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(1,3),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 11th August 2016 [correction on 14/10/16]

______________________________________________________________________

(APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING CIVIL) APPEAL, incl.:

ORIGINAL STATEMENT OF CLAIM with

APPEAL’S QUESTIONS OF LAW and
ARGUMENTATION,
(Relief Request: Nullifying of Antidemocratic S.24 Local Electoral Act)

AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT TO DISMISS

THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM (CIV-2016-418-020)
(also by refusing to recuse/remove judge Nation from this case);

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

______________________________________________________________________

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

AND TO The Registrar, High Court, P.O.Box 29, Greymouth
AND TO R via the Governor-General, Government House, Wellington
AND TO The General Public
ALSO TO The German Embassy and German Media
 APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF LAW WITH ARGUMENTATION
The defendant is as officer(s) of the crown correctly named as the
defendant, and the requested relief remedy is statutorily available
(see Appendix H, additional argumentation points [4,5]).
The following original Statement of Claim (6/6/2016) is inserted
unchanged at this place as the appeal’s narrative of the facts
(“Situation”) with Questions of Law and Argumentation (R.20(2)) !

CONTENTS page
Chronological Summary of Proceedings for the Reading Public 2
-----------------Original Statement of Claim CIV-2016-418-020---------------
Questions of law 3

Maximum Public Importance/Interest 3

The Following Relief is Sought 4

Situation 4
Definition of Fascism 5

Argumentation to Constitutional Questions of Law 5

Principles of Natural Justice requires Definition 5
BORA Interpretation According to its General Purpose 6
Case Law Quotations 6

Specific Argumentation to the Main Constitutional Question of Law 7

Examples of Damaging Effects of S.24 – (S)election Method Bias 8

Remark to the General Public 9

Appendix A : Chronologic Summary of the 1080 Case, with Questions of

Law
Appendix B : Examination of SS.4,5-Bill-of-Rights decision [2015] NZHC
1706 (pages 1-2), and detailed argumentation with Appeal-Court case law
proving the BORA to be a constitutional law contrary to the common
invalidating interpretation of S.4 (pages 3-6)
Appendix C : Universal Democracy Constitution showing the Bill of Rights
Act’s central constitutional character in a constitutional democracy
Appendix D : Enrolment Form for Ratepayer Elections, and newspaper
advertisement “Wherever you pay rates it pays to vote”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix E : Interlocutory application “without notice” for an injunction
(dated 24/6/2016) [added]
Appendix F : Application “without notice” for proceeding and
determination after defendant’s failure to file Statement of Defence, there
being no defence (dated 15/7/2016) [added]
Appendix G : Application for recusal of judge Nation (dated 4/8/16)
Appendix H : Addition to Statement-of-Claim Argumentation for
Immediate Determination, After Recusal of judge Nation (dated 4/8/2016);
Natural-Justice Principles [added]
Appendix J : Comparison of Statement-of-Claim headings [added]
[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 (see below) 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 (see Appendix E).
[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 (Appendix F).
[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, but without re-installing the appellant’s appeal rights (see
Appendix G) -- 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 (see Appendix H)!
[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 (see
Appendices J,K); 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 this very urgent direct appeal to the
Supreme Court – but, of course, with informing the international Public...
New Zealand court decisions can be viewed on www.NZLII.org/databases

This is the extreme proof that the British-NZ monarch actively prevents
Democracy, Human Rights and Justice, as these royals have always
done in the past 1000 years! There is no such thing as a benign monarchy or
civil war – Let’s not hope that IS realizes the true cause for its primitive
sub-human violence, and covers these royals with blasts, should we?
Paramount Constitutional Question of Law (Natural-Justice definition)

[1] Should precedence case law under the Bill of Rights Act be
started by defining/interpreting Principles of “Natural Justice” per
SS.6,27(1) Bill of Rights Act 1990 BORA and S.105(1,2(a)) Human
Rights Act 1993 HRA according to article 2.1. of the Universal
Democracy Constitution, in order to reduce the monarch’s courts’
totalitarian at-will discriminatory discretion:

Natural: Following the logical causal chain, arranging real causes/

events and their real results/consequences in the time-correct
sequence; It does not mean first-past-the-post, virtual or mad!
Justice: Balance of the adherence to reasonable agreements,
including democratically originated laws, under the safeguarding
frame of this constitutional NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990; It includes
correction of breaches with compensation of victims as one part, with
the aim to prevent repetition of breaches ?

Priority Constitutional Question of Law (BORA interpretation direction)

[2] 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?
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?

Main Constitutional Question of law

[3] 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)?

Maximum Public Importance/Interest

[4] The maximum public (and thus also private) interest is the enabling and
upholding of democracy and its democracy-safeguarding laws as shown by
these 3 constitutional BORA law questions, which must be enacted to nullify
the democracy-disabling S.24 Local Electoral Act.
There cannot be higher public-interest law issues, as the next step would be
a revolution with violent reprisals against the fascistic royals and their
judicial might-is-right prostitutes, regardless of any thus invalidated law etc.!
The Following Relief is Sought:

[4.1] S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001should be nullified, as it is not even

necessary for enabling constitutional democratic local-body elections! A
speedy nullification would not require a new enrolment or candidacy
process, as S.24 - enrolments can be cancelled during validation process.

Enclosed is an Application for Injunction to prevent extreme costs, delays

and un-/anti-democratic decisions of unlawfully constituted
councils/boards under use of this unconstitutional S.24.

Situation

[5] The situation that S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001 unconstitutionally
allows is best described by a following Letter to the Editor with the headline

“Democracy Crisis, not Housing Crisis:

Your government is now advertising that you have more local-election votes,
“one” in each district where you own a property. Your government
enshrined this in law.

Those who got more income and therefore more properties due to the back-
scratching help of mates in brotherhood associations have more votes than
anyone else, relatively seen. And even more votes, one per district/regional
board/council where any company/organization which they control (alone
or with brotherhood mates, directly or via other companies incl. banks) pays
rates for a property – where is the limit? How to verify fast-changing
ownership/shareholdings… There is no independent multi-party secret-
postal-ballot check, only council-appointed electoral officers…

Such voting organisations could directly include fascistic freemason lodges

or trusts, including foreign-owned tax-dodging Panama-Papers trusts, using
NZ brotherhood middlemen as ratepayer electors!
This in turn is helping even more brotherhood mates into high-salary
positions, once brothers sit on local councils, health boards and other
‘Community’ boards – a pyramid scheme would blush…

Only ignorants would call this ‘oligarchy’ or rule by the rich, because rule by
elitary organized brotherhood is called fascism – This is the true nature of
your monarchy. I know, you are convinced that this is royal democracy, end
of debate!
Such law is unconstitutional in Germany’s democracy, that’s why it hasn’t got
an Auckland - NZ housing crisis… “

[The monarchy’s allowance of such antidemocratic local electoral laws

explains the special status of the City of London, where corporations and
other organisations (incl. stock exchange, accountants’ association and the
freemason lodge) outnumber the residents of this London’s central business
district, so that democracy has been prevented for centuries behind rituals.]
Definition of Fascism (per German Duden dictionary and Wikipedia)

[5.1] Definition: A nationalistic, antidemocratic right-radical movement/

ideology according to the leader principle; a totalitarian form of rule.

[5.2] Origin: Italian fascism, fascio is a close-knit association/club, or the

power symbol of a bundle of rods for high roman officials; faszes were
worn by fascists as gang patch.

[5.3] Explanation: International freemasons are a secretive gang using

secret recognitions instead of gang patches (eg. a blue forget-me-not during
Nazi times), and have a hierarchical pyramid structure with the leader or
even a monarch as crown (the British/NZ monarch is associated to fascistic
freemasonry via freemason princes); The international Rotary and Lions
business clubs follow the same 3 principles, and were founded in pre-Al-
Capone Chicago-gangster-city as soft freemason alternatives (the Rotary
Club by the freemason lawyer Harris…); The strong secrecy even within the
hierarchy allows sacrificing of lower ranks, eg. as wartime canon fodder…

Argumentation to the Constitutional Questions of Law

Principles of Natural Justice requires Natural-Justice Definition

[6] (to question of law [1]) This is a self-answering rhetorical question,

and it is at least the 7th time that such fundamental Natural-Justice definition
is requested from the monarch’s judiciary, because Natural Justice has never
been defined in the monarchy’s legal system, and Legal Definitions
(Butterworth) do not contain such definition, but only the pre-condition of
the right to present a defence or case. The constitutional BORA S.27(1)
elevates Natural Justice to be the foundation of the judicial purpose, and S.6
requires Natural Justice to be interpreted in line with the wording of the
BORA! Therefore the courts need first to establish such a definition, in
order to prevent the corrupt primitivity of effectively invalidating language
and Parliament’s laws, including the constitutional BORA!
This is the only available reasonable all-including definition in line with the
Bill of Rights BORA, and has therefore to be applied and settled in case law.
This is also necessary in order to determine/define Natural-Justice principles
per S.105(1,2(a)) Human Rights Act so that this law section becomes valid in
law praxis! Adhering to reasonable wordings of laws is the fundamental
Natural-Justice principle!
APPENDIX C Universal Democracy Constitution (also available on the
internet as [pdf] 2.615) shows the constitutionality of the BORA, even
though the monarch’s fascistic judges try to ignore it…
BORA Interpretation According to its General Purpose

[7] (to question of law [2]) The Bill of Rights and the Local Electoral
Acts’ main purpose is to prevent fascistic totalitarian dictatorship regimes
like the Nazi regime and (hereditary) fascistic dictatorships incl. the
British/NZ monarchy, as such generally cause severe damage to individuals
and the wider world population/environment!
As such regimes usually use (secretive) fascistic democracy-preventing
brotherhood structures with strong hierarchies and violent/ruthless
enforcement, it is this potential that these laws are meant to prevent!
[7.1] Due to the necessarily secret ballot, it is impossible to obtain hard
evidence of the anti-democratic far-right shift due to multiple-votes of
multiple-property owners; The preventative BORA makes such evidence
unnecessary, because once such evidence can be obtained under current S.24
LEA practice, only a D-day invasion of NZ could correct the situation… In
this way the presented logical-theoretical potential suffices as evidence!
Therefore the BORA itself, as well as all other laws, must be interpreted in
favour of restricting and preventing such fascistic regimes, which is
democratic elections’ very purpose!
This interpretation frame is to be preferred over any other
interpretation according to S.6 BORA, and applies also to SS.5,28!:

[8] Only where laws’ interpretations cannot remove the conflict with the
above anti-fascism protection should S.5 be invoked to alter the conflicting
law in a minimalistic way (see point [9.5].
Appendix B examines the case example of the SS.4,5-Bill-of-Rights decision
[2015] NZHC 1706 that determined the Electoral-Act amendment, which
prevents all prisoners (incl. those with a prison sentence of less than 3 years
who could previously vote) from voting in democratic General Elections, as
unjustifiable per S.5 BORA! It then argues for the necessary law alteration by
the judiciary, because the situation cannot be worse – which this very case
proves... -- After all, the monarch’s courts usually feel free to invalidate most
of NZ’s rights-providing laws incl. statutory appeal provisions to the
Appeal/Supreme Court in order to uphold rule by fascist mates (see also
Appendix A “Chronologic Summary of the 1080 Case, with Questions of
Law”)…

Case Law Quotations

[9] Appendix B page 5 is inserted here; It is a summary of relevant quotes

of the 1992 Appeal Court majority decision for law interpretations to be in
line with the BORA. Noteworthy is following:
[9.1] Quote 3) shows that it is not the correct approach to “develop” the
law (incl. case law) by preserving the status quo.
It is erroneous in law to rely on English “common”-law case law, because
royal-colonial-fascistic motherland England has not yet achieved a
constitutional BORA with its S.6 interpretation direction due to a monarchic
lack of democracy (status quo); It cannot even achieve the democracy
minimum of proportional parliamentary representation…
[9.2] Quote 4) shows that BORA’s democratic values are relevant, not
royal-judicial might-is-right.
[9.3] Quote 5) shows that S.6 BORA (interpretation direction) applies also
to BORA itself, “as a duty of the courts”, synonymous to “must” in quote 6.
[9.4] Quote 6) shows that consistency with BORA “… must be done even
if it involves departure from previous interpretations” (“orthodoxy”…).
[9.5] Quote 7) shows that interpretation consistency with the BORA “…is
to be preferred.”, which is synonymous to “must” in quote 6. “And so it is
only where consistency cannot fairly be found that S.4 [and thus S.5] will
apply.”
[9.6] Consequently, as there are no other reasonably BORA-consistent
interpretations presented or even available at all, the wordings of S.27(1)
BORA (Natural Justice) has to be applied according to the appellant’s
definition/interpretation in line with the BORA!

Specific Argumentation to the Main Constitutional Question of Law

[10] S.3(d) Local Electoral Act states that the purpose of this Act is to
implement the principles set out in S.4; S.4(1(a,c(iv))) in turn states that the
principles that this Act is designed to implement are the fair and effective
representation for individuals and communities, and the public confidence
in, and understanding of, […] the provision of transparent electoral systems
and voting methods… “Fair” must mean democratic in this context:
According to Oxford dictionary 10th edition, it means “treating people
equally/just or appropriate in the circumstances; moderately good”.
[10.1] This is in stark contrast to the reality described in point [5] (a Letter
to the Editor) that proves this purpose to have been deceitfully disabled by
design! A hidden bias towards secret fascistic brotherhoods cannot be
justified as a fair, effective and transparent representation for other
individuals and communities, and must be removed by invoking S.5 BORA
(see points [7,8]). Such bias will be used when the brotherhood considers it
necessary for implementing or upholding its absolute rule, as District
Councils can even create enforceable rights-limiting/removing bylaws – its
secretive network (commonly called “the old-boys’ network”) and strong
cohesion makes such enacting of bias feasible, while non-satanic altruistic
community organisations cannot and usually do not want to achieve such
devious manipulation of this unclear/unfair electoral system via S.24 LEA.

[11] Tenants are the true inherent ratepayers for the properties they rent, so
are workers for the employer’s business properties on or with which they
work to create the $-turnover; According to S.24 LEA they undemocratically
cannot elect the ratepayer-elector nominees for those properties…

[12] This S.24 reduces philosophies that transcend inferior wealth- and
property accumulation, like that of true Christians, Buddhists, Mahatma
Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, etc., to irrelevant serfdom for egocentric power
exertion, and asks for a revolution. It is already bad enough that rates are
based on property (incl. houses) evaluation and have therefore a philosophy-
reducing mainstreaming effect dictated by rich property owners and
speculators that drive people from their homes in eg. Auckland, effectively
“cleansing” that city from philosophies that the egocentric rich consider
undesirable. A free and democratic society per S.5 BORA cannot evolve
under such circumstances without a (usually violent) revolution!

[13] S.24 is not justifiable in a free and democratic society per S.5 BORA,
regardless whether Parliament or a referendum disabled this inherent
fundamental democratic right via simple first-past-the-post or even absolute
majority, because such right is the priority reason for the BORA, and similar
democracy constitutions in democratic republics like Germany! They would
otherwise cease to be aspiring free and democratic societies – which is the
reason for NZ’s/Britain’s monarch (which disables its own election) not to
actively enable and uphold such constitutional provisions like proportional
representation in Britain and the BORA in NZ…
Once such democratic right is disabled by deceiving the General Public into
voting it away, only a (usually violent) revolution can return a democracy.

Examples of Damaging Effects of S.24 – (S)election Method Bias

[14] As a consequence of this (s)election bias toward fascistic wealthy

persons by S.24 LEA, the constellation of the selected council/board
members cannot reflect/represent the true philosophy range of the local
populations and their minorities (or other even bigger groups that are not on
the political right-wing spectrum, especially environmentalists).
[14.1] The resulting lack of restricting councilor voices against building of
high-rise towers in Christchurch explains the huge earthquake damage and
loss of lives, where the platforms of these phallic high-rise towers oscillated
in opposite direction and amplified the amplitude for the smaller buildings
in-between, causing their excessive damage or even collapse (like the CTV
building crushing the victims).
[14.2] Similarly, developers (or better “retards”?) are given most what they
want, eg. profitable irrigation-scheme resource consents that already now
result in water shortages for others, while farmers uncontrollably pollute
rivers and lakes with run-off fertilizers, and bury their waste (incl. hazardous
waste) on the farms, considered as “less-than-minor-effects-on-the-
environment” by regional councils’ unlawful Resource-Management-Act
interpretation; This is whitewashed by deliberately incompetent (corrupt)
judges in costly court challenges that discourage objectors.
[14.3] So they also do for the reckless endangering of the General Public
during the areal dropping of the strongest purpose-made chemical-warfare
poison 1080 (researched by the Nazis!), where these councils violate their
self-made and self-applied resource consents with impunity (see Appendix A
“Chronologic Summary of the 1080 Case, with Questions of Law”).
[14.4] In Auckland, which is contrary to rural areas majorly politically ‘left’,
the freemason fascist and former police minister John Banks repeatedly
obtained the mayor position, until Dotcom’s evidence convicted him of
evading Local-Electoral-Act’s donation declarations (which was then
whitewashed by Appeal-Court brothers against the public interest).
The social and environmental damages accumulate from all corners,
removing the wider society’s (incl. retards and farmers) freedoms even
further…
Harihari, this (6st June) 11th August 2016 …..………………………….
(Fritz Fehling, Appellant)

Remark to the General Public

[15] Local Elections should be held at the same date and ballot places as
Parliamentary General Elections, because this would remove wasteful
duplication of eligibility validations, while enabling the same independent
vote-counting checks – once representatives of the involved political parties
can actively participate in the vote-verification process, which is not possible
at present…

R is the correct defendant, because it is unfeasible to involve every electable

district body that has no jurisdiction over the invalidity of S.24 LEA.

R via its fascistic 1994 Governor-General (a former Appeal-Court judge; this

name also demonstrates a lack of democracy…) refused to interfere when
the General Public’s referendum for proportional parliamentary
representation made the first-past-the-post 1994 government unlawful per
S.5 BORA. He wrote that the crown would only interfere in exceptional
circumstances (now the extreme hurdle for “undesirable” Supreme-Court
Appeals), leaving only a violent revolution as interpretation…

Let’s get the revolution started!

The distribution of this fundamental argumentation over the internet will

introduce constitutionally safeguarded democracy proportionally; The
Universal Democracy Constitution (available on the internet via [pdf]
2.615) provides a blueprint derived from German Basic Law, Canadian/New
Zealand Bill of Rights and Swiss Constitution. This will not cause violence,
but the lack of pro-democracy actions and honour (honesty) of the inert
royals and their criminal-fascistic freemason gang will, have always done so;
They are used to violence as a systemic tool, and they sadistic-primitively
love it, because mentally growing-up is just too difficult for these spoilt brats
raised on golden spoons (they believe in themselves being gods, having
reduced the Christian god to inferior status of “lord”) …