IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. 016/16

UNDER Privacy Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act

1990

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 Ministry of Health,

20 Aitken Street, Wellington 6145
1st Defendant

AND West Coast District Health Board

146 High Street, Greymouth 7805,
2nd Defendant

DATED 1st September 2016 (13th April 2016)

______________________________________________________________________

Improved STATEMENT OF CLAIM with

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY,
QUESTIONS OF LAW,
ARGUMENTATION FOR HEALTH-DATA PRIVACY
______________________________________________________________________

TO Human Rights Review Tribunal

AND TO Ministry of Health, 20 Aitken Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6145

AND TO West Coast District Health Board, 146 High Street, Greymouth 7805

AND TO the General Public

Argumentation for Health-Data Privacy according to the Privacy Act

[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 15/12/14) -- 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 (see point [14])…
[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
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.] Shortly before the Commissioner’s final law-invalidating “certificate”,
NZ’s Supreme Court reinforced in a constitutional maximum-public-interest
Human-Rights-Act appeal ([2015] NZSC 178) NZ’s courts’ total invalidation
of NZ’s statutory laws including statutory appeal provisions, unlawfully
asking for extremely compelling exceptional circumstances that effectively
require a violent revolution against their fascistic corrupt monarch and its
serf-prostitutes in government!
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) constitutional Bill of Rights

Act 1990 BORA (Natural Justice) 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 Main Questions of Law:

[3] Does Rule1/Principle 1(a,b) allow MoH to access/collect

personal general health data including personal details without a
justifiable need for it?

[4] Do Rules2,3/Principle 2(1),3 require the DHB to fully inform the

patient about MoH’s access to health data, and/or MoH to collect
general health info directly from individual if used with identification
of individual (and thus by fairly informing the individual)?

[5] Do the following constitute unfair and also unlawful access

to/collection of private health data per Rule4/Principle 4(a,b) ?:
[5.1] misleading provision of an impliedly anonymous National
Health Index number for access/collection of general health data
with hidden provision of full personal details; and/or
[5.1.1] misleading Statement of Reply that clinical (general health)
data are not included in the NHI, although its NHI number and
personal details provide full access as its main purpose; and/or
[5.2] coercing vulnerable patients to agree to this Privacy-Act-
invalidating hidden general-health-data matching, or lose subsidized
health care provision; and/or
[5.3] hidden enabling of this general health-data-matching practice
even if the patient disagrees and fully pays for health care; and/or
[5.4] perverse unlawful overruling (“substituting”) of the Privacy-Act
Principles by interpreting 4 Health-Info-Privacy-Code rules that the health
data collected by the PHO/DHB had the perverse purpose of issuing an
NHI number to the MoH instead of the publicly expected previously
practiced primary purpose of safe, speedy and efficient provision of health
care! (This proves the true traditional fascistic total-control character of the
monarch and its govt…); and/or
[5.5] omitting Health Info Privacy Code Rules from Privacy
Statement (that is available only on request), making them unnoticeable to
legal-lay patients;

[6] Does Privacy Act Part 9, SS.96J-M require an Order In Council

(public signature of Governor-General, which was not obtained) for
person- identifying general health-info sharing between PHO/DHB
and MoH?
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 6th 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, and 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 and HRA cases. 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 fundamental 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 restricted 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 Principles and 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! The law structure already provides for restricted
health data access in cases of dangerous diseases, injuries resulting from
crimes, and fraud.

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…)!

[9] Case Law Quotations

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)
BORA (Natural Justice) and of the Privacy-Act Principles have to be applied
according to the plaintiff ’s definition/interpretation in line with the BORA!
Specific Argumentation to Main Questions of Law

[10] As the raised Health Information Privacy Code Rules 1-4 use the
correlating Privacy-Act Principles’ wording, they do not limit these
Principles and thus effectively do not substitute/overrule them per S.53(a,b).

[11] The Health Info Privacy Statement has 3 contradicting statements:

a) The enrollment form information will be sent to the PHO and MoH to
obtain subsidized funding on my behalf. [Identification for NHI]
b) Health Information which will not include my name but may include my NHI
Identifier may be used by health agencies such as the DHB, MoH or
PHO for the following purposes, as long as it is not used or published in
a way that can identify me: … [MoH gets all identifiable health data]
c) I understand that my health information is kept on password-protected
computer systems, which are not accessed by people who are not
involved in my care. [MoH is not involved in such care! It is ignorantly
daring for the DHB to make such statements without being MoH]
In other words: The resulting hidden security gaps are deliberately so huge
that one can drive a container ship through them – sideward! To coerce
patients to sign such Privacy-Act invalidation is plainly unfair & malicious!

[12] (to questions of law [3,4]) As MoH accesses/collects general health

data via NHI (incl. personal data) beyond those essential for anti-fraud
accountancy and revenue safety purposes without any checks & balances and
lawful-purpose need for inclusion of personal details, it contravened these
Principles and acted wrong in law! The DHB’s passing-on of health data
with inherent identification to MoH must be regarded as a use of this data;
MoH’s inherently intended access/use of it as one use, and the issuing of
NHJ number through identification as another. This intentional use of such
identifiable data is also proven by the withdrawal of enrollment and thus
health service.

[13] (to question of law [5]) According to Oxford dictionary 10th edition,
“fair” means in Rule4/Principle 4(a)’s context “treating people equally/just
or appropriate in the circumstances; moderately good”. But as above
rhetoric self-answering law questions show, MoH’s action is based on brutal
power-play-only besides on total control via total info gathering, because
patients are by their very nature under duress when filling-in PHO forms,
and even full payment by them would not change MoH’s data access. This is
neither equal, just, appropriate nor even slightly good treatment of people,
but malicious and therefore wrong in law and against a major public interest!

[14] (to question of law [6]) The Privacy Act’s requirement of the
signature of the Governor-General should not be interpreted as
rubberstamping of anti-privacy govt policies, but as a safeguard against
undermining the Privacy Act in a way hidden from the public and its
parliamentary representatives in the opposition. For this purpose S.96N-Y
involves the Privacy Commissioner (at present a corrupt govt crony) and
other safeguard procedures. Therefore MoH and PHO acted wrong in law
by ignoring and thus invalidating S.96!
[15] A govt-institutional official affidavit about temporary self-limited
computer access is as deceivingly worthless as former Prime Minister
Shipley’s promise that her National-Party fascist govt will not spy on
NewZealanders as long as she is P.M., under her generous law allowing
spying if NZ’s economic interests are affected – she didn’t last, and later
govts whitewashed such spying by law, because they could not hide it
anymore! For nation-internal espionage the government needs no separate
shit-sniffing SIS spy agents, because its ministries are doing this job!
Every official knows extremely well that the monarch’s govt has total power,
that the judges are appointed by the govt, and that they will do all to
invalidate the statutory law and protect the govt institutions from law suits –
criticizing such govt power and practices would result in their removal from
official position! External checks & balances are needed (see point [18])!

[16] Remedies
As a consequence of breaching these Rules and Privacy-Act Principles, MoH
and PHO have in a collaborative way interfered with the plaintiff ’s privacy
per S.66(1(a(i)) with (b(ii,iii))); The adverse affects are described in a letter to
the Privacy Commissioner dated 28/10/15. Compensation of the
victim/plaintiff is required for humiliation, loss of dignity, injury to feelings,
and to prevent repetitions of such unlawful behavior in the general public
interest as a Natural-Justice principle. Proof of a specific or even any
intent is inherently not required, but obviously exists.
An order should also be made to issue new NHI numbers by DHB, and to
restrain DHB from sharing the NHI personal details to MoH.
Distribution of corrective payment: 60-70% by MoH for insisting on
breaches, the rest by DHB for complicency without informing clients.
[17] Costs
Due to the constitutional powers of the Tribunal to correct the
discriminatory invalidation/limitation of the Costs In Criminal Cases Act
against effort costs of self-represented persons contrary to the victim-
supporting Natural-Justice principle, the appellant applies for such costs for
pursuing this claim These effort costs could be included in the remedies
above much like the Tribunal did in the Privacy-Act case [2012] NZHRRT
15 point [107], but be preferably dealt with under guidance of SS.4(1,4),11
of this Costs Act. It is grossly unjust that an unsuccessful person is liable to
pay the other party’s lawyer costs, while a successful person cannot get
compensation for his own efforts to bring/defend a case, which the Police
and govt exploits with drawn-out processes and unjust charges!

Remark to the General Public

[18] It is not the task of the extremely underpaid plaintiff to design the
NHI health-data-sharing system so that it fulfills the requirements of the
Privacy Act; He proposed that the DHB creates and safeguards the NHI’s
correlation between number and personal details, while MoH gets only the
NHI number for access to statistically relevant health data. The Privacy &
Health Commissioners (not appointed by MoH’s fascistic-corrupt Prime
Minister/govt, but by Parliament) then act as checks & balances when
personal details are required for eg. accountancy checks, incl. info to the
individuals as provided by the Privacy Act’s Principle 3 and Rule3.
Some official govt-policy busybody unnecessarily created these Health Code
Rules that basically repeat the Privacy-Act Principles but create another
inaccessible layer to make the Privacy Principles unenforceable for lay
persons.

Harihari, this 1st September 2016 (13th April 2016) …………………………

(Fritz Fehling)

Remark: This improved Statement of Claim is not substantially different to

the document dated 13/4/16.
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. 016/16

UNDER Privacy Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act

1990

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 Ministry of Health,

20 Aitken Street, Wellington 6145
1st Defendant

AND West Coast District Health Board

146 High Street, Greymouth 7805,
2nd Defendant

DATED 12th May 2017

______________________________________________________________________

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT 3/4/2017

______________________________________________________________________

TO Human Rights Review Tribunal

AND TO Ministry of Health, 20 Aitken Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6145

AND TO the General Public incl. Salvation Army etc.

RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT 3/4/2017

[0.] Summarising Introduction and Info to the Public

[0.1.] The HRRT chairman’s minute 20/3/17 allowed the defendant to file
further evidence on the point that the plaintiff stated that the MoH can
access his personal clinical health data, and that “secret” data matching is
both possible and likely.
MoH subsequently filed a further affidavit 3/4/17 that is meant to deny the
above statement and prove the necessity of health-data matching, but in fact
and logic proves it to be true and this data matching unnecessary and thus
unlawful per Privacy-Act Principle 1/Privacy-Code Rule 1! The plaintiff only
received it after he notified the Tribunal of not having received it…
[0.2.] In the proceeding and hearing MoH did not defend any of the claim’s
law questions/issues, but diverted attention by incorrectly pretending that
the claim questions the lawfulness of the NHI number. However, it was also
clarified that the NHI has the purpose of making health data anonymous
on-the-face-of-it, and that consequently its use (data collection) by MoH
must retain this anonymity.
[0.3.] In point 14.13. this affidavit also proves that such MoH data
matching is also unlawfully undertaken on mental-health and
addiction activities, outcomes and clinical information provided by
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like the Salvation Army and
other voluntary common-good groups, which have recently publicly
voiced objections against the government’s plans to create a privacy-
removing data-sharing highway and force them to provide such info
that would remove the necessary trust basis between them and
persons seeking their help. This protest proves that such NGOs and
their clients do not know this presently hidden and therefore indeed
”secret” and unlawful practice!

[1.] Points 3.- 14.13. below refer directly to the MoH’s affidavit points
for clarity, and deviate therefore from the standard incremental point
numbering of court documents per High-Court Rules.

[3.,4.] The issue is not about there being a “secret” data-matching system,
but whether MoH can or does match personal health data with the NHI at
will, which is well-established that it can and does.

[7.] Moh misleads by stating that it has no direct access to “health

professional’s patient management systems” including irrelevant procedural
guidelines created by the DHBs, or “clinical data” that mean the written
notes (see point 11.) not entered into the computer data base which
otherwise contains all diagnosis and treatments (see points 10. to 14., esp.
14.11,14.7), which is in fact the major NHI health info! This proves that
such official affidavits are unreliable except for proof of official
dishonesty and the misleading of law courts and the public!

[8.] S.136 Mental Health Act states that other laws are not limited etc. by it
unless expressly provided by it; There is no such provision regarding the
Privacy Act nor MOH that allows the misuse of the Mental Health Act for
pre-emptive general NHI-health-data matching! The Director of Mental
Health can by law explicitly require (mental-health) clinical notes of
compulsory mental-health (incl. temporary) patients to be provided directly
from the involved DHBs, but this must be done without forcing the
permanent provision of all person-matched (NHI-)health data! The director
appointment per SS.91,92 show why NZ’s governments dangerously misuse
the mental health service as an out-of-court submission- and detention tool!

[10.] It is misleading to state that any use of the National Collection (of
health data) must be permitted by the Privacy Act; Such National Collection
that matches personal details and health data via NHI is in itself already a
use of private info, and is also unnecessary and thus wrong in law as proven
in the proceeding and below.

[13.2.,14.3.] Information of patient deaths to DHBs does not need MoH to

have pre-emptive, general, extrapolating, and Privacy-Act-invalidating
collection of living persons’ personal details in correlation to NHI. It is
sufficient for MoH to send notice of a patient’s death to DHBs directly or
via NHI when it becomes aware of it; and a dead patient does not need
much privacy protection (although relatives may need some related privacy
protection), nor can the corpse litigate any Privacy-Act transgressions…

[14.1.,14.12.] Here MoH admits that the National Collection (of health
data) contains personal details matching the NHI, which initiated this case;
This is unnecessary to collect for PHO enrollments and fee-for-service
payments made to doctors and nurses, because the NHI alone would suffice:
[14.4.] Here again there is no need for data-matching collection to achieve
Elective Services Patient Flow Indicators, because the NHI alone would
suffice -- DHBs require sufficient official proof of eligibility for subsidies…

[14.5.] Similarly, the National Immunisation Register does not need

personal details, as the NHI is already provided at birth and is sufficient for
the register’s purpose. If such details are collected in view of any secretly
planned future compulsory vaccinations, then this is neither a current need
for the MoH’s purpose of function/activity, nor will such serious assaults
and human-rights violations remain without widespread violent reprisals!

[14.10.] The Cancer Register Act does not allow the removal of Privacy-Act
Principles, or require the unnecessary removal of anonymity of the NHI.

[14.1. to 14.13.] The defendant has not shown that personal data are
essentially necessary for the purpose of its function/activity regarding the:
General Medical Subsidy Collection
Laboratory Claims Collection
Mortality Collection (with regard to living patients)
National Booking Reporting System Data Warehouse
Elective Services Patient Flow
National Immunisation Register
National Maternity Collection
 National Minimum Dataset
National Non-Admitted Patient Collection
National Patient Flow
New Zealand Cancer Register
Pharmaceutical Collection
Primary Health Organisation Collection
Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data;

[15] Conclusion

[15.1.] If there appears a true necessity for collecting personal details with
matching of health data, then this should not use the NHI with its general
all-including health-data provision, but use a separate collection of data
limited to that specific purpose. After all, one privacy breach involving the
NHI number breaches a patient’s health-privacy rights across the board!

[15.2.] The plaintiff emphasized that the MoH has effectively not provided
any relevant defence to the law questions/issues of the Statement of Claim,
only red-herring regurgitations of NHI/data-collection details that were not
disputed; It has certainly not provided any defence/justification regarding
Principle (1) Privacy Act, which requires that the collection of information
must be necessary for the lawful purpose connected to the agency’s
function/activity. “Activity” must be limited/interpreted to a similar
meaning as “function”, because otherwise the Privacy Act would be invalid
by design, and would prove to be a tool to mislead the general public, which
would justify a (violent) revolution against the monarch to achieve the much-
needed constitutionally safeguarded democracy (see the Universal
Democracy Constitution); The Privacy Act’s Principles must be deemed to
contain privacy rights per SS.6,28 Bill of Rights Act 1990, which is
supported by this proceeding being under the Human Rights Act and
Human Rights Review Tribunal.

[15.3.] As emphasised in the hearing, the purpose of the NHI number is to

make the health data anonymous, and MoH’s collection of personal details
together with this NHI number is undermining this purpose! It constitutes
an invalidation/breach of Parliament’s Privacy Act Principles in a hidden
conspiracy-practice way.
The activity of misleading the General Public via such NHI may well be
MoH’s true hidden purpose/function, but such interpretation of Principle
(1) Privacy Act is unlawful per SS.6,28 constitutional Bill of Rights Act.

[15.4.] This extreme systemic health-data collection/use/privacy breach and

unwillingness to respect person’s privacy is just one example of the total
fascistic control that the British monarch and its freemason fascism (the
princes are freemasons and thus fascists by definition) is silently installing in
order to perpetuate rule by its rich aristocrats and maintain their unrestricted
socially and environmentally damaging excesses, glitter and power.

Harihari, this 12th May 2017 …………………………

(Fritz Fehling)
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. 016/16

UNDER Privacy Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act

1990

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 Ministry of Health,

20 Aitken Street, Wellington 6145
1st Defendant

AND West Coast District Health Board

146 High Street, Greymouth 7805,
2nd Defendant

DATED 12th September 2017

______________________________________________________________________

RESPONSE TO CROWN’S REQUEST FOR COSTS

AND TO DECISION [2017] NZHRRT 31;

CORRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL’S KNOWINGLY FALSE UTTERANCES

______________________________________________________________________

TO Human Rights Review Tribunal

AND TO Official Assignee (No 881705), Private Bag 4714, Christchurch 8140

AND TO the General Public

The “Universal Democracy Constitution” available via Google or directly through

https://www.scribd.com/document/341433827/Democracy-Constitution contains a direct
hyperlink access to all relevant documents of this case
[1.] HRRT wrote that the plaintiff “must now file submissions…” in return
to the monarch’s crown-law-office’s demand for $4000 cost (reduced from a
fictive $26,000). It needs to be made aware again that the plaintiff is not a
prostituting serf/subject to its honourless (dishonest), anti-democratic and
criminally fascistic-corrupt monarch by oath of allegiance, and can therefore
not submit or file “submissions”! Nor can such HRRT request possibly
cause insults to him, because only honourful (honest) humans could possibly
achieve this, although these would naturally avoid any insults…
[2.] The monarch’s HRRT insisted on an in-person hearing, although the
plaintiff in explicit foresight of an unlawful decision proposed an on-the-
papers hearing, while all necessary evidence was already provided; The
HRRT then totally invalidated Parlament’s Privacy Act and ignored his claim
with argumentation, unlawfully trying to punish him for such unnecessary
in-person hearing. In addition, the crown’s submissions were misleading and
even failed to provide required evidence as explicitly pointed out in the
plaintiff ’s argumentations, making any cost demand etc. an abuse of process.
[3.] Due to 25 years experience with fighting the monarch and its proven
99% corrupt judiciary, the plaintiff regarded it as pointless to accumulate
any assets, in order to avoid any possible corruption or restriction of his
fight that is unavoidably resulting in the replacement of the monarchy by a
constitutionally safeguarded democracy. Judicial asset theft as punishment
for doing the right thing for introducing democracy is thus disabled.
The previous deliberately unlawful decision of HRRT chairman Rodger
Haines (see https://www.scribd.com/document/338734322/App-Y-
Supreme-Court-Health-Privacy-pdf, proving his gross incompetence incl.
criminal corruption), led to the plaintiff ’s bankruptcy declaration, which he
is exceptionally proud of, as it also proves his 100% integrity/honesty (see
official assignee’s bankruptcy confirmation No 881705). This ensures that
no assets/money will be paid for the crown’s unjustifiable cost demand.
[4.] The HRRT has now removed the plaintiff ’s access to taxpayer-funded
health care and thus to any other participation in the monarch’s society
except all-out fight for human rights incl. democracy: Again, he has never
agreed to the removal of his privacy rights by the democracy-hostile
monarch via its corrupt agencies incl. the judiciary -- A required/forced
“agreement” is an oxymoron making an agreement totally impossible by
definition! Any apparent “agreement” was falsely “achieved” by active
systemic dishonest misleading of the general public as proven by the ignored
argumentations and in-hearing affidavit, as much as by his 27-year-long
explicit refusal to submit to an honourless corrupt monarch that wages
hidden war against democratic humans, as this very case proves!
[5.] The monarch’s HRRT (in addition to its other courts incl. Supreme
Court in this case and in the Local-Democracy Supreme-Court challenge –
see https://www.scribd.com/document/341435238/New-Zealand-Local-
Democracy-Supreme-Court-Documents) has proven invalidated all of
Parlament’s democracy laws, replacing them with classical royal-fascistic
might-is-right; Such laws incl. human rights therefore do not apply to the
monarch and its prostituting serfs, and the public has been shown the right
to ignore them in its fight for a constitutionally safeguarded democracy.
Curse and hell onto all royals and their prostituting serfs; Amen!
On your deathbed you will know Universal Natural Justice…
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. 016/16

UNDER Privacy Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act

1990

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 Ministry of Health,

20 Aitken Street, Wellington 6145
1st Defendant

AND West Coast District Health Board

146 High Street, Greymouth 7805,
2nd Defendant

DATED 21st October 2017

______________________________________________________________________

NECESSARY CORRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL’S KNOWINGLY FALSE

UTTERANCES IN LATEST DECISION [2017] NZHRRT 39

______________________________________________________________________

TO Human Rights Review Tribunal

AND TO the General Public

The “Universal Democracy Constitution” available via Google or directly through

https://www.scribd.com/document/341433827/Democracy-Constitution contains a direct
hyperlink access to all relevant documents of this case
The Human Rights Removal Tribunal’s hurried decision [2017] NZHRRT
39 (while other fundamental Human-Rights-Act proceedings are threatened
by tribunal-caused delays/inaction) contains serious human-rights-removing
utterances, which according to NZ’s court practice cannot be successfully
appealed, also because an appeal would not change any direct result on the
plaintiff. This correction is therefore mainly aimed at the public:

[1.] The HRRT unlawfully intended to burden the bankrupt plaintiff with
costs for its unlawful decision that removed his privacy rights and rightful
access to taxpayer-funded healthcare, because he did not inform the
Tribunal earlier about his bankruptcy, nor did he ask the official bankruptcy
assignee for permission to continue this Privacy-Act human-rights case.
However, the defendant then withdrew the cost demand.

[2.] The Insolvency Act cannot and does not make general court
proceedings (incl. Crimes-Act and Human-Rights-/Privacy-Act proceedings,
also against discrimination or health-care removal) dependent on a non-
judicial assignee’s approval – Only court proceedings to recover any
provable debt directly related to the bankrupt’s assets require approval, but
by the High-Court! Fines, penalties, sentences incl. reparations are explicitly
not provable debt per Insolvency Act, and can be asked for in private
criminal proceedings, like in the Human-Rights-Act proceeding below:

[3.] The criminally corrupt chairman Rodger Haines showed not only gross
incompetence, but also deliberate memory loss: In his Tribunal decision
[2014] NZHRRT 17 (a Human-Rights-Act discrimination case by the
plaintiff, see https://www.scribd.com/document/338734323/App-Z-
Human-Rights-Act-Appeal-deactivated-by-the-Supreme-Court-pdf) he
even cited the Insolvency Act’s relevant sections, but then refused to make a
clear decision that prevents bankrupts to evade criminal proceedings with
potential fines-punishment that would have to be paid from their income,
even if only by instalments!

[4.] No earlier notification whatsoever of the plaintiff ’s bankruptcy was

required; Once the plaintiff received proof of cost demands he correctly
informed the assignee.

[5.] The plaintiff is not a prostituting serf by oath of allegiance to the

chairman’s corrupt monarch, and it is not his style to ask such monarch’s
officials for permission to exercise his fundamental human rights, incl.
justice rights!

[6.] The HRRT again overruled Parliament by invalidating its Insolvency

Act and consequently its Privacy Act, setting a case example without appeal
provision, as is “common law” under the monarch’s NZ and English judicial
practice that also appoints judges irremovably for live…

Harihari, this 21st October 2017 ………………………….…

(Fritz Fehling)