Unconditional surrender.

More than three years ago, on 31 October 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation began trying to evict Te Ringa Mangu 'Dun' Mihaka from his home, serving him with a 90 day notice under section 51(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, on the basis of a false allegation from another tenant, fuelled by the prejudice and bias of NZ Police.

On 2 December 2014 the Tenancy Tribunal issued an order terminating Mr Mihaka's tenancy and granting possession to Housing New Zealand Corporation from noon the following day, 3 December.  Mr Mihaka was approximately 73 years old at this time.

Nearly 3 years later, on 2 November 2017, Sir David Carruthers issued a carefully worded Minute. following the hearing of an appeal of the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal.  Our response was to challenge the 'Minute' of Judge Walker which is referred to in Judge Carruthers's Minute, inter alia (among other related matters which we are challenging in the various Courts and Tribunals established by the colonial governance structure).  During the hearing it also came to light that Housing New Zealand Corporation had issued not one but two eviction notices, which raised some interesting questions (explored in more detail at the link above).

Preceding this hearing, on 2 October 2017, Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote to Mr Mihaka with an offer of settlement, which was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all his Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation, and promising not to take any further Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation.  Rather ironic, as it was Housing New Zealand Corporation who initiated the litigation in the first place, and played hardball all the way down the line, until long after they realised there was more to these matters than met the eye.

The High Court deemed that the original offer of settlement from Housing Corporation on the condition that he cease his Court action against Housing Corporation and promise not to take them to Court for anything in the future to be blackmail.  The Judge was a former Solicitor General.  Mr Mihaka almost didn't make it into the courtroom to state his case, after he was unlawfully detained in the foyer of the Court for carrying the flag of Te Wakaminenga.

On 28 November 2017 Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote another letter to Mr Mihaka, to say that he can remain in his home, regardless of the conditions proposed in the offer of settlement the previous month, as wisely indicated by Judge Carruthers.

While there is still a very long way to go to any real justice regarding these matters, as documented on this website, we have reached a significant milestone.  The manner in which we have achieved our goals thus far and gained so much ground is much more significant.  We will continue to fight for our rights, and fight for justice and fiduciary accountability, for as long as it takes.

"Justice the seed, peace the flower" - the words on Dun's chosen shirt of the day.

Judge Collins at Wellington High Court 20 November 2017:

Former Solicitor General David Collins heard the matter of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka v Human Rights Review Tribunal and Housing New Zealand Corporation in the High Court at Wellington today (20 November 2017).

At twenty past four Judge Collins issued a Minute which can be read at this link.

It says that under the High Court Rules Mr Mihaka seeks to appeal a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Housing New Zealand [Corporation] have sought security for costs in relation to the appeal, Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent opposed the application for security for costs on the grounds that Mr Mihaka is impecunious.

Judge Collins then noted the matters involving Mr Mihaka's lawyers, which are under
investigation by the Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Police.

Judge Collins noted that Mr Mihaka's efforts to secure the services of a lawyer had been "futile".

Judge Collins mentions "a tranche of litigation" involving Mr Mihaka's dispute with Housing New Zealand Corporation.  He then goes on to say that in the Court's assessment it is better to have these matters properly ventilated as expeditiously as possible.  He has allocated a one hour fixture on 28th February,

Mr Max Clarke-Parker for Meredith Connell on behalf of Housing New Zealand did his job.  Mr Mihaka and his agent enjoyed a korero with Mr Clarke-Parker after our appearance before Judge Collins, this korero was very constructive.

Of particular note were the actions of the young(ish) security guards at the High Court today.  While the more mature guard, Richard, was downstairs these young oafs told Mr Mihaka he couldn't take "that" in to the Court, pointing at his tokotoko (walking stick).

When Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent questioned this, and asked if the guards enforced this ban on everyone using a walking stick or just our 'Maori' kaumatua, the guard replied that it wasn't the actual walking stick he was referring to as "that", it was the flag thereon.

When Mr Mihaka and the Maori Agent expressed incredulity at this and asked the guard what was so bad about the flag he replied "Well we can't have him waving it around in there."

The Maori Agent said "We'll see about that" and went to the Courtroom to tell the Judge that Mr Mihaka had been detained in the Court foyer.

The guard then entered the Courtroom, and asked to see Judge Collins out the back - it was already a chambers list hearing.  After the little tete a tete they returned and Judge Collins said it was fine for Mr Mihaka to bring his toko toko and his flag into the Court which we did, without further incident.

The 1835 flag has never been decommissioned, and according to Te Tiriti o Waitangi tangata whenua are guaranteed unrestricted use of and access to ALL our taonga, including our flag.

Ironically, the Court coat of arms features a (usually blonde) female holding a British flag, and a Maori gentleman holding a taiaha.

Our tipuna Hone Heke chopped down the flagpole three times because the British refused to honour our flag - our taonga - and fly it alongside the British flag of "New Zealand" - a country allegedly named by a Dutchman who never set foot on this land!

John Key spent twenty six million dollars trying to con everyone into thinking 'New Zealand' only had one flag - we need to honour the original flag and honour the treaty.

High Court Submissions on appeal:

Weapons of law

Submissions regarding appeal to High Court of decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal

CIV-2017-485-736

1.     The appellant appealed the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal for good reasons.  The appellant is 76 years old and due to issues including his health and a new road route between his home in Paraparaumu and the Court in Poneke he was late to the last Court fixture although he made every effort to be present for the Court sitting.

2.    At that sitting the Human Rights Review Tribunal were apparently struck out or removed as respondents.  The appellant strongly opposes this and reasserts his appeal of the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal dated 4 April 2017.

3.    Page 47 of the transcript of the hearing of the Human Rights Review Tribunal shows that the hearing reconvened on that the 4th April following the recusal of Ken Shirley the previous day. 

4.    Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Mr Mihaka successfully applied for the recusal of Ken Shirley over the racist rant he wrote in the Herald the Chairperson, Rodger Haines QC, drafted in a Ms Wendy Gilchrist for the second day of the hearing.

5.    It was entirely inappropriate for Ms Gilchrist to take up her position at such late notice and with such a lack of prior knowledge of the matters under consideration, half way through the hearing.  The decision to recuse Mr Shirley validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

6.    Mr Mihaka, and his Maori Agent, both awoke on the 4th feeling generally unwell, with a range of influenza-like symptoms.  Mr Mihaka contacted his doctor to arrange an appointment as soon as he could, and notified the Tribunal as soon as he could.

7.    Following visits with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absences and other related matters.

8.    Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued a decision which breaches natural justice and breaches Mr Mihaka's rights.

9.    The Tribunal is not entitled to know private details of Mr Mihaka's medical conditions and has no right to require the information.  Mr Mihaka contends that the letters from his registered medical practitioners are sufficient evidence of the fact that he was too unwell to attend the hearings.  His doctors simply did not know when he will be well enough to attend.

10.    Mr Mihaka is currently pursuing a number of legal avenues in order to correct what is clearly and indisputable a serious miscarriage of justice, and again applies to have the decision of the appeal judge, Simon France, recalled.

11.    Judge Kelly is refusing to recall her decision and is completely ignoring the fact that a serious miscarriage of justice occured on top of the errors previously identified during the appeals, in that Mr Mihaka never received Disclosure as he is legally entitled to under the Criminal Disclosures Act 2008.  Judge Kelly completely ignored this Fact in her refusal to grant a rehearing or recall her decision and this is clearly a breach of natural justice.

12.    Other Courts have recently noted the blatant injustices involving these matters and we wish to make further submissions kanohi ki te kanohi, face to face, in the High Court on 20 November if Mr Mihaka is well enough to attend and able to get there in time by 10 a.m.  

13.    Mr Mihaka is suffering further prejudice as a result of the actions of lawyers Chris Tennet, Seth Fraser, Brett Crowley and Nathan Bourke which are subject to formal complaint and include complaints involving refusal of counsel to provide information, forgery of Court documents, attempts to pervert the course of justice, and other very serious allegations.

14.    Mr Mihaka intends providing further evidence from his medical practitioners regarding his health and his right to privacy.   He is also appealing several other decisions of the Court based on sound grounds of appeal, after the failure of his counsel to do so as instructed.

15.    Housing New Zealand Corporation made an offer of settlement to Mr Mihaka but it was unfair in that it was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all Court action against them and agreeing not to take any further action.  There has been a serious miscarriage of justice.  Housing New Zealand Corporation is maintaining their claims based on false information, and they continue to refuse to correct false and erroneous information regarding Mr Mihaka, information on which they based their decisions.  Mr Mihaka is certainly not going to relinquish his legal rights to have that information corrected and have the injustices associated with this matter put right.

16.    Recent revelations contained in a bundle of documents provided for a hearing in Porirua District Court raise issues of retaliation by Housing New Zealand Corporation in response to Mr Mihaka requesting information be corrected and availing himself of his other legal rights and basic human rights, in addition to the discrimination evident in their actions and decisions.

Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

Minute of Sir David Carruthers, Porirua District Court:

Following a hearing in the Porirua District Court, Judge Sir David Carruthers has issued a Minute.

We acknowledge the respect and fairness shown by Sir David during our hearing, and in granting it in the first place without requiring the over $200 "security for costs" which was previously requested by the Court, and in the careful and considered wording of his Minute.

A few days prior to the hearing Housing New Zealand Corporation made an Offer of Settlement to Dun, offering to let him stay in his home if he withdraws all his Court actions against Housing New Zealand and promises not to take any further legal action against them.

The problem is that Housing New Zealand Corporation have slandered and defamed Dun and continue to refuse to correct information that is clearly false, and they continue to act in bad faith towards him.  Dun wore a shirt featuring the Palestinian flag, and the words "Justice the seed, peace the flower."  Without truth, there can be no justice, without justice, there can be no peace.

Housing New Zealand Corporation started all this by initiating litigation against Dun in the first place.  They did so on the basis of a tissue of lies and misinformation which amounts to slander and defamation.

Judge Carruthers' Minute further highlights the fact that the law is an ass.  It is not fit for purpose.

The Labour Party pledged to abolish "no cause terminations".

Dun's Maori Agent has requested a copy of the Minute of Judge Walker which is referred to in the Minute of Judge Carruthers, and have responded as follows:

We respectfully submit that there were procedural failures in the manner in which the possession order was originally granted, and draw to the Court's attention section 51(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which says that a notice can only be issued if the former one is revoked (attached).

We respectfully request the Court to consider that in accordance with section 51(6)(b) in particular the application of 21 November 2014 would have negated the earlier application of 31 October 2014, which was later relied on (as per paragraph 10, 19-25, of Judge Carruthers' Minute) after Housing New Zealand Corporation repented of their earlier discriminatory and deeply unjust decision to evict Mr Mihaka on the basis of allegations and information which can not be relied on, and which has been proven to be untrue and unreliable. 

We ask the Court to consider the proposition that according to section 51(6)(b) the initial, original notice, which was made under section 51(1)(d), would have had to have been revoked prior to the application of 21 November, made under section 56(1), and could not therefore be relied upon to grant possession.

We will be appealing the decision of Judge Walker and providing evidence as to the error of the decision that the allegations of Housing New Zealand Corporation were irrelevant to the eviction, and responding further to these matters in the near future.

Decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal:

Behold - the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Curious in many ways.  Not least the assertion that the McKenzie Friend was required to turn up and speak on behalf of the Plaintiff and provide a 'proper' medical certificate.  How ridiculous.  And what an outrageous breach of natural justice, on top of the existing miscarriage of justice.

Mr Mihaka is appealing this decision to the High Court.

Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

"Justice the seed, peace the flower."  T-shirt of the day.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal recently cited two interesting precedents in the matter of Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation.  The first one is cited in the Minute dated 13 October 2016 (copied below for ease of reference) - the Tribunal cites Mihaka v Police 1981 1 NZLR 54.

 

 What's interesting here is that the Tribunal didn't have any problem addressing Mrs Raue as Maori Agent in its Minute dated 9 June 2016, as evidenced below:

The Minute of the HRRT dated 9 June 2016 clearly states "REPRESENTATION:  Mr TRMN Mihaka in person assisted by Ms K Raue, Maori Agent" -

Mr Mihaka, as a descendant of the original inhabitants of this land, he uri o nga tangata whenua, has the sovereignty, te tino rangitiratanga, to appoint a person of his own choosing to speak for him.

Tangata whenua have always had the right to appoint a kaikorero of their own choosing, and it is ridiculous to assert that the quasi colonial 'government' acting on the questionable and ultra vires authority of a treaty claimed by the English to grant them all our mana and all our tino rangitiratanga by some sleight of hand smoke and mirrors.

Mr and Mrs Mihaka cite the Law Practitioners Act 1955, which refers to the role of Maori Agents but does not define the role.  In fact the 'Maori Agents' who claimed authority under this Act were infamous for cheating Maori out of their land - which is likely why attempts are being made to expunge all evidence from the historical record and pretend it didn't happen.

So let's have a closer look at Mihaka v Police 1981 - did the Crown attempt to trick Mr and Mrs Mihaka by the use of clever legal language?  Here are the relevant paragraphs, the problem's not that hard to spot - there's a question of law here:

Mrs Mihaka's trial was not in the High Court, it was in the District Court - she was charged with Wilful Damage.  Barristers don't normally bother with District Court work, they stick to High Court work, and they are required to be instructed by solicitors normally.


This decision cites sections 13 and 14 of the Law Practitioners Act 1955 - it completely ignores the infamous section 17 - which relates to solicitors and Maori Agents:

The role of McKenzie Friend is rather misunderstood - the original McKenzie Friend is Ian Hangar QC - an Australian barrister, and a qualified barrister at the time of his involvement in the McKenzie case.  Not a layman at all.  It seems there are currently moves underway to 'reform' the role of McKenzie Friends in NZ Courts.

Why this is important is because Dun was royally ripped off by the two pettifoggers assigned by Legal Aid to conduct his appeals - neither noticed he'd not been provided with Disclosure - let alone what that Disclosure contained.

And then just when you think you've got it sussed you find the Hardie Boys decision.

April Fool - Transcript of proceedings - Human Rights Review Tribunal 4th April 2017:

Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Dun successfully forced the recusal of Ken Shirley over the racist rant he wrote in the Herald the Chairperson, Rodger Haines QC, drafted in a Ms Wendy Gilchrist for the second day of the hearing.

It was entirely inappropriate for Ms Gilchrist to take up her position at such late notice and with such a lack of prior knowledge of the matters under consideration, and validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

Mr Mihaka, and his Maori Agent, both awoke on the 4th feeling generally unwell, with a range of influenza-like symptoms.  Mr Mihaka contacted his doctor to arrange an appointment as soon as he could, and notified the Tribunal as soon as he could.'

Following the visit with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absence on the 4th.

Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued the following decision:



The file can also be accessed at this link.

The transcript of the hearing on the 4th begins at page 47 of the transcript.

The transcript is full of factual errors - the paragraph adjacent to the number 20 in the left margin says that Haines would be grateful if counsel for Housing New Zealand were to correct him as ''we'' go through.  Mr Mihaka wishes the opportunity to "correct" Mr Haines, who is either seriously mistaken or deliberately dishonest.

The last paragraph of page 47 of the transcript refers to Ms Furfie's "replacement brief of evidence" which was provided the night prior to the hearing on the 4th after Furfie's previous "evidence" was seriously discredited!  Filing a replacement brief and finding a replacement member of the Tribunal the night before the hearing is outrageous and unacceptable.

The paragraph adjacent to the number 5 on page 50 of the transcript refers to me as Catherine and is further evidence of the errors made by the Tribunal.

Page 53 discusses Ms Theron's assertion that as McKenzie friend I should have attended and spoken in Mr Mihaka's absence which is ridiculous.  The Tribunal then goes on to discuss the issues relating to natural justice.

Page 55 alludes to the plainly evidence inadequacy of the planned matter of disposition of the matter, and confirms that if a medical certificate is provided that is grounds for an adjournment.

Page 57 refers to the risible arguments of Housing New Zealand's counsel regarding their clients' position.

Page 62 states that Mr Mihaka is required to produce a medical certificate from a registered practitioner "setting out the reasons why Mr Miahka has been unable to attend the hearing today.  Second, that the certificate set out the length of time for which Mr Mihaka will be medically unfit to participate in the Tribunal hearing."  Mr Mihaka's medical practitioners are just that - medical practitioners, not clairvoyants.  They don't predict the future, or what Mr Mihaka's health will be like next week or next month, and these demands are a breach of Mr Mihaka's rights and of his privacy.

"At the resumption of the hearing two days is to be set aside" it says on page 62.

Dun provided letters from his medical practitioners regarding several matters involving these proceedings, including this one:

Another recent letter from Dun's registered medical practitioners says:

"This gentleman is seventy four years old and had a number of medical problems.
I am unclear of the recent circumstances surrounding the night he spent on a road in his car near National Park village, but regard it as inappropriate that any person of seventy four years old should, of necessity, sleep in a car on that stretch of road at that time of year."

We await the decision of Hardhearted Haines and his peers.