are no Rules, Act and Bills in NZ that the criminal persons are not subject to justice. Even the defendant themselves can’t find any examples of false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation from 1787 until 2009 that stricken out or dismissed by any court (Reference the defendant application for order striking plaintiff’s pleadings or (2) dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings dated 11 Jun 2009) . So this pleading should never be stricken out or dismissed by the District Court or removed from the list. This cause of action could never say frivolously, vexatious or is an abuse of the process of this Court. If anyone wants to strike out or dismiss this proceeding I think the person is only subject to strike out from the human being and dismiss away by this Court.

As to the “embarrassment” I the plaintiff don’t understand. I only sue the defendant the Ministry of Social Development to the court for their false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation you mean that embarrassed you? Could the defendant explain to me the plaintiff what is that by making the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation, cause the incident resulted in the plaintiff violently arrested by the police with handcuffs, unlawfully custody and imprisonment, charged the trespass and resisting arrest? What is that the defendant by making the false allegation cause the incident and then got the due reason “I am violent to the NZ police” and then false dismissal became to the really dismissal and now the plaintiff has to bring it with me for all my life?

As to the delay of the process, I the plaintiff remind you it is still within the timeline to file a claim to the court but it is really too long to sort out the case after 8 months now it still haven’t been sorted out. What kind of suffer to the plaintiff everyday for 8 months it is!
   
I the plaintiff should remind you the defendant and their representative you are total disqualified lawyer. Because both of you even don’t know the basic NZ law i.e. Trespass Act, don’t know dismiss and not dismiss, a lawful employee or a trespass and now argue with the plaintiff in this court. I strongly suggest those disqualified managers and their representative should be stricken away or dismissed by the court immediately and the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by the court!

Refer to paragraph 5,
If the application to strike out or dismiss is not granted, the respondent seeks orders to that:
5.1 the plaintiff should file and serve a more explicit statement of claim;
 
I the plaintiff already filed and served the defendant more explicit statement of claim for several times. If the defendant still pretend not understand the serious of the injury I the plaintiff would be ready anytime to file and serve the defendant the more explicit Statement of claim and let you know how the injury hurt me all the time. Now it is the one (I confirm to you the injury hurt me every minutes and every day and night. If I am not strong enough probably I would be suicidal now because until 8 months passed, I still can’t recover. I could tell you I can’t suffer from the injury of false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage any more. I can’t suffer from unlawfully arrested, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment, and unlawfully charged any more. I could let you know if I die or am suicidal some days late it is only because of the defendant you for your serious criminal offending and abusing.)

5.2 The proceeding should be transferred to Wellington;
5.3 The defendant should not have to respond to any of the plaintiff’s interrogatories, including future interrogatories.

It is the District Court Rule and NZ Bills, Act and Rules est. that support this proceeding should be remained in Auckland but not transfer to Wellington. That (the 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 dated 30 April) detailed as why this proceeding shouldn’t be transfer to Wellington but remain in Auckland.
   
In District Court Rules it said: Non Compliance In the event of non compliance in the exchange of information and documentation, the solicitor for the non-defaulting party shall immediately seek a conference. In the absence of good reason to the contrary, peremptory orders requiring the offending party to remedy the default and pay appropriate costs will be made.

It is District Rule that the defendant should comply with the proceeding, that the defendant should answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories. If the defendant doesn’t comply with this proceeding i.e. refuse or not to answer the plaintiff’s interrogatories on time that is offending party that the plaintiff reserve the immediately judgment by the court by default and get the remedy and paid of the cost.

Refer to background
Paragraph 7 the defendant files an interlocutory application dated 17 April 2009 ….

I the plaintiff would like to remind the defendant. It is the defendant Statement of defence that you already admit the false allegation made by Ms Katie Musk. And it is NZ Police confirmed to me that it is Hamish McIntyre authorized the NZ Police to remove me actually violently arrest me for the charges of trespass and resisting arrest during I was a lawful employee of the Ministry.   

Refer to paragraph 8,
The plaintiff has refused to answer the questions posed by the defendant on numerous occasions.

No, the plaintiff never refused to answer any of the defendant’s questions. Actually the plaintiff wrote all the details i.e. who, when, where, what and how the defendant made the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage to the plaintiff in her Statement of Claim, more explicit Statement of Claim and Answer interrogatories. How successfully the defendant by making false allegation that caused the plaintiff violently arrested with handcuffs on both her hands, unlawfully arrested, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment, unlawfully charged for trespass and resisting arrest. The worse thing is the defendant not only making the false allegation but also authorized the NZ police to remove the plaintiff, actually violently arrested the plaintiff with handcuffs. The evidence is provided by the NZ police. Could you deny? No. You can’t.

Refer to paragraph 9,
Subsequent correspondence has led the defendant to form the view that the plaintiff;
9.1 cannot provide coherent pleadings;
9.2 is seeking to challenge her dismissal or an aspect of it and/ or the claim arises out of a personal injury;
9.3 is pursuing criminal matters through civil proceedings

No. The plaintiff provided coherent pleadings. That is why this proceeding is supported and still processing by the District Court until now.
It is not a personal injury. The injury is caused on purpose by the defendant by making false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation. That injury caused the plaintiff violently arrested with handcuffs on both hands.
The defendant said many times that the injury is a criminal offence. If the plaintiff wants to seek remedy from the criminal offence she could only pursue through the civil proceedings. It is never be the case of pursuing criminal matters through civil proceedings.

Refer to paragraph 10,
The defendant files an application, dated 11 Jun 2009, to strike out the plaintiff’s claim or dismiss her proceedings.

You defendant can’t deny or run away from your liability because of your criminal offence to the plaintiff. You neither could strike out the claim nor dismiss the proceedings. Any claims against the criminal offence are supported by the District Court, judge and protected by the Rules, Act and Bills of NZ. 

Refer to Strike out/dismissal
Refer to paragraph 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

This proceeding would never be stricken out or dismissed by the District Court and District Court Rule because lawful employee should never be a trespass on her workplace and lawful resident should never be unlawfully arrested, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment and unlawfully charged. That no criminal person could run away from the punishment by the law.

I the plaintiff remind you stop to confuse the judge and court by providing the example irrelevant to this proceeding.

Refer to Statement of Claim
Refer to paragraph 16,
16.1 The claim is irredeemably flawed in several respects and should accordingly be struck out;
It pursues criminal matters through civil proceedings;

Yes it is criminal offence but now the plaintiff claim remedy from this criminal offence from the defendant in this civil proceeding.

16.2 It seeks to challenge the plaintiff dismissal.

Unjustified dismissal is in the breach of the Employment Act. I the plaintiff would file a claim to the Employment Court for unjustified dismissal after this proceeding.

16.3 The claim is barred by the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 2001; and

I remember the defendant said many times it is a criminal offence so it is absolutely not a personal injury. This injury caused by the defendant of their false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation. That caused the serious injury to the plaintiff.

Refer to Criminal proceedings filed as civil proceedings
Refer to paragraph 17,
Although the statement of claim was filed as civil proceedings, the allegation contained in it assert criminal offending –false allegation by unidentified individuals. It is apparent that the plaintiff’s concern, and a focus of her claim, is upon the alleged criminality of the defendant’s alleged actions.

What you mean of false allegation by unidentified individuals? I remember it is you in your Statement of Defence that it is Ms Katie Musk made the false allegation. Now you said unidentified individuals. You mean you are cheating the judge and court in this proceeding. You mean the really criminal person is not Ms Katie Musk but you cheat the judge and court in your Statement of Defence. I hope the judge and the court take it seriously and serious punish the defendant that they are abuse this legal process again.

I have the evidences from Wellington Free Ambulance; NZ Police the false allegation is from the Ministry of Social Development. Unemployed, dismissed. A Chinese student been dismissal, hysterical, psychiatric suicidal, violent police must secure. 
I have the evidences from Police Complain Authority and NZ Police that I am an assistant. I am covertly recording the Minister’s private conversation for which I was immediately dismissed. Because I refuse to hand back my computer and building access card police were called.
So no matter even you say unidentified individuals but the criminal persons are the employees of the Ministry of Social Development and well protected by the Ministry of Social Development. So you can never run away from your liability.
In order to be justice and no person break the law could run away from the punishment by the law and all persons should be treated with justice in NZ. I require the judge and court to order the defendant to inform the real criminal manager, the name of the person to let the whole society notice this horrible bullying, abusing, discriminating and criminal offending manager to the lady, employee and immigrant and this kind of manager should dismiss immediately from the position of the Ministry of Social Development. No criminal person to be a manager in the Ministry of Social Development.

Refer to paragraph 17.1 the plaintiff identifies offence provisions, under the Summary Offences Act 1981 and the Criminal Act 1961, in support of her pleadings.

As to why the plaintiff in her Statement of Claim listed Summary Offences Act 1981, Crime Act 1961 and est. just because the plaintiff want to inform the judge and court that even the most horrible and serious false allegation and defamation only just some words to hurt by mental to the victim but this injury caused by the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation in this proceedings hurt the plaintiff in mental and physical and is a very serious criminal offence to the plaintiff too because it result in the plaintiff violently arrested with handcuffs, custody, imprisonment and charges of trespass and resisting arrest. The other reason as why the plaintiff listed all these Criminal Rules and Act just hope for the consideration of the judge when judge decide the amount of compensation for the damage as to such serious injury the plaintiff reserve right to get remedy for $120, 000, 00 dollars of compensation for the damage and this amount should never enough to recover the serious injury to the plaintiff. 

Refer to paragraph 17.2 the plaintiff seeks the imprisonment of an unnamed person as one of her remedies.

I the plaintiff did require this remedy to the judge in case the judge do have special jurisdiction to have the criminal offence person i.e. Ms Katie Musk or Hamish McIntyre to be imprisonment because of the serious of the injury. The District Court Rules never said the plaintiff couldn’t require for imprisonment. 

Refer to paragraph 18 Seeking to bring a private prosecution by way of civil proceedings is inappropriate. If the plaintiff wishes to pursue a prosecution she must do so either by seeking to have a prosecution initiated by Police or by laying a information herself. She cannot seek to prosecute a criminal matter through the civil process.

No. I the plaintiff never say anything in my statement of claim it is a private prosecution. I only claim serious damage from the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation. I the plaintiff probably would lay a private prosecution about Ms Katie Musk and Hamish McIntyre for their personal liability for the hurt to the plaintiff if it is necessary after this proceeding. But Ministry of Social Development as the employer of Ms Katie Musk and Hamish McIntyre, you can’t run away from your liability for the injury of false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage.  

Refer to Personal Grievance only way to challenge dismissal
Refer to paragraph 19 The plaintiff appears to be attempting to challenge her dismissal in the District Court. An employee who wishes to challenge her dismissal, or any aspect of it, may only bring that challenge in the Employment Relations Authority as a personal grievance; s113 Employment Relations Act 2000.
Refer to paragraph 20 the plaintiff is pursuing remedies that can be awarded by the Employment Relations Authority if it determines an employee has a personal grievance namely;
20.1 Reinstatement / “retrieve the dismissal”; s123 (1) (a) Employment Relations Act
20.2 Reimbursement of lost wages; s123 (1) (b) Employment Relations Act
20.3 Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings; s123 (1) (c) Employment Relations Act

21 The employment Relations Authority has full and excusive jurisdiction to determine personal grievance; s161 (1) (c).

I the plaintiff could be very proud to confirm you that I of course should challenge the unjustified dismissal. I as have the 25 years proud of work experience should never be the person of dismissal. If it happened it only could mean it is serious wrong with the employment in the Ministry of Social Development. The illegal manage use dismissal to ruin a good staff and to damage their experience and to lead them to the miserable life, to damage the health, to damage their family and happiness.
First of all I the plaintiff complain that those disqualified manager and their representative should strike out from this proceeding because they only know about the Employment Law and Court. They try to protect the criminal person by saying a criminal offence as an employment relation problem.

There are too many Rules, Act and Bills subject to the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage.

I the plaintiff confirmed to you many times if I raise my personal grievance and unjustified dismissal I would go to the Employment Court. In this civil court I only claim for remedy of $120, 000, 00 from the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage. As why I list all the other requirement it is for the concern of the defendant if you are reluctant to pay that amount of compensation. If the defendant is only interested to pay the amount I agree it is the best solution for the remedy. And also I the plaintiff would remind the defendant the District Court Rules never said that if the plaintiff and defendant by mediation or negotiation that the plaintiff couldn’t give the defendant more chose i.e. withdraw the dismiss, reinstatement my position or reimbursement of lost wages.

Refer to the plaintiff’s claims are based on an employment relationship problem; those claims must be brought in the Employment Relations Authority and are not within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

I the plaintiff kindly remind the defendant any kind of person especial a person as a lawyer if there are any kind of criminal offence or criminal behavious that as soon as you know if you didn’t report to the police and court it is a breach of the law but if you as a professional person i.e. as a lawyer know it is a criminal offence in order to protect that criminal person a crime alleged it as an employment relation problem it is a crime too. So be carefully. As the incident on the 5 of November 2008 even the police was involved and court involved how you the defendant could say it is only an employment relations problem I remind you again you are a disqualified lawyer.

As the cause of action in this proceeding is false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation and serious damage it is exactly within the jurisdiction of the District court.

Refer to paragraph 22 the relief sough by the plaintiff is not available in the District Court even if her claim were successful.

I the plaintiff should remind you it is District Court. The judge is the person to make the decision but not you. The judge decided the amount of remedy is based on the serious of the injury. This amount the plaintiff claim is only including the cost the plaintiff paid to the lawyer for withdrawn the charges of trespass and resisting arrest, the fee paid for the doctor and for on going doctor fee,  the lost of wage for this proceeding, the cost of this proceeding, the hurt of injury for violently arrested with handcuffs, unlawfully arrested, unlawfully handcuffed, unlawfully searched, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment, unlawfully charged for trespass and resisting arrest, lost of dignity, hurt to the feeling, damage of 25 years of work experience and good personality, hurt to the health, to all her family and so on. This amount is never enough. Since the serious of the injury maybe the judge would not only grant me to get the big amount of compensation and order the defendant withdraw the dismissal and also grant me reinstatement of my position and reimbursement of lost wage since a lawful employee treated as trespass and charged for trespass only happened in NZ in 1982. Even the case in 1982 the plaintiff had never handcuffed for trespass. So I am much poorer than that plaintiff.

I hope the defendant should refrain in this proceeding, in the front of the court and judge not as you were before that you think some employee should dismiss, then want to dismiss her immediately, even if you have no ground to but by making a false allegation and treated that employee dismissal 45 days early then got the reason to dismiss her.  When you think this employee should be a trespass even if she was a lawful employee but authorized the police violently to remove her, actually violently arrest her from her workplace Ministry of Social Development and the worst things is to agree the police to charge the plaintiff trespass and resisting arrest. I could remind you the defendant though you are unusual, over powerful, corruption manager in Government Department the NZ Law, the Court and the judge is equal to anyone no matter it is the unusual corruption  manager in Government Department or an unjustified dismissal and unemployed lady.

Refer to Statutory bar
Refer to paragraph 23 the plaintiff claim arises from personal injuries allegedly suffered by her as a result of the defendant’s allegation actions. The plaintiff claims compensation for “all the mental and physical hurt to me, to my family, to my personality” . This claim barred by s 317 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, which prohibits the bringing of proceedings in any New Zealand Court for damages arising directly or indirectly out of physical injuries suffered by the plaintiff.

I the plaintiff confirmed to you many times it is not a normal personal injury. The injury is caused on purpose by Ms Katie Musk and Hamish McIntyre for their false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage. Remedy in the civil proceeding for the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage is subject to Defamation Act 1992, Summary Offences Act 1981, Criminal Act 1961, and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, New Zealand Humans Rights. The Act of Torts: Deliberate Falsehoods, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy; Abuse of the legal procedure, Trespass Act and so on that the amount of $120, 000, 00 is never enough.

Refer to Unintelligible pleadings
Refer to paragraph 24 The statement of claim contains material that is unintelligible.
Refer to paragraph 25 Unintelligibility is a valid ground for striking out a pleading and breaches r114 of the District Courts Rules which requires that a statement of claim shows “the general nature of the plaintiff’s claim to the relief sought”.

The statement of claim in this proceeding is never unintelligible. It is all reasonable.

Refer to relief sought not available paragraph 31, 32

It is nonsense of the defendant. As to seek legal advice, the plaintiff is unjustified dismissal and no income for 8 months, the Ministry refused her any benefit and the plaintiff even suffer from hungry if can’t loan money how I could afford to pay for the legal fee?

Refer to more explicit statement of claim paragraph 33, 34, 35, 36,

It is nonsense. I the plaintiff don’t need to repeat and repeat. It is waste to time to the judge, the court and the plaintiff. I think it is their way to earn money from the taxpayers.

Refer to Transfer

Paragraph 37 The defendant is a Government Department within the meaning of Crown Proceedings Act 1950

You mean making false allegation, malicious prosecution; defamation and abusing, discriminating and criminal offending to the employee, immigrant and lady are authorized by the Crown so it could be within the meaning of Crown Proceeding Act 1950?

Could the defendant show the plaintiff the evidence under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 or any other Rules or Act that it is the authorized duty by the Crown or her Majesty that the lawful employee hasn’t been dismissed that the employer, the defendant could accused of dismissal 45 days before the employee dismissed?

Could the defendant show the plaintiff the evidence under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 or any other Rules or Act that it is the authorized duty by the Crown or her Majesty that the lawful employee hasn’t dismissed that the employer , the defendant could treat the employee dismissal 45 days before she dismissed?

Could the defendant show the plaintiff the evidence under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 or any other Rules or Act that it is the authorized duty by the Crown or her Majesty that the lawful employee hasn’t dismissed that the employer, the defendant could authorized the Police remove their employee from the Building of her workplace for trespass?

Could the defendant show the plaintiff the evidence under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 or any other Rules or Act that it is the authorized duty by the Crown or her Majesty that the lawful employee could charge for trespass on her workplace agreed by the employer, the defendant?

Could the defendant show the plaintiff the evidence under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 or any other Rules or Act that it is the authorized duty by the Crown or her Majesty the only way the manager authorized to solve the employment problem is to remove the employee violently with handcuffs and this kind of criminal offence could still so called on good purpose by the Crown or her Majesty? If any manager still doesn’t agree it is neither on good purpose nor for safety and healthy issues, I think the manager tasted the good purpose first but not try on the others. It is the most horrible violent, criminal offence to the employee.

The plaintiff would like to remind the defendant only the authorized duties by the Crown or her Majesty then could be subject to the Rules or Act otherwise any behaviors without authorized or misuse or not comply with or in the breach of any of the Rules and Act of the Crown or her Majesty should only be subject to penalty and compensation or punishment by law. 

As everyone knows if it is not authorized or forbid by the Crown or her Majesty but some manager still instruct to do unlawfully on purpose, it is more serious i.e. false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation or abusing, discriminating, criminal offending it could result in the huge big amount of penalty and compensation and punishment by the law.

Refer to the paragraph 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 45,

This is the District Rules support this proceeding stay in Manukau but not in Wellington. Why the defendant said so many times to transfer the proceeding to Wellington? Do you mean in Wellington there are many personal grievances over 6000 in a year in such small population? You still regard it as usually and normal employment? I only ask you because I don’t understand.

Refer to interrogatories paragraph 46 the plaintiff has to serve the defendant so many interrogatories

Yes, it is true. Even the defendant themselves said that the plaintiff served them too many interrogatories because the defendant always refuse to answer. From this example that the judge could see that the defendant didn’t well comply with this proceedings. They either refuse or oppose or only could write unnecessary, oppressive or improper wordy to refuse to provide the true details and to confuse the court and judge. And the defendant always refused or was afraid to provide or verified any evidences by affidavit.  

As to the honest of this proceedings

If the party in this proceeding VIC-2009-092-1072 ??? v Ministry of Social Development  not based on defending themselves according to skill and expert of referring to the law but by the dishonest way i.e. with the times go, with the situation you need to prepare so called new findings, false witnesses or their false statement, mislead and cheat the plaintiff, provide the irrelevant examples to mislead the judge I the plaintiff remind you the defendant it is the most shame of the New Zealand Judicial history to such  a  weak unemployed lady and plaintiff. The plaintiff also remind the defendant that even the plaintiff was refused to get the original files of the person made false allegation under Official Information Act if it is nothing false is it necessary to keep secret or away from the plaintiff. It is no necessary to refuse to provide the original file to the plaintiff. That is why the plaintiff could say those new findings or witnesses’ statement is not true.

Total in all that the only unintelligible is defendant this unreasonable submission of interlocutory application for orders (1) striking out statement of claim/ dismissing proceedings (2) that a more explicit statement of claim be filed and served (3) transferring proceedings to Wellington (4) that the defendant not have to respond to interrogatories and the defendant memorandum of counsel for defendant seeking removal of matter from list pending application to strike out dated 4 August 2009.

As NZ has the law Privacy Act to protect the criminal person.
As I was told it is the Ambulance system automatically inform the NZ Police.
As the criminal person is defended and protected by the lawyer from Crown Law.
That makes me the plaintiff really frightened every day and night. Because of too frightened I the plaintiff forced to accept the defendant Deed of Settlement and Release because they are so unusual, over powerful. They are going to award a cost from me an unemployed and no income person, a victim they made the false allegation about me but award a cost from me the victim. But even if I accepted this so bad Deed of Settlement and Release but the defendant is still breach their Deed of Settlement and Release so now I confirm to you the defendant I could only apply to the court for order to the defendant to pay me the compensation. If the defendant does not pay the plaintiff the compensation in cash by 12 August 2009 the court hearing the plaintiff I cancel all I agreed in the Deed of Settlement and Release and the requirement of the case CIV-2009-092-1072 is still as the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
I remind you the defendant you regard the Chinese lady immigrant as your violent abuse and criminal offend objective. I am sure you could keep secret for some time of how you abusing, discriminating and criminal offending to employee, immigrant and lady but you would never always keep secret for ever. I think you would be punished by the God sooner or later.
________________________________________________________________________

I the plaintiff would be grateful if the District Court could note this submission of opposition and rejection to the hearing date 12 August 2009.
I hope to get immediately judgment by default by the Judge and Court.
I hope this answer all the questions in the defendant unreasonable submission and memorandum.

AND TAKE NOTICE the plaintiff reserve the right for immediate judgment by the Court as the requirement in her Statement of Claim if the defendant still hasn’t paid the plaintiff the compensation according to their Deed of Settlement and Release until the 12 August 2009 the Court hearing by default.

UPON THE GROUNDS:

This application is made in reliance and under
Defamation Act 1992
Summary Offences Act 1981
Criminal Act 1961
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
New Zealand Humans Rights
The Act of Torts:
Deliberate Falsehoods,
Defamation
Invasion of Privacy
Abuse of the legal procedure
Trespass Act

10 August 2009

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

The hardcopy and payment for interlocutory application is followed immediately.

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.