MANUKAU
BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF
AND MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVLEOPMENT
DEFENDANT
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND REJECTION AND TO STRIKE OUT
THE DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT REGARDING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2009 HEARING
AND DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF SECOND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR ORDERS STRIKING OUT THE PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS OR DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF’S PROCEEDINGS
DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2009
AND DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2009 FOR SUMMERY JUDGMENT
28 September 2009
TAKE NOTICE that on the day of 2009 I the plaintiff file and serve the defendant this Notice of Opposition and Rejection and Notice to strike out/dismiss the defendant’s memorandum of counsel for defendant regarding issues for determination at 30 September 2009 hearing and defendant’s submissions in respect of second interlocutory application for orders striking out the plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings dated 24 September 2009 and defendant’s notice of opposition to plaintiff’s application dated 10 September 2009 for summary judgment.
I the plaintiff opposed and rejected and strike out /dismiss the defendant’s memorandum of counsel for defendant regarding issues for determination at 30 September 2009 hearing dated 24 September 2009.
I the plaintiff opposed and rejected and strike out/ dismiss the defendant’s submissions in respect of second interlocutory application for order striking out the plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings dated 24 September 2009.
I the plaintiff file this notice to strike out the defendant’s notice of opposition to plaintiff’s application dated 10 September 2009 for summary judgment because it is award by the law.
I require the court to grant immediate judgment by default for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 as the statement of claim in this court hearing on 30 September 2009 pursuant to the District Court Rules and official Document from the District Court because the defendant is the non-compliance and non-co-operation party in this proceeding.
Upon the grounds:
Those who break the law are subjected to justice.
违法者要受到法律制裁。
All people should be treated with justice.
人人都应受到公平待遇。
Refer to Plaintiff’s proceeding CIV-2009-092-1072
1. As the case CIV-2009-092-1072 related to the employment and immigrant, two main sensitive issues. Since employment relate to majority of people in NZ and immigrant is related to the international reputation of NZ, I hope the judge would reconsider carefully when making the judgment and take it serious as it should be. It is not only just such an easy case between the plaintiff and the defendant the Ministry of Social Development. It is between the immigrant and NZ Government. As the important NZ Government Department the Ministry of Social Development, it is the representative of NZ Government. If such kind of case an lawful employee, lady and immigrant unlawfully arrested, handcuffed, been custody and imprisonment, unlawfully charged for trespass and resisting arrest the case is striking our or dismiss by the NZ Court or there is unjustified or unfair for the judgment how irreparable damage and bad influence it could be to NZ Government and NZ judicial system. It means that NZ judicial system is not justice and NZ Government protect seriously criminal offending, abusing and discriminating to the immigrant. I the plaintiff provide this example MacPherson v Police for judge consideration as all the people should be treated with justice in NZ.
Refer to the defendant’s submission in respect of second interlocutory application for orders striking out the plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings
2. Where does this rubbish submission and come from? Is it NZ Government the treatment to the immigrant after they criminal offending and abusing the immigrant what they want to do is to strike out/dismiss their case?
I the plaintiff think the only should strike out/dismiss by the judge and court is the defendant memorandum dated 24 September 2009.
I the plaintiff think the only should strike out/dismiss is the defendant submissions dated 24 September 2009.
I think the only should strike out/dismiss is the defendant’s notice of opposition to plaintiff’s application for summary judgment dated 24 September 2009.
I think the only should strike out/dismiss is the defendant illegal deed of settlement and release Please check the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal contract Act 1970. So I hope to remind the defendant not to have the illegal contract to mention again any more in front of the court and judge to ruin and damage the NZ judicial system.
If NZ is a lawful country. If NZ law is for the immigrant. If immigrant is lawful resident of NZ.
3. I require the judge and court to grant the plaintiff immediately summary judgment by default for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 as the statement of claim since the defendant is the non-compliance party and non cooperation party in this proceeding. Because until now the court and judge never granted the defendant doesn’t need to compliance or co-operation in this proceeding. And no one should grant extra rights if it required by the District Court Rules and the official document of District Court. Everyone should treat justice in front of the law.
Refer to the defendant respondent’s second bundle of authorities
209 Striking out pleading, where a pleading—
(a) Discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence or other case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or
(b) Is likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceeding; or
(c) Is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
The court may at any stage of the proceeding, on such terms as it thinks fit, order that the whole or any part of the pleading be struck out.
Refer Summary stay or dismissal
Where in any proceeding it appears to the court that in relation to the proceeding generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding—
(a) No reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or
(b) The proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) The proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court,--
The court may order that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding.
4. I the plaintiff oppose and reject and strike out/dismiss the defendant nonsense to apply those sections of the District Court Rules 1992 to this proceeding.
As to why, because the proceeding CIV-2009-092-1072 has the due reason of action:
On the 5th of November 2009, that the defendant the employees of the Ministry of Social Development made the false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage to the plaintiff. Unemployed, dismissed, a Chinese student been dismissal, hysterical and psychiatrically suicidal, violent police must secure. Unemployed, trespass in the Ministry of Social Development after warning to leave that place neglected to do so. 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.
The defendant authorized the NZ Police to violent remove actually violently arrest with handcuffs the lawful employee as trespass and agreed the charge of trespass and resisting arrest.
That the defendant got the due reason from the incident that I am violent to the NZ Police and I am intimate and aggressive manager toward the manager and staffs and unjustified dismissed the plaintiff.
The cause of action not only caused the plaintiff serious damage, lost of job, forbidden to go back to work because the defendant require the Police and District Court Wellington the bail to forbid the plaintiff go back to office.
The incident also cause the plaintiff humiliation, loss of dignity, hurt to the feeling, loss of happiness, brought to the miserable life and surfer every day from hungry and illness because of hurt and no income, rely on loan money to support her daily life.
Could you say this case is no cause of action? I think anyone if support that this kind of case no cause of action should only strike out immediately from human being.
Could you say this proceeding not cause the victim embarrassment but the defendant?
Could you say this proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court? Nonsense.
Could you say the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious? What you mean, you mean the victim the plaintiff here didn’t die!? You mean even if immigrant is killed in NZ is frivolous and vexatious!?
Refer to the defendant respondent’s second bundle of authorizes, all the irrelevant examples to this proceeding.
5. I the plaintiff oppose and reject and strike out/ dismiss all the irrelevant examples to this proceeding. I the plaintiff refuse to talk any irrelevant examples in this proceeding. As to why, because it is the way some of the lawyer want to get extra money by providing irrelevant examples to postpone the proceeding and confusing the judge, court and waste the plaintiff’s time. I need NZ Human Rights. I suffer hurting and hungry everyday by the false allegation caused me violently arrested with handcuff. I can’t suffer any more. I need to have my case sorted out ASAP. I the plaintiff listed the defendant’s all the examples that none of them is relevant to this proceeding. From No 1 to the end.
· Attorney-General v Prince and
· Attorney-General v McVeagh (M was committed to a hospital as a special patient under part IV of the Mental Heath Act. Nothing relevant to this proceeding.)
· New Zealand Guardian Trust co ltd Peat Marwich (was liquidated after being a receivership for a period. Nothing relevant to this proceeding.)
· Kontvanis v O’Brien (the plaintiff alleged had enticed away his wife. Noting relevant to this proceedings.)
· Kyre v Wilson & Horton Limited (about the publication. Nothing relevant to this proceeding.)
· John Hillary v Clare Bolesworth (the case for trustees of the J M and J S Corbett Family Trust. Noting relevant to this proceeding.)
· CP 165/96 Rutherford v K J O’Gorman (is the case for neighbor’s dispute. Noting relevant to this proceeding.)
· \AP 47/99 McFall v Mutual (is the claim for negligence arose out of a collision. Nothing relevant to this proceeding.)
· M 41/98 Elixabeth v Margaret Leen (the executor and trustee of the estate of their late mother. Nothing relevant to this proceeding.)
And so on. So all these respondent’s second bundle of authorities are all rubbish, not anything relevant to this proceeding and should immediately throw into the dustbin.
Based on the defendant provide the examples this time and last time from 1797 to 2009 that even they themselves can’t find any cases of false allegation, malicious prosecution, defamation and serious damage that struck out/dismissed by the court. So definitely this plaintiff’s proceeding would never be stricken out or dismissed by the court but get judgment by default immediately.
And I the plaintiff is really shocked by that
NZ Government has the Crown Law to protect the criminal manager in the Ministry of Social Development.
NZ Government the Crown Law even doesn’t know NZ Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal Contract Act 1970, again and again in front of the court and judge instruct the plaintiff to their illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a complaint the deed of settlement and release.
NZ Government the Crown Law even doesn’t know Trespass Act and argue with the plaintiff in the public that a lawful employee could be arrested for trespass and resisting arrest. That a lawful immigrant could be unlawfully arrested, handcuffed, searched, custody and imprisonment and charged for trespass? That this kind of criminal offending and abusing to the employee and immigrant and lady the case should be stricken out/dismissed. Are these all you the defendant going to argue with the plaintiff?
I hope the court and judge should take serious about the serious corruption in the NZ Government Organization Ministry of Social Development.
Here is the opposition and rejection and striking out/dismissing the defendant’s memorandum, submission and notice of opposition dated 24 September 2009:
Refer to defendant application 4,1and 4.2, 5.1and 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3,
6. Refer to 4.1 It is the District Court Rules support the proceedings remain in
Refer to 4.2 It is no necessary that the plaintiff should file and serve the defendant any more explicit statement of claim. If the defendant insist to have more explicit statement of claim now the plaintiff confirm to you this is the another one the injury hurt to me until now.
Refer to 5.2 It is the District Court Rules if the defendant refuse to compliance with this proceeding that the plaintiff award the immediately judgment by default as her statement of claim.
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.
Non co-operation In the event of non co-operation in the exchange of information and documentation, the solicitor for the non-default party should immediately seek a conference. In the absence of good reason to the contrary, peremptory orders requiring the offending party remedy the default and pay appropriate costs will be made.
Refer to 6.1 It is Human Right Act 1993 section Discrimination in employment matters says that the plaintiff could seek to pursue any discrimination and criminal offending in employment matters.
Refer to 6.2 It is the Human Right Act 1993 any criminal offending to the plaintiff by the defendant if the plaintiff seeks to pursue remedy and cost only could be through the civil proceedings.
Refer to 6.3 The injury hurt to the plaintiff caused by the defendant on purpose, malicious, even they have many opportunity to declare but they didn’t so it is not a normal personal injury.
Refer to 6.4 The remedy the plaintiff seek in plaintiff’s statement of claim is due available under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, New Zealand Humans Rights, Summary Offences Act 1981, Criminal Act 1961, Defamation Act 1992, The Act of Torts: Deliberate Falsehoods, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Abuse of the legal procedure, Trespass Act, Employment Act, Illegal contract Act est.
Details see plaintiff’s default judgment and summary judgment.
Refer to 6.5 It is nonsense of the defendant. The claim could never say inadequately particularized or are frequently unintelligible.
Refer to the defendant second strike-out
Refer to 8 Could the defendant tell the truth that is it the solution of NZ Government that any criminal offending to the immigrant the case would strike out or dismiss? That is why it happened again and again.
Refer to 9 Strike out/dismiss this illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a compliant the deed of settlement and release. Please don’t mention any more and don’t abuse the NZ judicial system in front of judge and court. This proceeding is never an abuse of process.
Refer to 10, 11, 12, 13.2, 13.3 Yes, even the plaintiff has served the defendant so much seeking solutions, interrogatories, interlocutory applications, default judgment and summary judgment but until now 9 months has passed that as a top NZ Government Organization Ministry of Social Development didn’t or refuse to sort out the plaintiff’s case and grievance but prepare 2 lawyers from Crown Law to defence for the criminal manager. Do you mean it is NZ Government’s policy to the immigrant and employee and lady? It is the EEO policy and no discrimination policy?
Refer to13, 1.15.1 Because it is an illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a compliant the deed of settlement and release is dismissed by Law.
Refer to 13.2, 13,3 It is the district Court Rules award the plaintiff default judgment and summary judgment.
Refer to 15.3.1 No, the plaintiff shouldn’t file and serve any more explicit statement of claim.
Refer to 15.3,2 No the case should remain in
Refer to 15.3.3 Yes the defendant has to comply with the proceeding otherwise the plaintiff award default judgment immediately.
Refer to 15.3.5 The deed of settlement is dismissed by the law because it is an illegal contract.
Refer to 15.3. 6, 15.3 7 Yes, the plaintiff has waited so long to have the case sorted out.
Refer to defendant’s submissions in respect of second interlocutory application for orders striking out the plaintiff’s pleadings or dismissing the plaintiff’s proceedings dated 24 September 2009
Refer to introduction 1, 2, 3, No. Is it the solution that an immigrant criminal offended and abused the solution from the NZ Government is to strike out her case? So that could be happened again and again? That is how the treatment to the immigrant?
Refer to summary argument 4, 5 Complain. Strike out the illegal contract the deed of settlement and release if NZ is a lawful country.
Refer to 6, Could the defendant show the plaintiff where the illegal deed of settlement said that the plaintiff has to pay 38% of tax rate? Where the deed said it is the defendant’s right to file the notice of discontinues? The defendant not only can’t find any in the deed settlement is the breach party of the deed and also it is against the law to instruct the plaintiff to accept the illegal deed of settlement and release.
Refer to 6.1, 6.2 No. It is nonsense of the defendant. The court should exercise its power to strike out/dismiss the defendant nonsense and to exercise it power for immediately judgment by default for the case CIV-2009-092-1072.
Refer to Background 7
Refer to 7, As the defendant admits my employment with the Ministry of Social Development is from 15 October 2007 to 23 December 2008, so definitely I am a lawful employee of the Ministry. So the manager authorized the NZ Police to violently arrest me with handcuffs on both my hands for trespass is totally illegal and criminal offending. They had to take all the liability for the damage i.e. humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings ets.
Refer to 8 The person is not my manager. My manager is kicked off by this manager include all our team. Have any of you ever seen such cruel manager that by making the false allegation, authorized the NZ Police violently arrested me with handcuffs on both my hands for trespass. I am pretty sure none of you would support such territories manager, especial every one need employment to support our lives. Making the false allegation to the Police and Court, lawyer and judge to abuse all the legal process, it is one of most serious crime if this kind criminal person doesn’t need to punish by the law how we could find a safety and healthy life. We have to worry every day who would make the false allegation about me? And we have to spend long time and spend a lot of money to declare for ourselves incense and victim. You know if we don’t have the money to engage a lawyer then have to bring the charge with me all my life. That means there would be a lot of cases like David Barn. He spent 17 years in the prison. My God. And what’s more even I have the employment agreement such a clear case but so hard to get sorted out and especially there are lot of employments in NZ we even don’t have an agreement. How could we defend for ourselves? I hope the judge reconsider about it!
I as an employee didn’t do anything wrong only require a review of my performance assessment but the manager abused me until make the false allegation, violently arrested me with handcuff and also got the reason unjustified dismiss me. Is it employment or territories?
Refer to 9,10,11,12,13,14.1,2,15,1,2, 3,4, 16 Striking out/dismissing the illegal contract deed of settlement and release and not come back any more if NZ is a lawful country. An illegal contract is dismissed by the law even if some one said she is a manager of the court it is useless. Manager is not the Law. No one should be above the law.
Refer to principles of strike-out and dismissal
Refer to 17,18,19,20,22,23,24.25 Complain. Irrelevant examples shouldn’t be discussed for this proceeding but to strike out to rubbish bin. This proceeding is never an abuse of process of the court. It is only nonsense of the defendant.
Refer to 26, The law we should rely on is Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal Contract 1970 but not the nonsense of the defendant here. Illegal contract not only cancelled by the law and also the plaintiff didn’t need to accept this illegal contract deed of settlement and release.
Refer to 28,29,30,31 Strike out this illegal contract deed of settlement and release and not come back any more to abuse the judge and court.
Refer to 32 As soon as the plaintiff found the deed of settlement is an illegal contract and unlawful settlement of a complaint any party or person should comply with the law. Strike out/ kick out the lawyer from the court if he from Crown Law doesn’t know Human Rights Act 1993 and Illegal Contract Act 1970.
Refer to 33, 34,35,36,37 As soon as the plaintiff found it is an illegal contract. She immediately refused to go on because everyone must comply with the law. So strike out/dismiss the illegal contract deed of settlement and release. If any party goes on and on it is the serious abuse the legal process of the court.
Refer to appropriate remedy
Refer to 38, Is it the true example that How NZ Government Department in front of the court abuses the immigrant. It is the law said clearly the deed of settlement is an illegal contract and unlawful settlement of complaint. Everyone must comply with the law no argument necessary here. Based on that the defendant perform continuing or repeating the breach or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in conduct the same kind as that constituting the breach or conduct of any similar kind specified an order needed urgently to the defendant.
Refer to 38, 39.1,2,3, and 40 Illegal contract stricken out by the law no argument necessary here.
Refer to conclusion 41, 42,43,44,45, Illegal contract stricken out by the law no argument necessary here in the court otherwise in front of the judge and court instruct the plaintiff about the illegal contract is exactly an abuse of the legal process and abuse the NZ Judicial System.
Refer to Defendant’s notice of opposition to plaintiff’s application dated 10 September 2009 for summary judgment 24 September 2009.
Refer to the ground on which the defendant opposes the making of the order are that: 1:
It is the Human Rights Act and Illegal Contract Act said the deed of settlement is an illegal contract and strikes out/dismiss by the law.
Refer to 2 As the defendant said that defendant refused to reply to her interrogatories dated 17 September 2009, Pursuant to the 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.
Non co-operation In the event of non co-operation in the exchange of information and documentation, the solicitor for the non-default party should immediately seek a conference. In the absence of good reason to the contrary, peremptory orders requiring the offending party remedy the default and pay appropriate costs will be made. So that the plaintiff awards the right for default and summary judgment is due the time. I the plaintiff require the judge and court to grant the plaintiff’s judgment immediately to show that the
Refer to 3, The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment is just based on the defendant has no arguable defence otherwise what is your arguable defence? Do you mean that NZ Justice Corruption, unjustified or unfair? Do you mean if the manager of the court supported the defendant then you don’t need to comply with the law? Or do you mean you could strike out the NZ Human Rights Act and Illegal Contract Act? Because the defendant is the NZ Powerful Government Department they are the law? Or No NZ Law could bind to the defendant because they are the Ministry of Social Development? Or do you mean that NZ law is not for immigrant? I am looking forward to your arguable defence?
Refer to 4 Please be aware defendant you already admit that the employee of the Ministry Katie Musk made the false allegation about the plaintiff. And the plaintiff has the evidence from NZ Police, Police Complain Authority, District Court Wellington and Wellington Free Ambulance could support that all the false allegation made by the defendant the Ministry of Social Development. It is you the defendant authorized the 111 Police to violently arrest the lawful employee and agreed the charges of trespass and resisting arrest. Because of the false allegation, malicious prosecution and defamation caused the plaintiff violently arrested, unlawful handcuffed, unlawfully been custody and imprisonment and charged for trespass and resisting arrest. And you the defendant also require the bail for the plaintiff can’t go to, close to or contact any colleagues of the Ministry because the plaintiff is a trespass to the Ministry of Social Development? Can you deny? No, you can’t.
Refer to 5 The plaintiff awarded the right for summary judgment by the District Court Rules and Official Document from the District Court. You can’t deny the right the District Court award to the plaintiff.
Refer to 6 No. The District Court due has the jurisdiction for the case CIV-2009-092-1072.
Refer to 7 No. The plaintiff’s application does comply with the requirements of the District Court Rules: Rule 151, 152 (2), 153. What the defendant said 154(2), Rule 154(5), Rule 157 is not fit for the case CIV-2009-092-1072 because the plaintiff already filed and served the defendant.
Refer to 8 pursuant to the District Court Rules Notice of opposition affidavit in answer apply to any court cases no one could be exclude. So that the defendant’s notice of opposition to plaintiff’s application dated 10 September 2009 for summary judgment is invalid by the District Court Rule. So the plaintiff could be looking forward to get the summary judgment by the court at court hearing on 30 September 2009.
UPON THE GROUNDS:
This application is made in reliance and under
Defamation Act 1992
Summary Offences Act 1981
Criminal Act 1961
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.
28 September 2009
