IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

APPEAL NO. SC 104/2016

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

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

IN THE MATTER OF Privacy Act 1993 and

S.123(2(a,e)) Human Rights Act 1993

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 West Coast District Health Board

146 High Street, Greymouth 7805,
Respondent

DATED 24th September 2016

______________________________________________________________________

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

ORIGINAL HIGH-COURT APPEAL with

QUESTIONS OF LAW and
ARGUMENTATION,

AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT TO DISMISS

THE FORM-CORRECT TRUTHFUL APPEAL AGAINST [2016] NZHRRT 29
(against striking-out the 2nd defendant, above respondent)
BY REFFUSING TO ACCEPT ITS FILING ON PRETENCE OF “BASELESS”
ALLEGATIONS/STATEMENTS OF PROVEN CORRUPTION AND BIAS

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 West Coast District Health Board, 146 High Street, Greymouth 7805
AND TO The General Public
ALSO TO The German Embassy and German Media
 CONTENTS page

{The following original appeal (1/9/2016) is inserted unchanged at this place (except
for additional chronology point [0.8] and the inclusion of S.27(2) BORA (right to
appeal) in law question [2]) as the appeal’s narrative of the facts with Questions of
Law and Argumentation (per R.20(2))}

-----------------------------------Original Appeal----------------------------------------

Chronological Summary of Proceedings for the Reading Public 2

Questions of law 3

Principles of Natural Justice requires Definition 4

BORA Interpretation According to General Purpose of the Privacy Act 4

Case Law Quotations 5

Specific Argumentation to the Privacy-Act (PA) Main Questions of Law 6

Remarks to the General Public 8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Argumentation to Questions of Law [1,2] 9

Definition of Fascism 10

Maximum Public Importance/Interest 10

Appendix A1 : Original cover sheet of the original High-Court appeal

reading in the title: “Proof of Criminal Corruption/Perversion of Justice by
the Human Rights Review Tribunal Members”
Appendix A2 : Letter from Christchurch High Court (15/9/16), with judge
Mander’s appeal dismissal, describing it as “baseless allegations of
corruption”
Appendix A3 : Letter to General Public/Privacy Commissioner (28/10/15)
showing his gross deliberate incompetence (corruption) in reply to his letter
(18/9/15)
Appendix A4: Public flyer about the Scott Watson murder case

Appendix B : page 5, S.6 BORA quotes of [1992] 3NZLR 260 CA

Appendix L : “Memorandum With Further Proof of “Pre”judicial Dismissal

of the Constitutional (local) Democracy Claim” (7/9/16)

Appendix H : Natural-Justice Principles

Appendix Y : Privacy-Act Statement of Claim (dated 13/4/16)

APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF LAW WITH ARGUMENTATION

[0.] Chronological Summary

[0.1.] On 16/12/14 a Primary Health Organisation enrolment form was

signed and filed, with an explicitly added data-matching limit. The PHO’s
Privacy Statement does not include info that the apparently anonymous
National Health Index number is generally provided to/by the Ministry of
Health together with all health data and the patients’ personal details!
[0.2.] On 17/2/15 an invitation for a free health screen was received,
proving the acceptance of the above enrolment.
[0.3.] On 8/6/15 a PHO letter informed of this enrolment’s termination
on 7/1/15, and of the consequent inability to obtain subsidized treatment;
This was obviously due to above data-matching limit, but was on pretense
of missing ID proof (which was provided personally in December 2014,
incl. WINZ printouts dated 15/12/15) -- and after official info was
requested on 1/4/15 whether MoH had both, the NHI for general health-
data access and personal details, which was admitted later by MoH…
[0.4.] An “assurance” by PHO’s Ms Tymons followed that computer data
are safe; But she was evasive about the personal-detail access by MoH, which
was then fully admitted by the Privacy Commissioner on 18/11/15 -- On
22/3/16, Radio NZ reported that he criticized the “open-slather” access to
all official data (also including health data) by the govt’s spy agency without
any need for permission or any checks & balances (it was generally headed
by a whitewashing High-Court judge, and follows the neither-confirm-nor-
deny royal practice); he also proposed himself as a check & balance, which
was proposed for health data by the plaintiff in a letter much earlier,
together with the Health & Disability Commissioner …
[0.5.] In the Statement of Reply (7/4/16, [18,19]) MoH admitted having
got the NHI already in 2005 (with personal details, but not informing the
plaintiff), despite that he already then added health-data-sharing limitations
to personal-data forms, and that the DHB had to inform the plaintiff, too!
[0.6.] A complaint to the Privacy Commissioner followed on 28/6/15,
resulting in an excessively evasive cover-up conjecture on 18/11/15, after an
Ombudsman complaint about his refusal to respond that gave the govt’s
MoH extra time for a usual cover-up practice: The relevant statutory
Privacy-Act Principles (part of law section 6) were “substituted” by 4
Health-Info-Privacy-Code rules (not mentioned in the above Privacy
Statement and Act), and then interpreted that the general health data
collected by the PHO/DHB had the perverse purpose of issuing an NHI
number instead of the publicly expected previously practiced primary
purpose of safe, speedy and efficient provision of health care! He thus failed
to act as above check & balance…
[0.7.] A malicious abuse-of-process strike-out application by the 2nd
defendant (DHB) followed, corruptly enacted by the HRRT on “reason”
that the Privacy Commissioner (PC) did not investigate the 2nd defendant,
who obviously in deed committed the action complained and investigated
against (albeit under pressure from the MoH)!
[0.8] On 15/9/16 judge Mander dismissed the form-correct truthful High-
Court appeal by refusing its filing, because it explicitly proved corruption!
Paramount Constitutional Question of Law (Natural-Justice definition)

[1] Should precedence case law under the Privacy 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 S.27(1,2) constitutional Bill of Rights

Act 1990 BORA (Natural Justice, Right to Appeal) and of the Privacy
Act 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?

Specific Privacy-Act (PA) Main Questions of Law:

[3] Does S.27(1) BORA (Natural Justice) allow the Human Rights
Review Tribunal HRRT to invalidate SS. 82(1(a)),83(a) and thus the
purpose of the Privacy Act?

[4] Does S.27(1) BORA with S.105(1,2(a)) Human Rights Act 1993
(Natural-Justice Principles, see Appendix H) allow the HRRT to
remove the appellant’s privacy rights and punish him for the unlawful
failures of the corrupt Privacy Commissioner (PC) ? (self-answering…)

[5] Does S.67(1) PA (“any person may make a complaint to the PC

alleging that any action is or appears to be an interference with the
privacy of an individual”) require the explicit identification of the
(unknown, or even obvious) perpetrator(s) of such action?

[6] Do SS.70(2),73(a) PA (the PC must advise/inform both the

complainant and the person to whom the complaint relates of the
procedure/ investigation…) require the explicit initial naming of all
(incl. initially unknown) persons related to a complaint and being
potential defendants to a claim?
Argumentation to the Questions of Law

Principles of Natural Justice requires Definition

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

and it is at least the 8th time that such fundamental Natural-Justice definition
was requested from the monarch’s judiciary, because Natural Justice has
never been defined in the monarchy’s legal system, while 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 (incl. Tribunal) need first to establish such a
definition, and a most reasonable definition was presented to the courts in
the preceding Privacy-Act case. It included the logical reasonable adherence
to laws and thus their wording in order to prevent the primitivity of
effectively invalidating language and Parliament!
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)) HRA so that this law section becomes valid in law praxis!
Adhering to reasonable wordings of laws is the paramount Natural-Justice
principle!
The Universal Democracy Constitution (pdf 2.615) available on the internet
shows the constitutionality of the BORA, even though the monarch’s
fascistic judges try to ignore it…

BORA Interpretation According to General Purpose of the Privacy Act

[8] (to question of law [2]) Similar to the Bill of Rights and the Human
Rights Act, the Privacy Act’s 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! As the upholding of
such regimes needs the population’s personal data to eliminate critics and
opponents directly or by making their lives unbearable (incl. framing with
wrongful prosecution and imprisonment), the Privacy Act aims to limit such
unrestricted info sharing by these regimes’ officials and activists; Otherwise
its purpose would be unlawfully reduced to window-dressing propaganda.

Health data are probably the most private data, as they can show severe
physical and mental vulnerabilities and habits of individuals that could be
exploited and used for reputation- or direct clandestine assassinations,
including euthanasia that was practiced by the Nazis (and may well be
practiced by the monarchy’s fascists in form of eg. repeated accumulative
administration of the strongest poison 1080 (a Fluor connection) under the
cover of widespread pest control… According to a quote of SIS govt spy
agents in a NZ Herald’s internet publication, the SIS is operating a
“Wrecking Crew”, probably to damage targets’ lives if they cannot be
silenced by lawful means!).
Furthermore, such unrestricted centralized info sharing severely affects the
necessary trust between health professionals and patients, and a consequent
avoidance of the patient to give essential info to these professionals
increases the risk to their lives, which is also an outcome desired by these
regimes…
Therefore the Privacy-Act, and its appeal provisions, need to be interpreted
in favour of enabling the restriction of unnecessary, general and/or
unchecked access and sharing of personal private info by a regime’s officials.
This interpretation frame is to be preferred over any other interpretation
according to S.6 BORA, also against a strike-out!
This precedential interpretation is very relevant, because NZ’s fascistic govt
has announced the Privacy-Act-invalidating removal of all barriers of data
sharing between govt institutions by creating a data-sharing “highway”
(“except” health data due to this precedential case that it prevents to be
heard…). Appendix Y (Statement of Claim) shows the gravity of breaches!

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 (called “I am not prepared
to depart from what appears to be orthodoxy”; by judge Whata earlier).
It is erroneous in law per S.15(2) Constitution Act 1986 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.

[9.6] Consequently, as there are no other reasonably BORA-consistent

interpretations presented or even available at all, the wordings of S.27(1,2)
BORA (Natural-Justice court proceedings, right to appeal) and of the
Privacy-Act have to be applied according to the appellant’s
definition/interpretation in line with the BORA!
Specific Argumentation to the Privacy-Act (PA) Main Questions of Law

[10] (to questions of law [3,4]) All court cases (incl. appeals) are
naturally/logically based on real occurrences, also called facts! If the clear
misinterpretation or even deliberate falsification (as in this very case) of such
occurrences lead to a breach of a statutory law, which is subsequently
formulated into questions of (statutory) law (not judge-made pseudo- or
common law), then such breaches become a law matter – regardless whether
the HRRT tried to cover-up and prevent an appeal by pretending its decision
to be on un-appealable “findings of facts” derived from a personal and
subjective/biased credibility assessment of the parties.
This is an appeal purely on questions of (statutory) law, because the facts
were well established by clear admissible evidence per S.7(1,3) Evidence Act
and by pure natural-justice logic; Thus they were not open to the HRRT’s
interpretations and falsifications via subjective biased credibility assessments!

[10.1] SS. 82(1(a)),83(a) PA enables a Tribunal proceeding against “…any

person in respect of whom an investigation has been conducted in relation
to any action alleged to be an interference with the privacy of an individual;”

[10.2] The action complained about against the “investigated” Ministry of

Health MoH was obviously committed by the respondent District Health
Board DHB (2nd defendant), and could not have been “investigated”
without investigation of this respondent (DHB)!
Thus the respondent in its strike-out application indirectly admitted that
such investigation against itself had occurred, making its application as well
as the HRRT’s decision a plainly malicious abuse of process! Points
[3.2,3.4,3.5] of the appellant’s Notice of Opposition (against strike out) read:
“The 2nd defendant used the lack of opportunity to respond to PC
investigation for the strike-out application; However, no natural-justice
breach had occurred, because PC whitewashed MoH and thus DHB, so that
there was no need to respond, as the PC “investigated in the PHO’s/DHB’s
favour.”, and:
“In addition to [3.2] above, the 2nd defendant had no right to be heard in the
MoH investigation, unless it inherently was an investigation against the
DHB, which it also was! q.e.d.”, and:
“S.83(a) allows an individual to bring proceedings before HRRT, if PC is of
opinion that complaint does not have substance… In this case any
‘investigation’ can be limited by the PC reading the complaint and then
ignoring it – S.83(a) is a safeguard against the govt’s incompetent &
corrupt PC!”

The HRRT was well aware of above quotes (see point [2] of minute
8/6/16), and was maliciously wrong in law to have invalidated S.83(a) PA!

[10.3] SS.82(1(a)),83(a) PA should safeguard against the HRRT’s unlawful

collusion with the PC (a non-judicial govt appointee) that effectively
removes open-court natural justice, enabling this corrupt PC to unlawfully
indirectly strike-out lawful claims by on-the-face ditching “investigations”
and not notifying persons related to actions complained against.
[11] (to questions of law [3,5]) There was no “jurisdiction gap” (HRRT
decision points [30.4,45]); This is creative judging, an invented legal novelty
to cover-up official wrongdoing by disabling a court process!
Here it makes sense to quote [2016] NZHC 1650 (a recent Human-Rights-
Act case law known to the HRRT before its strike-out decision!): It required
a complaint to the Human Rights Commission before a HRRT proceeding,
similar to PA proceedings. At [42,43] that High Court describes how that
respondent tried the same strike-out/lack-of-jurisdiction trick, and says that
the complainant did complain by speaking to a senior mediator, focusing on
WINZ instead of the responsible MoH [1st defendant in this very case…];
But the mediator “appreciated” the latter as the object of the complaint!
The High Court thus proved that an explicit naming of the defendant as
complaint object is not necessary for a HRRT proceeding, and that the
HRRT’s contrary decision was knowingly wrong in law and case law.

[11.1] Point [2.1] Notice of Opposition reads: “The enclosed letter to PC

16/11/15 mentions that ‘the MoH and PHO had far more than 20 working
days to respond to you…‘, which shows at least at this point that the PHO
[which is part of the respondent DHB] was included in the complaint…”

[11.2] Point [2.3] Notice of Opposition reads: “The PC found (18/11/15)

that the PHO’s/DHB’s collection of general health data had the perverse
purpose of issuing a NHI instead of the publicly expected and previously
practiced primary purpose of safe, speedy and efficient provision of health
care.”
This proved the respondent DHB being the PC’s “investigation” object and
the appellant’s complaint object – esp. also to the HRRT, as did [12] below :

[12] The HRRT was knowingly wrong in law to have rejected admissible
evidence of the respondent as the PC’s investigation object: The appellant
filed a new complaint with the responding DHB as explicit object, aimed at
starting a new HRRT proceeding in case of a strike-out, in order to uphold
and achieve his and the public’s privacy rights without delays, based on a
new PHO/DHB enrollment. This neither needed an info to the respondent,
nor an info about a current strike-out application to the PC. But it relied on
all the previous documents, because the new privacy breach shares the same
facts. Surprisingly, the PC’s reply that he already investigated the matter is
unquestionable proof of his investigation with the respondent as complaint
object (see decision [21-24])! This proved beyond any doubt the HRRT’s
continued jurisdiction and the unlawfulness of the strike-out procedure!

[13] (to questions of law [5,6]) The often hidden nature of privacy
breaches and their perpetrators can make the naming of a complaint’s
object(s) impossible, which is one reason for the statutory provision of PC
investigations that should identify the perpetrators for HRRT proceedings.
Otherwise a complainant would need to know the result of an investigation
before it had even started, which is first-past-the-post, illogical and unnatural
(and thus unlawful) nonsense, despite being practiced govt policy. The
HRRT was wrong in law and deliberately incompetent (corrupt) to have
limited/altered these law sections, and to have struck-out the 2nd defendant.
[14] It is not the task of the extremely underpaid appellant to design the
NHI health-data-sharing system so that it fulfills the requirements of the
Privacy Act.

[ Harihari, this 1st September 2016 ……..……………………………..]

(Fritz Fehling)

Remarks to the General Public

[15] The public should notice that the HRRT chairman Rodger Haines had
now tried at least 4 times to invalidate most of the Human-Rights and
Privacy Acts; After 2 female HRRT members overruled him in the
successful [2012] NZHRRT 15 Privacy-Act proceeding, he created several
new PA-invalidating case examples, under which that successful proceeding
would have been struck-out, because the PC never even contacted the
explicitly named object of his “investigation” before ruling it without merit,
nor did he remove the proven grossly incompetent investigator Emma Pond
(probably because this servant acted on the PC’s Command…).
[15.1] “Better” still, the appealed decision was co-authored by HRRT
member pastor RK Musuku (apparently of satanic faith), who in the
proceeding leading to above successful [2012] NZHRRT 15 tried unlawfully
to disable natural justice in a grossly incompetent and blatant way ([2011]
NZHRRT 14, a precursor to later strike-out rulings), which the appellant
complained against to the Governor-General in addition to formal appeals.
He certainly knowingly acted in a conflict of interest in this strike-out
decision, probably in the false expectation that nobody would notice…
[15.2] This chairman Haines invalidated the main provision of the Human
Rights Act (S.65, indirect discrimination) in [2015] NZHRRT 24, which was
whitewashed by the High Court in a law-invalidating and contradictory way
(saying that no proof of intention was required, while requiring an
intentional link… -- by unlawfully using English case law; see point [9.1],
and [2015] NZHC 75 points [31(13 law questions),75,89(a,b,d)]).
[15.3] Also under S.65 (indirect discrimination), Haines, SJ Hickey and RK
Mosuku stayed proceedings against NZ Post and referred it back to the
Human Rights Commissioner for time-consuming futile mediation; After
the plaintiff was forced to achieve a public settlement himself because the
HRRT dragged its heels, this Chairman refused to publish the details in his
formal decision ([2014] NZHRRT 29), thus depriving eg. homeless people
of Human Rights via a way to obtain a postal address needed for receiving
official income support, leaving voluntary help organizations with the mess..!

The judiciary now requires security of respondent’s costs in struck-out cases.

The appeal argumentations primarily aim at informing the General Public about the
criminal fascistic corruption in the judiciary, (appointed by the monarch’s fascistic Solicitor-
General, and on which the monarch relies to uphold its totalitarian power), so that a
revolution with direct reprisals against fascistic corrupt royals, officials (incl. judges) and
business men is enabled to achieve a constitutional democracy with the necessary
educational democratic natural justice.
Additional Argumentation to Questions of Law [1,2]

[16] Natural Justice and the Right to Appeal rely on the truthful application
of statutory laws incl. the BORA and on truthful facts, not mad corruption-
covering phantasies by judges. It is impossible and against the public interest
to bring this appeal without inherently and explicitly proving the criminal
corruption of involved judges and institutions against the current official
royal-freemason-fascism-ensuring practice (see definition of fascism below).

[16.1] The enclosed Supreme-Court “Memorandum With Further Proof of

“Pre”judicial Dismissal of the Constitutional (local) Democracy Claim”
(7/9/16, Appendix L) shows that the appellant’s choice of words is truthful,
precise and correct as proven by NZ Oxford dictionary 2005 definition; It is
not the appellant’s purpose of life to help the monarch’s courts to cover-up
systemic fascistic corruption with meaningless perfumed words – especially
after this corruption has caused extreme hardship and general injustice to
him (and the wider public), and still is...

[16.2] Judge Mander has provenly read this original appeal and thus the
proof, dismissing it and thus the whole appeal as being “baseless”! He was
also involved in above pending S.24 Local-Electoral-Act Supreme-Court
parallel appeal using law questions [1,2], where he gave the defendant further
3-4 weeks time by unlawfully requiring the plaintiff to repeatedly file the
whole case -- this time to the crown law office without even providing its
address; This was misused to substitute its statutorily required Statement of
Defence by a malicious unlawful application for strike-out without any
required prove of a “clearly untenable“ claim! He now corruptly helps to try
to whitewash his fellow judge Nation in that case by following his unlawful
reasoning and practice to prevent both extreme-public-interest appeals!

[16.3] Enclosed is also the additional proof (Appendix A2) of the Privacy
Commissioner’s corruption that was written to the public after he refused to
inform the general public about the inherent insecurity of electronic
democratic elections and especially Microsoft operation systems that actively
provide privacy information to this foreign U.S.-NSA-controlled corporation
regardless of its users’ wishes. This deliberately incompetent evasion of his
office’s privacy-protecting purpose can only be truthfully described as
criminally fascistic corrupt!

[16.4] The appeals mentioned under [15.2] were never determined, because
the Supreme Court refused to allow the appellant’s appeal right (by adding
“sufficiently compelling” to the exceptional-circumstances law requirement),
after finding that the lower courts’ prevention of the public-interest appeals
were correctly appealed on questions of law contrary to the involved judges’
deliberately incompetent (corrupt) rulings – which they now wrongly
use/interpret as having proven them lawful, while unlawfully forbidding the
appellant to truthfully raise these proofs of their corruption...

It was therefore wrong in statutory constitutional law to forbid the appellant

to tell the truth and remove his right to appeal per S.27(2) Bill of Rights Act!
[17] Definition of Fascism (per German Duden dictionary and Wikipedia)
as first presented in the parallel S.24 Local-Electoral-Act-Claim appeal,
proving the appellant’s use of this word and its derivatives to be correct:

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

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

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

power symbol of a bundle of rods for high roman officials [depicted in NZ
courts even in the 20th century!]; faszes were worn by fascists as gang patch.

[17.3] 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 cannon fodder…

[18] Appendix A4 is a public flyer that is sufficiently backed up by true facts

to raise serious reasonable doubts about the integrity of NZ’s Supreme-
Court Judge McGrath, a former Solicitor-General who appointed many
other judges to the judge bench, including himself, without independent
external checks & balances! Thus the judicial appointments by the monarch’s
government’s Solicitor-General lack the necessary independence from the
government and its policy-implementing officials, because lawyers actively
criticizing and embarrassing the government via court battles will naturally
not be appointed to the judge bench due to this systemic conflict of interest.
In this very case the gross deliberately incompetent (corrupt) Human-
Rights-Review-Tribunal members are appointed by the government.

Maximum Public Importance/Interest

[19] The maximum public (and thus also private) interest is the enabling
and upholding of democracy and its democracy-safeguarding laws as shown
by these 2 constitutional BORA law questions, which must be enacted to
generally validate Parliament’s statutory laws including the Privacy 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.!

Harihari, this 24th September 2016 ………...………………………….

(Fritz Fehling, Appellant)