Plaintiff's Notice to the defendant to answer interrogatories
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
27 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 27 August 2009 require you the defendant to answer this interrogatories which this notice served on you otherwise the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default by the court as the requirement in her statement of claim.
(a) To answer specified interrogatories relating to matters in questions in this proceeding files and serves the defendant on the date 27 August 2009
(b) To provide the evidences
(c) To verify your evidences and answers by affidavit.
The Specified interrogatories are as follows:
Refer to the defendant’s deed of settlement and release.
1. Answer question
Is NZ a lawful country? Why the NZ Human Rights Act and Illegal Contract Act said the deed of settlement and release is an illegal contract and an unlawful settlement of a complaint and it should immediately strike out but the defendant the Ministry of Social Development still instruct the plaintiff to follow their illegal contract and unlawful settlement? Could the defendant provide the evidence and verify your evidence by affidavit within 7 days from the date of this notice serve on you, if you couldn’t, I the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default by the court as the requirement in the statement of claim.
Refer to the plaintiff a lady, employee and immigrant.
2. Answer question
As the plaintiff is a lawful immigrant of NZ, is she a lawful resident in NZ? Why NZ law can’t protect her? Why the Employment Act said she is a lawful employee but the defendant said she is unemployed and dismissed? Why the Trespass Act said employees are the lawful occupier but the defendant authorized Police to arrest her for trespass and admitted she is a trespass? Why NZ Human Rights said lawful resident shouldn’t be unlawfully arrested, handcuffed, searched, been custody and imprisonment and charged but the defendant still insist on criminal offending and abusing to the plaintiff? And the worst thing it is not done by any other person but by the NZ Top Government Department Ministry of Social Development. Could the defendant provide the evidence and verify your evidence by affidavit within 7 days from this notice served on you that NZ law is not for the immigrant, if you can’t, the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default by the court as the requirement of the statement of claim.
Refer to the defendant’s deed of settlement and release the amount o f the money and that the plaintiff should pay 38% tax deduction.
3. Answer question
Could the defendant answer what this amount of money is in your deed of settlement and release? Is it compensation? Is it the normal concept of income? If you the defendant can’t answer or refuse to answer these questions within 7 days from this notice served on you, I the plaintiff reserve the right for immediately judgment by default by court as the requirement in the statement of claim.
Upon the Ground
The employees of the Ministry of Social Development Ms Katie Musk and Mr. Hamish McIntyre on the 5 of November 2008 made the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage to the plaintiff;
(a) Unemployed, dismissed. Chinese student, being dismissed and hysterical, psychiatric suicidal, Violent Police must secure. (Evidence attached from NZ Police and Wellington Free Ambulance.)
(b) I am an assistant to the Minister. I am covertly recording the Minister’s private conversation for which I was immediately dismissed. Because I refused to hand back my computer access card, Police were called. (Evidence attached from Police Independence Complain Authority.)
(c) Unemployed, Trespass on the Ministry of Social Development, after being warned to leave that place by Hamish McIntyre, an occupier, neglected to do so. (Evidence attached from Wellington District Court and NZ Police.)
And also Hamish McIntyre authorized the police to remove the plaintiff from her workplace violently, actually violently arrested the plaintiff with handcuffs for the charges of trespass and resisting arrest and agreed the charges for trespass and resisting arrest.
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
27 August 2009
TO: The Registrar of the District Court Manukau Auckland
AND TO: The Defendant
