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.

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.