Plaintiff's Notice of Opposition and Rejection 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT CIV-2009-092-1072
MANUKAU
BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF
AND MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVLEOPMENT
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND REJECTION TO THE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
FOR ORDERS STRIKING OUT PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS OR DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S POCEEDINGS
BUT TO STRIKE OUT THE DEFENDANT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR ORDER STRIKING OUT
PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS OR DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S PROCEEDINGS
AND THE PLAINTIFF RESERVE RIGHT FOR IMMEDIATELY JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
11 AUGUST 2009
TAKE NOTICE that on the day of 2009 I the plaintiff file and serve the defendant Notice of Opposition and Rejection to the defendant’s notice of interlocutory application for orders striking out plaintiff pleadings or dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings dated 11 August 2009 BUT to strike out the defendant’s notice of interlocutory application for orders striking out plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings.
I the plaintiff opposed and rejected the defendant’s Notice of interlocutory application for orders striking out plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings;
I the plaintiff opposed and rejected the defendant award the costs of and incidental to this application.
I reserve and require the immediate judgment by default by the judge and court in the court hearing on 12 August 2009 as the Statement of Claim.
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.
人人都应受到公平待遇。
Refer to 1. Striking out the whole of the plaintiff’s pleading; or
2. Dismissing the proceeding
3. For the costs of and incidental to this application
As to why the plaintiff not only opposes and rejects the defendant interlocutory application but also could strike out the defendant’s interlocutory application for orders because:
- The Deed of Settlement and Release the defendant offered to the plaintiff and required the plaintiff to sign is an illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a complaint.
- The defendant is again an abuse of the process of the Court and the plaintiff.
Reference sees Taxability of payments under the Human Rights Act 1993 for Humiliation, loss of Dignity, and injury to feelings (Attached)
Refer to the defendant Deed of Settlement and Release, the Paragraph 3 3.1 Pay Mei Juan Cai the sum of $14.958 gross. This sum will be subject to deductions for tax.
Since this sum of money is the compensation under Humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings and is not the income under ordinary concepts and shouldn’t be subject to deductions for tax. In such cases payments under section 88(1) (c) will not fall within the definition of “Monetary remuneration” and will not be included in the gross income of the taxpayer under section CH3. It is not subject to tax deduction.
Reference to:
The Taxation Laws apply to the Arrangement as follows:
- Payments for damages or out of court settlements that are genuinely and entirely awarded for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings under section 92M 92M(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1993 are not income under section CE 1 of the Income Tax Act 2004.
- Payments for damages or out of court settlements that are genuinely and entirely awarded for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings under section 92M (1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1993 are not income under ordinary concepts under section CA1(2).
Act has been committed or where there has been a breach of the terms of a settlement of complaint. Section 921 of the HRA provides:
921. Remedies—
(1) This Section is subject to section 92J and 92K (Which relate to the only remedy that may be granted by the Tribunal if it finds that an enactment is in breach of Part 1 A).
…
(3) If, in proceedings referred to in subsection (2), the Tribunal is satisfied on balance of probabilities that the defendant has committed a breach of Part 1A or Part 2 or the terms of a settlement of a complaint, the Tribunal may grant 1 or more of the following remedies:
- a declaration that the defendant has committed a breach of Part 1A or Part 2 or the terms of a settlement of complaint:
- an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the breach, or from engaging in, or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the breach, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order;
- damages in accordance with sections 92M to 92O:
- an order that the defendant perform any acts specified in the order with a view to redressing any loss or damage suffered by the complainant or as the case may be the aggrieved person as a result of the breach:
- a declaration that any contract entered into or performed in contravention of any provision of Part 1 A or Part 2 is an illegal contact:
- an order that the defendant undertake any specified training or any other programme, or implement any specified policy or programme, in order to assist or enable the defendant to comply with the provisions of this Act:
- relief in accordance with the Illegal Contract Act 1970 in respect of any such contract to which the defendant and the complainant or, as the case may be, the aggrieved person art parties
(Reference the document attached)
As an illegal contract the Deed of Settlement and Release should be striking out and dismissed immediately by the Law. It should be invalid immediately refer to the Illegal Contract Act 1970.
Base on the Illegal Contract of the Defendant’s Deed of Settlement and Release that the defendant interlocutory application for orders striking out plaintiff pleadings or Dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings is unlawful and should be stricken out and dismissed immediately.
Refer to the defendant extra terms and conditions to the Deed about the content of Notice of Discontinuance “There is no issue as to the cost” and the defendant file the Notice of Discontinuance.
As the defendant instruct it should be the defendant to file the Notice of Discontinuance to the Court and cancel the plaintiff’s right to file the Notice of Discontinuance, is either in the breach of this illegal Deed of Settlement and Release and also in the breach of the District Court Rules.
And also it is against all the Law and Act the defendant instructs the plaintiff to cheat the judge and court “There is no issue as to the cost.” in the Notice of Discontinuance. Based on the defendant again and again, more and more seriously in the breach of the District Court Rules that the defendant’s any submission, memorandum and interlocutory application for orders should be immediately stricken out and dismissed by the judge and court and the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 as her Statement of Claim and to show that NZ Court and judicial system is justice no matter the defendant is a powerful Government Organization or the plaintiff is an unjustified dismissal and immigrant lady but now I am a lawful residence of NZ.
I the plaintiff would be grateful if the District Court and judge could note this Plaintiff’s Notice of opposition and rejection and striking out the defendant interlocutory application for order to the hearing date tomorrow 12 August 2009.
I hope this Notice immediately defeat the defendant unlawfully orders.
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
AND TAKE NOTICE the plaintiff reserves the right for immediately judgment by judge and the court by default as the requirement in the Statement of Claim.
11 August 2009
TO: The Registrar of the District Court Manukau Auckland
AND TO: The Defendant
