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 14th October 2016

______________________________________________________________________

FORMAL APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF SUPREME-COURT JUDGE

O’REGAN FROM THIS CASE,

WITH JURISDICTIONAL-MATTERS MEMORANDUM

TO BE DETERMINED BY FULL SUPREME COURT

______________________________________________________________________

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

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
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF SUPREME-COURT JUDGE
O’REGAN; JURISDICTIONAL-MATTERS MEMORANDUM

[0.] Chronological Summary for the Reading Public

[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!
[1] Proof of “Pre”- judicial Dismissal of Claim and S.8-Supreme-
Court-Act Jurisdiction

[1.1] The formal introduction of the Application for Leave to Bring Civil
Appeal refers to judge Mander’s letter 15/9/16, where judge Mander “pre”-
judicially dismissed the High-Court appeal as “baseless”. This Supreme-
Court appeal’s additional argumentation, esp. point [16.2], mentions this
and his collusion with judge Nation regarding the parallel constitutional
Supreme-Court appeal against the anti-democratic S.24 Local Electoral Act,

[1.2] While points [16-18] deal with further admissible evidence for the
truthful statements in that appeal beyond the clearly raised law matters, in
order to counter judge Mander’s unlawful threat of disabling natural justice
and democracy by ordering the refusal of filing the plaintiff ’s truthful law-
correct argumentation, similar to judge Nation and the Appeal Court
judges! -- All this for the SC-judge to read instead to ignore …

[1.3] S.8 Supreme Court Act provides a direct appeal against any decision
of the High Court except interlocutory (eg. case management pre-trial)
decisions, as was explained to the registrar by letters (23/8/16, 7/9/16). If
these contain proofs of “pre”-judicial dismissal of the main appeal, then
this dismissal decision is superior to interlocutory decisions.
This direct-appeal provision should safeguard/uphold the public’s
democracy that also requires protection of individuals’ privacy rights, and if
it cannot be invoked in such fundamental exceptional public-democracy-
interest case for upholding the unlawfully invalidated Privacy Act, then the
judiciary has provenly unlawfully invalidated this statutory S.8 in favour of
royal fascism and corruption – a crime against the general public!

[1.4] The arguments of the filed complete appeal are naturally identical
with those of the Application for Leave to Bring Civil Appeal as stated in
its points [1-3] – it cannot be otherwise! In such fundamental extreme-
public-democracy-interest/exceptional-circumstances appeal the judge-
made 10-page-limit rule is severely undermining the statutory direct-appeal
provision of S.8 Supreme-Court Act and the democracy/appeal-right
provisions of SS.5,6,27 Bill of Rights Act 1990 (see also point [2] below);
NZ judges fail even at the judicial foundation by mis-defining/-interpreting
Natural Justice, thereon accumulating every possible mistake that needs
more than 10 pages to identify and correct, even in the appellant’s highly
compressed argumentations – a deliberate judge-made appeal overload…

Judges’ Conflict of Interest

[2.1] In [2015] NZSC 178 SC-judge O’Regan (together with William

Young and Glazebrook) unintentionally proved the Appeal-Court judges
Harrison, French and Cooper ([2015] NZCA 428) with High-Court judge
Nation ([2015] NZHC 1188) to be criminally fascistic incompetent/corrupt
by judging the appellant’s appeal not to have been brought on questions of
law in a Human-Rights-Act case (It contained 15 law questions in bold due
to extreme judicial law-invalidating incompetence.
[2.2] These appeals contained the 2 paramount/priority constitutional law
questions that were almost identical to the 2 paramount/priority
constitutional law questions of this very appeal, aiming to finally enshrine
the much-needed definition of Natural Justice and the pro-human-rights
interpretation direction of S.6 constitutional Bill of Rights; O’Regan
prevented these appeals by unlawfully invalidating S.8 Supreme-Court Act,
raising its “exceptional-circumstances” appeal requirement to the much
higher judge-made hurdle of “extreme compelling circumstances” that
can only be achieved by a (violent) revolution!
[2.3] This new unlawful hurdle would also apply to this very appeal for
upholding the unlawfully invalidated Privacy Act, if SC-judge O’Regan,
who acts in a serious conflict of interest, were not removed from this case!:

[3] Application for SC-judge O’Regan’s Removal from this Case

This SC-judge O’Regan now tries with all force to hide his own wrong-in-
law decision, and that of judges Mander, Nation and the Appeal Court
judges, from being publicly corrected!
But these judges cannot hide any more their logical bias in favour of the
totalitarian monarch to which they swore a prostituting oath of allegiance,
nor can they hide their fascistic protection of wrongdoing fellow brothers
from becoming proven in public.
This judge’s deliberate gross ignorance proves that such formal appeal
applications are meant to disable case-law-correcting natural justice also by
producing delays and costs, obviously in order to actively prevent
constitutionally safeguarded democracy!

SC-judge O’Regan has now proven his own deliberate gross incompetence
that can only be reasonably explained with criminal fascistic corruption, and
that he is a judicial prostituting serf to the totalitarian monarch; The
appellant applies for SC-judge O’Regan’s removal from this case!

Conclusion

[4] The General Public’s saying goes: “If it is too wet/hot for you, get out
of the rain/fire; Translated to the judicial realm it means: “If the truth is too
much for you, get off the judge bench!”
[5] The expression “unwritten convention” stands for secretive arbitrary
totalitarian rule, and needs to be replaced by reliable adherence to statutory
laws, and the correction/nullifying of unconstitutional laws incl. case laws.
[6] The General Public should take notice that the monarch’s Human
Rights Review Tribunal effectively invalidated Parliament’s rights-providing
statutory Privacy Act, and reduced Parliamentarians to windowdressing
prostituting PR serfs in order to uphold secretive royal-fascistic totalitarian
rule, because naturally this monarch is diametrically opposed and
incompatible to the public’s democracy as per natural royal tradition!

Harihari, this 14th October 2016 ………....………………………….

(Fritz Fehling, Appellant)
The Revolution Has Started!