10/1/2017

Dear Editorial Teams, Public and Politicians

Here is the latest development in the Local Democracy Challenge: I filed a 2nd Supreme-Court appeal
against the strike-out of the original constitutional Statement of Claim by judge Dunningham, who
also invalidated the Resource Management Act (see Appendix A; I was a “McKenzie friend”).

For guidance through the .pdf files, begin with “Supreme Court 2nd Appeal Local Democracy
Challenge.pdf”, the “Supreme Court Local Election Challenge.pdf” is the original case/claim (below is
my letter to the Supreme-Court registrar who tries to prevent this appeal being seen by judges) :

The Supreme Court again invalidated the Supreme Court Act and all statutory laws as last resort, and
has now correctly defined the truth of criminal royal fascistic corruption with unlawful active
prevention of Democracy, Human Rights and legal Natural Justice as “scandalous” in order to justify
the prevention of this court case and consequently of publicity -- Hence this very public info
together with the plaintiff’s relevant court documents in .pdf format for easy distribution over the
internet:

Appendix P should then be read first, followed by Appendix O, then “SC Local Election Challenge
Decision”, then “Supreme Court Local Election Challenge.pdf”, with the other Appendices as
clarifying add-ons.

As this is a court proceeding in a publicly “open” court, all these truth-revealing documents can be
distributed/published and reported about… There cannot exist any suppression order, as such would
be overruled by the plaintiff in the democratic public interest and under freedom of speech!

Similarly, the constitutional Privacy-Act case development can be taken from App.Y, SC, Exceptional
Circumstances, Jurisdictional Memorandum and App.Y, SC, Health Privacy Decision.

Most of these Supreme-Court files dealing with the nullifying of anti-democratic S.24 Local Electoral
Act and invalidation of the Privacy Act have been sent to you earlier, but are enclosed for
completeness and ease of reference.

The criminally corrupt Supreme-Court Judges have now burdened me with costs to punish me for
their and their monarch’s active prevention of Democracy, Human Rights and legal Natural Justice,
so that I have now filed for bankruptcy (like with 5-times-bankrupt and tax dodger Trump in USA,
bankruptcy per Insolvency Act is misused for freemason etc. fascists to enrich themselves on cost of
everyone else, if their ability couldn’t match their greed). 20 years ago these judges prevented my 4
similar but not as well-presented constitutional cases, causing extreme hardship by criminalising me
for not being able and willed to pay bicycle-helmet fines, which would have been ridiculous
otherwise.

The complete judiciary needs to be restructured (National-Party govts would never call this “sacking”)
by creating a general constitution on the line of the Universal Democracy Constitution, together with
a Constitution Court and Appellate Court replacing the Supreme, Appeal and High Courts. As a
consequence, there would not be a suitable working place for all those fascistic-corrupt High-Court
judges, prostituting serfs to the criminally corrupt monarch and causing extreme damage to this
society that wants to be and wrongly claims to be democratic. It is plainly insufficient to only be able
to correct judges for inappropriate superficial behaviour only on advice by their fascistic govt they
are unlawfully protecting, but never for proven incompetence incl. fascistic corruption. It is also clear
that the govt’s court registrars select judges for cases not on an open random ballot process or on
suitability aspects, but on corrupt govt-policy grounds for which they were installed.

Official royal judicial corruption has never been clearer…

The Revolution has Started

Greetings, Fritz Fehling

PS 7/2/17: In the Privacy-Act case (see App. Y etc.) I have asked the govt’s Director for Human Rights
Proceedings (Robert Kee) to appeal the Human Rights Review Tribunal’s judgment (the High Court
refused to file my prima-facie-proven appeal due to its truth-revealing language which cannot be
changed without removing its legal basis, and the Supreme Court agreed and ordered $1500 costs
against me in a perversion of justice); I also wrote that if he again fails to do his duty by not wishing
to get involved, I would inform the national and international public about his criminal fascistic
corruption. He replied by threatening me with referral to authorities if I repeated such threat that
were intended to influence him, and untruthfully replied that only on the govt’s Privacy
Commissioner referral can he undertake appeals – no such limitation exists in statutory law, and the
Tribunal originally informed him about this case; and then he wrote that he can appeal in his own
right, but refused to do so due to my appeal not having been filed by the High Court (to prevent
correction of unlawful official wrongdoings).

He is thus revealing that his position has the purpose to help cover-up unlawful fundamental privacy
breaches by the monarch’s govt’s official institutions incl. courts, and that parliament’s laws incl. the
Privacy Act are window-dressing for royal-fascistic might-is-right as proven in the local-democracy
Supreme-Court case, where I called such officials correctly “prostituting serfs to their monarch”.…
Such character made Hitler possible, and shows the true fascistic nature of the British/NZ monarch.

Of course, I sent a copy of above to this Director in order to enable him to refer this to his authorities.
Supreme Court, Registrar copies also to the Public and politicians Fritz Fehling
85 Lambton Quay POBox 95
Wellington Harihari 7863
Dear Supreme-Court Registrar Kieron McCarron 10/1/2017

You are exceeding your formality jurisdiction by rejecting my lawful law-correct direct appeal dated
15th December (enclosed)! Below follows the explanation why this is an unlawful and incompetent
practice that replaces the statutory judicial process (incl. due official open-court publication of a
judicial decision, also in NZLII databases; see also S. 16 Supreme-Court Act) with secretive at-will
decisions by the government’s court serfs:

[1] Point [5] of this appeal which you have read clearly proves the appealed strike-out decision to be
an unlawful substitution for a statutory Natural-Justice hearing and (dismissal) decision, and not to
be an interlocutory matter: Per S.4(a(ii) Supreme-Court Act (statutory interpretation/definition) this
strike-out process has obviously not an ancillary (“supporting” per Oxford dictionary) interlocutory
(inter- between) character for the original claim procedure, but is intended to be a final prevention
of it. It is therefore irrelevant and illogical that the defendant mentioned “interlocutory” application.

If you have difficulties reading and understanding the English as contained in NZ statutes, you should
endeavour to change to a more suitable profession not requiring literacy...

[2] Your quoted Supreme-Court case law SC 103/2016 is the 1st appeal in this case, and uses an
interlocutory application for injunction as unlawful pretence to dismiss that appeal; It was brought
following a final (not interlocutory) application for immediate determination, and on the ground that
there had been an unlawful “pre”judicial dismissal of this case without a Natural-Justice hearing.
This is clearly different to a final dismissal via a strike-out process, and does not apply here!

[3] Please provide statutory evidence/proof that a strike-out process is an interlocutory ancillary
process per S.4(a(ii) Supreme-Court Act (statutory interpretation/definition); also provide Supreme-
Court case law(s) that (unlawfully) overturn(s) this statutory interpretation/definition, so that it can
be corrected! This very appeal also aims to correct unlawful Supreme-Court case laws.

[4] It is thus obvious that the decision of judges O’Regan, Arnold and Ellen France [2016] NZSC 154
to dismiss the 1st appeal on an interlocutory ground is knowingly wrong in law, and that this 2nd
appeal inherently proves this much to the dislike of these judges that should not take further part in
this case due to conflict of interest.

[5] This appeal is naturally/logically based on the initiating original claim, which unavoidably serves
as admissible evidence -- it cannot be any other way in such appeals! Therefore it is plainly
unrealistic and incompetent by the registrar to demand that this original claim’s law questions and
argumentations are altered to remove any proof of official royal and judicial deliberate
incompetence (fascistic corruption, etc.) and thus the appeal purpose of correcting the unlawful
situation via Natural Justice; This is the purpose of the judicial system in a constitutional democracy!

[6] Furthermore, the original claim as part of the 1st appeal (SC103/2016) have already been
accepted and filed by the registry incl. Supreme Court, resulting in judicial decisions that were/are
appealed. The registrar’s demand would add unnecessary further costs and convolution (which
judge Dunningham cannot handle and likes to complain about), making justice even less available
than it is already now… This must not be the purpose of the Supreme Court in a democracy!

Remarks : Lasting case-law-like international publicity and effect of this case is ensured through the
internet regardless, so that it unofficially forms the basis of a Democracy Constitution and
Constitution Courts that will replace the Monarch’s Supreme Courts -- no matter how many
Donald-Trump-like populistic fascists are groomed to deceive undereducated people for eg. Brexits
to preserve hereditary dictatorial rule.

This case also serves as proof that arrogance/power madness of (royal) fascists need considerable
force to be reigned-in, and which the monarch is unable to exert due to conflict of interest. It is
embarrassing for the monarch to use such gross official incompetence for unlawfully diverting a
fundamental publicly known constitutional case while losing all statutory legal arguments. This
proves to the General Public that this monarchy is incompatible to Democracy!

The Revolution has started!

Please forward my (application for leave to) appeal for a judicial decision to the appropriate full
Supreme Court immediately in the public interest/importance!

Harihari, this 10th day of January 2017 ………………………………………………

(Fritz Fehling)

Remarks added on 27/1/2017:

[R1] The registrar’s declining reply did not contain any Supreme-Court case law regarding strike-out
decisions having interlocutory character, because there exists none! This proves exceeding of his
jurisdiction, but experience tells that he acted on command of the Supreme-Court judges etc.; The
use of his minor person instead of judges is the monarch’s way to demonstrate the subordinate
irrelevance of this local-elections/ democracy court case that has 2nd highest status in a
constitutional democracy; only a national-elections/democracy case would have higher status!

[R2] In these court documents I wrote that the Universal Democracy Constitution were also
available on the internet/google under [pdf] 2.615, which was the number under which the New
Zealand government’s Constitutional Review Panel stored it as a “submission” from the public after I
publicly complained about censorship by the monarch and its government. Now again this
“submission” has been removed! Such is a method how the British monarch achieved to deceive its
subjects into voting via referenda against proportional parliamentary representation (the minimum
democracy requirement safeguarded in democracy constitutions) and Brexit…

[R3] After I was declared bankrupt to prevent the Supreme Court’s perversion of justice being
further enacted, the official bankruptcy assignee tried to make me belief that I have now to ask for
permission to exercise my human rights etc. (incl. appeals) through court cases! Such unlawful
practise is not backed-up by the statutory Insolvency Act and Bill of Rights Act, and shows the hidden
systemic practise of total removal of Human Rights by the monarch and its governments, which
these Supreme-Court cases achieved to prove… I never ask for such permission as of principle!