IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Greymouth Registry

CASE NO. CIV-2016-418-020

UNDER SS.27(1,3),5 Bill of Rights Act 1990;

R.5.25 High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001

BETWEEN Friedrich Joachim Fehling,

P.O.Box 95, Harihari 7863, NZ,
engineer against royal corruption for the
GENERAL PUBLIC’s interest,
Plaintiff, in person

AND R (also called Regina (Rex), Queen

(King), the Crown, Elizabeth Windsor),
Buckingham Palace, London, England,
Representative: Governor-General,
Government House, Wellington, NZ,
Defendant

DATED 11th August 2016

______________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’s MEMORANDUM;
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
______________________________________________________________________

TO The Registrar, High Court, P.O.Box 29, Greymouth

AND TO R via the Governor-General, Government House, Wellington

AND TO The General Public

ALSO TO The German Embassy and German Media
Plaintiff ’s Memorandum and Notice of Opposition to Strike-out

[1] The plaintiff has filed an Application for Leave to bring Civil Appeal in
the Supreme Court against the effective dismissal of the Statement of
Claim and the requested relief (copy of notice is enclosed).
[2] In order to pre-empt any trials by judge Nation to unlawfully interfere
in this case, following points refer to the defendant’s documents of 9/8/16.

[3] The relevant part of the transcript of that list-hearing on 25/7 reads:
“ Judge Nation (JN): Mr Fehling, I just want to clarify you acknowledge the
way the elections are being handled is lawful, but you would like to see
some changes made, because you think it would better recognize democracy
and really avoid fascism – is that a …summing up?
Fritz Fehling (FF): Yes, this is the whole point of the case: At the moment
S.24 exists, but it should have never existed in the first place, because
it contravenes S.5 Bill of Rights Act – That is the whole basis of the
case!
JN: Just hold on! I want to make sure I note this correctly. So I just wanna
write down what you said.
FF: That’s easy to acknowledge the obvious.
JN: What I noted: You recognize the electoral proceeding is lawful, but you
would like to see change achieved to avoid fascism.
FF: Yes, this is what S.5 BORA is all about.
JN: To achieve that, S.24 needs to be repealed.
FF: Yes, nullified by the courts. And the injunction point [1.3], checks &
balances -- It is basically in this case: if S.24 were nullified, it would make
sense to also allow without discretion of the registrar such checks &
balances in order to ensure to give candidates the possibility to check that
all registrars follow the separation of these 2 enrolment ways, and then
discard the ratepayer electoral roll vote. You know, there needs to be an
extra check & balance, because it would mean a change of the present way
of doing things, if the S.24 would be nullified. It would be a change, and
therefore in order to make sure that that change then happens, these more
independent checks & balances that I proposed should be enabled by the
courts.
JN: All right. Mr Fehling…”

[4] In his minute (26/7) judge Nation wrote: “[13] It is apparent from the
statement of claim that Mr Fehling wishes to argue the court should make
some sort of order “nullifying” the effect of S.24 Local Electoral Act 2001
as being in breach of the New Zealand BORA 1990, the Human Rights Act
1993 and article 2.1 of the Universal Democracy Constitution. This last is
Mr Fehling’s document.
[14] In the conference before me, Mr Fehling said he accepted that current
enrolment for local body elections and scrutiny of the counting of votes is
in accordance with the provisions of S.24 Local Electoral Act. He
recognizes that at present the way the relevant authorities are proceeding is
lawful but he would like to see changes to better achieve democracy and
avoid fascism. He is thus seeking injunctions on the basis that there might
ultimately be changes to S.24 and he does not want such potential changes
to be of no effect. Mr Lange [Crown Law] suggested that, if this is the
basis on which injunctions are being sought, the application must be
without merit and could be dismissed forthwith.”
[5] The judge thus clearly understood the main legal issue, the requested
relief/remedy and the situation, and orally transmitted this to the crown
lawyer in addition to the plaintiff ’s words!

[6] But the crown lawyers submitted in an excessively prolix 4-times

repetitive and costly way that the Statement of Claim were unnecessarily
prolix and contained unintelligible “pleadings” likely to cause prejudice and
delay and/or otherwise be an abuse of process, and which were incapable
of being cured by amendment. The relief sought were largely
incomprehensible. It were not possible to respond to the claims, and it
cannot succeed, because it does not disclose any reasonably arguable cause
of action or serious question [of law] to be tried against the defendant.
Costs in all matters were sought. The lawyers’ submissions must therefore
be regarded as a frivolous, dishonest, grossly incompetent and malicious
abuse of process, and be seen as their admission that they have no possible
reasonable defence, a fact underlined by their 3-times failure to file a
response in time, and their indication to seek further delays, still not having
filed a Statement of Defence!
In normal proceedings the defendant’s abuse-of-process would have led to
a strike-out of the “defence” and a judgment in the plaintiff ’s favour!
[7] They also submitted that the “balance of convenience” would fall in
favour of not granting the injunctive orders [apparently all of them]. Here
the reader should consider the overwhelming convenience interest of the
democratic public in ensuring democratic election outcomes, against the
convenience of non-elected officials trying to please their supervisors and
appointers, esp. when the sought injunctions do not increase election costs!
[8] The lawyers knowingly falsely mention references to a Letter to the
Editor on the housing crisis; This letter follows the Statement-of-Claim
headline “Situation”, and is itself headed “Democracy Crisis, not Housing
Crisis”. It describes how the present S.24 Local Electoral Act tilts the local
body elections undemocratically towards multiple-property-owning fascists!
[9] The Statement of Claim as well as the Application for Injunction
contain 3 serious constitutional questions of law, including question marks!
Each of them has a headline obviously announcing their constitutional
character. The first 2 Paramount & Priority law questions deal with the
general constitutional legal-practise foundation, while the Main law question
is specific to the nullifying of S.24 that cannot be demonstrably justified in
a free and democratic society per S.5 BORA.
They are the obvious fundamental basis to the detailed legal claim that is
contained in the relating/responding argumentation.
[10] As the plaintiff ’s Statement of Claim is not a criminal proceeding
against the independent and honourful plaintiff himself, it simply cannot
contain submissive “unintelligible pleadings” but is extremely concise, well-
structured, precise and highly compressed legal argumentation. The clearly
separated appendices serve as evidence, peripheral explanations, thorough
case-law examinations, and so on. It contains all necessary aspects to
determine this case without further correspondence and delays, but this is
against the general practice and interest of this private law firm serving as
crown law office to induce costly extended proceedings, lining its monetary
pockets in a frivolous, vexatious and malicious abuse of process.
[11] Any strike-out application puts the onus of proof of a “clearly
untenable” case onto the applicant/defendant, but the defendant’s
hypothetical strike-out application fails to give any such proof, only vague
or even untrue statements (see above points).
Strike-out case law:
[11.1] It is well settled case law that a strike-out application proceeds on the
assumption that the facts pleaded in the plaintiffs statement of claim are
true (see Attorney-General v Prince and Gardiner [1998] NZ LR 262CA at
267). This means the onus of proof lies with the defendant.
For more recent authority see North Shore City Council v Attorney-
General [2012] NZSC 49, [2012] 3 NZLR 341 at [25] (Elias CJ) and [146]
(Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ).
[11.2] The strike out jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, only in
obvious, clearly untenable cases (see Telecom v Clear Communication
[1997]6 NZ BLC 102 at 235; this applies to points [11.3 to 11.5]
[11.3] The court has to apply the most favourable interpretation for
the plaintiff for a strike-out`s clearly-untenable test, otherwise a hearing
procedure with consequent dismissal/success judgement has to be applied.
[11.4] This jurisdiction should not be exercised if the claim could be
sustained by appropriate amendment. This shows that a hearing-like
proceeding be the standard proceeding, and the strike-out procedure a rare
exception. Once the proceedings enter complex arguments, the strike-out
proceeding has to be abandoned in favour of the hearing-like proceeding.
Hence only clearly untenable cases can be struck out.
[11.5] However, where a claim depends on a (or more) question(s) of law
capable of a decision on the material before it, the court should determine
the questions even if extensive argument may be required. This again
underlines the standard hearing procedure`s priority over strike-out when
law matters and especially questions of law are raised, as in this very case!
[11.6] Despite all these case laws, even crown lawyers (ab)use this provision
as of principle against self-represented plaintiffs in order to pervert justice!

[12] The defendant is so malicious and frivolous as to demand costs for

their involvement in the applications without notice that do not even give
them a right to participate; It is only through the plaintiff ’s insistence that
the defendant was notified and allowed to be involved in order to prevent
costs, contrary to insufficient unfair High-Court rules!

[13] The headings of the judge’s minute and the defendant’s submissions
do not fulfill High-Court rules, because they omit the BORA sections
under which the original Statement of Claim was filed; These documents
therefore do not deal with the plaintiff ’s claim, but respond to a virtual
claim misusing the plaintiff ’s name in a writer’s freedom-of-expression way!
They show that the judge and crown lawyers live in a fairytale delusion land,
which is further proven by above points, and make the plaintiff ’s
participation in their fictional circus impossible – hence the application for
leave to a Supreme-Court appeal against their unwritten decision.
Remark: The signature below also serves as affidavit; A separate affidavit is
not necessary because of clear evidence independent of personal credibility
assessment of the plaintiff.

Harihari, this 11th August 2016 …………………………………

(Fritz Fehling, Plaintiff)