IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

APPEAL NO. SC /2016 [SC 103 ?/2016]

UNDER SS.8,13(1,2(a)),14 Supreme Court Act,

SS.27(1,2,3),5 Bill of Rights Act 1990;

IN THE MATTER OF S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001

BETWEEN Friedrich Joachim Fehling,

P.O.Box 95, Harihari 7863, NZ,
engineer against royal corruption for the
GENERAL PUBLIC’s interest,
Appellant, in person

AND R (also called Regina (Rex), Queen

(King), the Crown, Elizabeth Windsor),
Buckingham Palace, London, England,
Representative: Governor-General,
Government House, Wellington, NZ,
Respondent

DATED 7th September 2016 (corrected 14/10/16)

______________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM WITH FURTHER PROOF OF “PRE”JUDICIAL DISMISSAL

OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL (LOCAL) DEMOCRACY CLAIM
______________________________________________________________________

TO The Registrar, Supreme Court, 85 Lambton Quay, Wellington

AND TO R via the Governor-General, Government House, Wellington

AND TO The General Public

ALSO TO The German Embassy and German Media
MEMORANDUM, FURTHER PROOFS OF “PRE”JUDICIAL
DISMISSAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY CLAIM

[0.] Chronological Summary of Proceedings for the Reading Public

[0.1] On 10/6/16 this case was started by personally filing the original
Statement of Claim with proper notification of the defendant and
application for injunction to ensure the upcoming local elections in
September being democratic for the first time. The defendant had to file a
Statement of Defence within 25 working days; a failure would normally
count as admission of validity of & liability to the claim.
[0.2] The defendant’s court delayed the official filing and refused to
accept the injunction; this was due to insufficient judge-made High-Court
rules intended to disadvantage self-represented plaintiff ’s.
[0.3] On 15/7/16 an application to immediately determine the claim was
filed due to the defendant’s failure to file any response.
[0.4] In a list hearing on 25/7/16 the judge declined any injunction, saying
that the plaintiff did not notify the crown law office, which is neither the
defendant, nor had it been named as legal representative – no response at
all had been filed! This office was given 10 more days to file a response.
[0.5] On 4/8/16 reception of the written minute of that hearing revealed
judge Nation, who acted in a conflict of interest due to his involvement in
preventing a lawful appeal (similarly without any response/defence!),
overruling the Bill of Rights Act and statutory appeal provisions by judging
that 15 questions of law on appeal (incl. the first 2 law questions of this
very claim) were irrelevant matters of fact; This was proven unlawful by the
Supreme Court, stating that they were questions of fact & law, but without
re-installing the appellant’s appeal rights -- The Supreme Court unlawfully
altered the statutory direct appeal provision of “exceptional circumstances”
into “extremely compelling exceptional circumstances” that could only be
fulfilled by a forceful revolution bypassing court appeals...
[0.6] On 5/8/16 the plaintiff filed additional procedure argumentation for
immediate determination of this claim, because the defendant failed to file
any response for the 2nd time in time!
[0.7] The court only orally informed the plaintiff of an extension of this
time limit, after he informed it… A response finally arrived on 10/8/16; it
informed the plaintiff about the refusal of Judge Nation to recuse himself...
[0.8] Contrary to High-Court rules, this response also altered the case’s
heading, omitting the Bill-of-Rights-Act sections under which it is brought,
similar to the judge’s minute. This concerted abuse of process paired with a
strike-out application was aimed at covering-up the impossibility of a
reasonable defence, preventing public attention and lawful judgment; It
therefore deals with a virtual case that misuses the plaintiff ’s name,
effectively unlawfully dismissing the original Statement of Claim, making
his participation impossible against Natural Justice, and leaving him with
the only option to file the very urgent max.-priority direct appeal to the
Supreme Court – but, of course, with informing the international Public...
[0.9] On 30/8 judge Nation announced a further delay of at least 3 weeks
for an unnecessary in-person strike-out hearing, past the vote counting date
(all proofs must have been provided with the original application!) He
raised matters needing correction by this very memorandum.
Proofs of Prejudicial Dismissal of Claim

[1] In [2016] NZHC 2026 judge Nation (jN) declines interim injunction in
such way as to evidently prove that he already decided to dismiss the original
claim, in addition to the previous omission of the proper Bill-of-Rights
(BORA) law-foundation heading of this case:
[2] At [25] his case-law quotation implies that the plaintiff ’s claim has no
real prospect of succeeding; As this lacks any proof, it can only mean that
NZ’s statutory laws (esp. BORA) are invalidated as per royal might-is-right.
[3] At [26] his case-law quotation implies that the law can give the plaintiff
no remedy. As this lacks any proof, it can only mean that NZ’s statutory laws
(esp. BORA) are invalidated as per royal might-is-right. (see case laws below)
[4] At [26] his English case-law quotation implies that the claim is frivolous
and vexatious, and that there is no serious question to be tried; Again, as this
lacks any proof, it can only mean that NZ’s statutory laws (esp. BORA) are
invalidated as per royal might-is-right. The claim contains 3 constitutional
questions of law in bold print, with question marks, 2 of them have been
previously proven as such by the Supreme Court against his own and the
Appeal Court’s judgment; The 3rd constitutional main question of law reads:
“Is the antidemocratic fascism-enabling S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001
(LEA) a reasonable democratic-right limitation per SS.5,28
Constitutional BORA 1990 as can be demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society (e.g. NZ’s proclaimed and intended society)?”
At [14] jN shows his and the defendant’s knowledge of this serious law
question, proving himself deliberately inconsistent/incompetent, also called
corrupt.
[5] At [28,29] he uses this English case law that omits the public’s human-
rights interests/convenience, thus invalidating S.15(2) Constitution Act 1986
and the BORA (esp. SS.5,6 democracy and interpretation direction) and all
other NZ statutory laws -- as is royal might-is-right law of the past 1000
years until a revolution corrects this! This proves that he dismissed the
claim’s 1st and 2nd constitutional law questions; the latter reads:
Have the interpretations of SS.5,27(1,3) (incl. Natural Justice)
Constitutional Bill of Rights Act 1990 BORA to be in line with S.6
BORA? And related subquestion of law:
Is the constitutional BORA case law [1992] 3NZLR 260 CA Court of
Appeal a valid case law or mere window-dressing for royal-fascistic
might-is-right, and are case examples of S.6-BORA-free jurisdictions
admissible for law interpretations required to be in line with BORA?
(Such English case-law trick had been unlawfully used before in a Human-
Rights-Act appeal, where he unlawfully disabled an appeal (see point 0.5)!

[2000] NZCA 403, esp. at [51,54,55], the Canadian example sounds

reasonable, but does not contain regard to S.5 BORA’s “demonstrably
justifiable in a free and democratic society”
[2012] NZCA 184, esp. at [143] variation of S.5 guidelines, [153] Canadian
example requires laws not to impair rights more than necessary, and
overruling is possible, if govt fails to explain why a significant less human-
rights intrusive and similarly effective measure was not chosen
Proof of Defendant’s Abuse of Court Process, and jN’s collusion

[6] The defendant applied for an open-court-hearing-preventing strike-out,

without providing the required “clearly-untenable” proof, but claiming an
abuse of process by the plaintiff -- again without any other proof than the
defendant’s own frivolous, vexatious and malicious abuse of process (by
pretending that the claim were not understandable, as proven false by the
transcript of list hearing on 25/7 and jN at [14]!).
Now jN colludes with the defendant’s abuse of process and enables an
unnecessary, costly and time-consuming in-person strike-out hearing, while
forbidding the plaintiff ’s abuse-of-process-motif argument at [40,43]
(“…the general practice and interest of this private law firm serving as
crown law office to induce costly extended proceedings, lining its monetary
pockets in a frivolous, vexatious and malicious abuse of process”) as
“offensive”. Here it must be noted that NZ judges had to be practicing
lawyers for at least 7 years, usually having used such abuse-of-process tactics
themselves, and most are consequently seriously compromised/corrupted!
[7] Quoting point [4] of plaintiff ’s memorandum dated 16/8/16:
“As the Statement of Claim raises only law matters, neither requiring (guilty)
pleas by, nor compensation against, nor credibility/character assessments of,
the defendant, the raised matters in relation to the requested relief cannot be
prejudicial against the defendant -- In any case: truthful words are
enduringly judicial, not pre-judicial!!!”
Furthermore, it can be added that the defendant as head of state has no
personal interest in local elections – esp. not in being (dis)elected – other
than an unconstitutional enabling/upholding of monarchy-associated
freemason fascism that this claim constitutionally aims to prevent/reduce.
[8] For such a constitutional court matter it is inappropriate as a defence to
pretend an on-the-face offended-feeling of a child-like brat.

Extreme Curbing of Natural-Justice Court Process

[9] At [37] jN describes the lawful serving of court documents to the

defendant, informing about and proving its own abuse of its constitutional
position and that of the democratic public’s, as an abuse of the defendant’s
constitutional position! These documents also inform the defendant about
the abuse of process by its crown lawyers, in case it didn’t already know,
while it never issued the required Statement of Defence with the naming
and address of its lawyers. Therefore the plaintiff continues to inform the
defendant, now in addition to its crown lawyers, regardless of the judge’s
direction that proves his unconstitutional extreme bias in favour of the
defendant (see point [11.2.2] Oxford definition of prostitution below)!

[10] The formal-High-Court-Rules Notice of Proceeding states that the 25

working-day limit for filing a Statement of Defence begins with the serving
of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, not with the incorrectly
delayed acceptance of it by the defendant’s court registry.
As jN has examined in the list hearing, this serving occurred on 13/6/16,
and not on 28/6/16, and this time limit was provenly exceeded by at least 3
weeks – and still is, due to the lack of any possible reasonable defence!
Such repeated failure could have meant the defendant’s agreement to the
claim, and should have led to the strike-out of the unreasoned strike-out
application, with judgment in favour of the Claim and the General Public!

Extreme Bias Declares Truthful NZ Oxford Definition as Offensive

[11] JN quoted at [38,41] the plaintiff ’s language (“… the fascistic royals
and their judicial might-is-right prostitutes”) as being offensive, while
omitting the contextual first part of the quoted sentence: “There cannot be
higher public-interest law issues, as the next step would be a revolution with
violent reprisals against …”
[11.1] This quote gives the judges the option of determining themselves
whether they are honourable natural-justice-applying conscientious
professionals, or have the above-quoted character (which they apparently
chose through their invalidation of statutory appeal provisions and thus all
other laws…).
[11.2] The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary 2005 offers 2 relevant
definitions of “prostitution”:
[11.2.1] misuse of one’s talent, skills etc. [here: legal skills to prevent natural
justice] for money [here: high judge salary for life];
[11.2.2] a person who debases himself/herself for personal gain [here: incl.
status; debasing means removal of personal individual foundation -- this can
be accomplished by adhering to a fascistic oath of allegiance to a
brotherhood or a monarch, which removes one’s human rights, incl.
democratic self-determination, honesty, and consequently other people’s
rights, statutory laws and natural justice];
This truth is considered offensive language to the monarch’s court judges;
If they choose to dress themselves with that quote (and thus Oxford
dictionary definition), then they would know best how well it fits…
[12] At [39] jN complains about the expression “NZ judiciary’s fascistic
power-complacency acquired already during childhood under this
monarchy”. This is a true statement by the German plaintiff, having grown
up in a constitutional democracy with a democracy- and rights-safeguarding
Constitution Court, in which fascistic power-complacency is not copied
from an absolute-power-monarch example. The judge’s difficulty is his
upbringing and conditioning under this power monarchy, and that he is
naturally lacking such comparison that could enrich his skills…

Conclusion

[13] The General Public’s saying goes: “If it is too wet/hot for you, get out
of the rain/sun; Translated to the judicial realm it means: “If the truth is too
much for you, get off the judge bench!”

Harihari, this 7th September 2016 ………....………………………….

(Fritz Fehling, Appellant)

The revolution has started!