Plaintiff Notice to the defendant to answer Interlogatories 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT CIV-2009-092-1072
MANUKAU
BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF
AND MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVLEOPMENT
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT
TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES
16 August 2009
TAKE NOTICE: pursuant to rule 300, 304, 305, 309, 310, 311 of the District Courts Rules, the above-named plaintiff on the date of 16 August 2009 requires you the defendant, answer this interrogatories within 7 days after the day on which this notice is served on you, otherwise the plaintiff would reserve the right by the court for immediate judgment by default--
(a) To answer specified interrogatories relating to matters in questions in this proceeding files and serves the defendant on the date of 16 August 2009
(b) To provide the evidences and verify your evidences and answers by affidavit.
The Specified interrogatories are as follows:
Refer to the defendant’s affidavit of Julie Vaifale on behalf of defendant in support of application to strike out plaintiff’s proceedings dated 11 August 2009,
1. Answer question
Could the defendant show me the plaintiff where in Julie Vaifale’s affidavit (attached1) that she said she is in support of the defendant’s application to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings dated 11th of August 2009? If you the defendant can’t find anywhere “the word in support to strike out the plaintiff proceedings” in Julie Vaifale’s affidavit and verify your evidence and answer by affidavit within 7 days from the date this notice serve you I the plaintiff regard you cheating the court and judge and reserve the right for immediately judgment by the court by default.
I think Julie Vaifale as a manager of District Court Manukau and the case manager of CIV-2009-092-1072 she know what she should say and do as she is a public servant under NZ Ministry of Justice Code of Conduct. It is no necessary for her to bring trouble for herself for supporting of one party of her client the defendant Ministry of Social Development to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings for the case CIV-2009-092-1072. It is you the defendant add the extra title “in support to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings” for the Julie Vaifale’s affidavit.
If I don’t make mistake I think you the defendant want to inform the Court and Judge there is conflict of interest for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 and want them to take serious concern about the unfair for the case CIV-2009-092-1072!
It is NZ Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal Contract Act 1970 said that this Deed of Settlement and Release is an illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a complaint. There is no need any affidavit.
As to what to do with illegal contract the Deed of Settlement and Release
Human Rights Act 1993 (attached) and Illegal Contracting Act 1970 (attached 3) said very clearly;
If, in proceedings referred to in subsection (2), the Tribunal is satisfied on the 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 Part2 or the terms of a settlement of a complaint:
- an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the breach, or from engaging in, or causing 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 1A or Part2 is an illegal contract:
- 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 Contracts Act 1970 in respect of any such contract to which the defendant and the complainant or, as the case may be, the aggrieved person are parties:
- any other relief the Tribunal thinks fit.
Illegal Contracts Act 1970
Section 6, Illegal contracts to be of no effect
Notwithstanding any rule of law or equity to the contrary, but subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other enactment, every illegal contract shall be of no effect and no person shall become entitled to any property under a disposition made by or pursuant to any such contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall invalidate—
Court may grant relief
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of this Act, but subject to the express provisions of any other enactment, the Court may in the course of any proceedings, or on application made for the purpose, grant to --
(a) any party to an illegal contract; or
(b) Any party to a contract who is disqualified from enforcing it by reason of commission of an illegal act in the course of its performance; or
(c) Any person claiming through or under any such party—
Such relief by way of restitution, compensation, variation of the contract…
(2) An application under subsection (1) of this section may be made by –
(a) Any person to whom the Court may grant relief pursuant to subsection (1) of this section…
Based on the above Law Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal Contract Act 1970 and Taxability of Payment under the Human Rights Act 1993 for Humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings from the Inland Revenue (attached 2) that the defendant is subject to repeating the breach, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the breach, or conduct of any similar kind specified. That this illegal Deed of Settlement and Release should be immediately stricken out and dismissed and invalid by the law and the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by the court by default as her Statement of Claim.
2. Answer question
Refer to the Defendant notice of interlocutory application for orders striking out plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing plaintiff’s proceedings dated 11 August 2009 and affirmation of Zachary Ben De Malmandche, dated 11 August 2009
Paragraph 2
The parties signed a deed of settlement and release on 23 July 2009 in respect of this matter (see exhibit 1 to affidavit of Mei Juan Cai dated 10 August 2009). The deed requires the plaintiff to discontinue her claim, but she refuses to do so (see affidavit of Zachary Ben Malmanche).
Could the defendant provide the evidence and verify your evidence by affidavit that this illegal Deed of settlement and release said the plaintiff must pay the deduction for 38% and that it is the defendant’s right to file the notice of discontinuance to the court but not the plaintiff and the notice of discontinuance the plaintiff must write as the defendant said there is no issue as to the cost? If you could not provide evidence and verify your evidence by affidavit within 7 days from the date this notice serve you the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default as the Statement of Claim because the defendant is repeating the breach, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the breach, or conduct of any similar kind specified under Human Rights 1993 and Illegal Contract Act 1970 and also in the breach District Court Rule 1992 and their illegal Deed of Settlement and Release. Since the plaintiff already gave the defendant notice for them to fix before 10am 12 August 2009 the court hearing date but the defendant didn’t and go on repeating the breach and cheating, that this illegal Deed of Settlement and Release should be immediately stricken out and dismissed and invalid by the law and the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by the court by default as her Statement of Claim and show that NZ court and judge is justice.
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
AND TAKE NOTICE the plaintiff reserve the right to wait the response from the defendant for 7 days from the date of this letter otherwise the plaintiff would order the judgment from the court by default as the requirement on the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
16 August 2009
TO: The Registrar of the District Court Manukau Auckland
AND TO: The Defendant
