IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

APPEAL NO. SC /2016 [SC 103 ?/2016]

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

SS.27(1,2,3),5 Bill of Rights Act 1990;

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,
Appellant, 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,
Respondent

DATED 14th October 2016

______________________________________________________________________

FORMAL APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF SUPREME-COURT JUDGE

O’REGAN FROM THIS CASE,

WITH JURISDICTIONAL-MATTERS MEMORANDUM,

INCL. CORRECT RESPONDENT TO THIS APPEAL
ACCORDING TO ABOVE HEADING

TO BE DETERMINED BY FULL SUPREME COURT

______________________________________________________________________

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

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

due to uncertainty of legal representative per [3] of minute 3/10/16

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 of Proceedings for the Reading Public

[0.1] On 10/6/16 this case was started by personally filing the original
Statement of Claim with proper notification of the defendant and
application for injunction to ensure the upcoming local elections in
September being democratic for the first time. The defendant had to file a
Statement of Defence within 25 working days; a failure would normally
count as admission of validity of & liability to the claim.
[0.2] The defendant’s court delayed the official filing and refused to
accept the injunction; this was due to insufficient judge-made High-Court
rules intended to disadvantage self-represented plaintiff ’s.
[0.3] On 15/7/16 an application to immediately determine the claim was
filed due to the defendant’s failure to file any response.
[0.4] In a list hearing on 25/7/16 the judge declined any injunction, saying
that the plaintiff did not notify the crown law office, which is neither the
defendant, nor had it been named as legal representative – no response at
all had been filed! This office was given 10 more days to file a response.
[0.5] On 4/8/16 reception of the written minute of that hearing revealed
judge Nation, who acted in a conflict of interest due to his involvement in
preventing a lawful appeal (similarly without any response/defence!),
overruling the Bill of Rights Act and statutory appeal provisions by judging
that 15 questions of law on appeal (incl. the first 2 law questions of this
very claim) were irrelevant matters of fact; This was proven unlawful by the
Supreme Court, stating that they were questions of fact & law, but without
re-installing the appellant’s appeal rights -- The Supreme Court unlawfully
altered the statutory direct appeal provision of “exceptional circumstances”
into “extremely compelling circumstances” that could only be fulfilled by
a forceful (violent) revolution bypassing court appeals...
[0.6] On 5/8/16 the plaintiff filed additional procedure argumentation for
immediate determination of this claim, because the defendant failed to file
any response for the 2nd time in time!
[0.7] The court only orally informed the plaintiff of an extension of this
time limit, after he informed it… A response finally arrived on 10/8/16; it
informed the plaintiff about the refusal of Judge Nation to recuse himself...
[0.8] Contrary to High-Court rules, this response also altered the case’s
heading, omitting the Bill-of-Rights-Act sections under which it is brought,
similar to the judge’s minute. This concerted abuse of process paired with a
strike-out application was aimed at covering-up the impossibility of a
reasonable defence, preventing public attention and lawful judgment; It
therefore deals with a virtual case that misuses the plaintiff ’s name,
effectively unlawfully dismissing the original Statement of Claim, making
his participation impossible against Natural Justice, and leaving him with
the only option to file the very urgent max.-priority direct appeal to the
Supreme Court – but, of course, with informing the international Public...
[0.9] On 30/8 judge Nation announced a further delay of at least 3 weeks
for an unnecessary in-person strike-out hearing, past the vote counting date
(all proofs must have been provided with the original application!)
[0.10] SC-judge O’Regan then repeated the trick of point [0.8] above!
 Jurisdictional Matters

[1] Protest Against Misuse of the Appellant’s Name for the Judges’
Fictive Delusionary Appeal/Claim

[1.1] As described in point [2] of the recusal application to the High Court
(Appendices G,J of this Supreme-Court appeal as explicitly mentioned in
the required formal introduction in the Application for Leave to Bring Civil
Appeal), the heading of the appeal is correctly naming R (Queen) etc. as
the respondent. This is a valid practice as shown by [2016] NZSC 76, [2015]
NZSC 198 with O’Regan being one judge; the ignored Supreme-Court
memorandum (7/9/16) on p.2 lists [2012] NZCA 184, involving the queen.

[1.2] It is the responding monarch via its Governor-General (officers of

the crown) that had the absolute power to refuse to sign the
antidemocratic/unconstitutional S.24 Local Electoral Act into force
regardless of the wishes of its fascistic governments, and it abused its
constitutional position and that of the democratic General Public by failing
to refuse/remove such signature or allow its judiciary to nullify this S.24!
(The government is unable/unwilling to nullify this S.24, depending on
fluctuating majority situations and Attorneys-General’s intelligence).

[1.3] SC-judge O’Regan’s “direction” in point [4] of his minute 3/10/16 to

replace R (Queen) with the Attorney-General as the respondent (defendant)
is plainly wrong in law and would invalidate this appeal before it is even
considered, in order to mislead the public! This “direction” is clearly a
repetition of the unlawful tricking by judge Nation, which led to the
original filing of this Supreme Court appeal (which was then corrected by
judge Nation to pre-empt this very Supreme Court appeal; see [0.8,0.9]).

[1.4] Furthermore, the appeal’s Appendix H (esp. point [4]) deals with the
maximizing of the respondent’s/defendant’s (R, Queen as officer of the
crown) identity precision, also per S.14(2(b)) Crown Proceedings Act 1950
and Natural-Justice Principles, proving above heading to be law- correct!

[1.5] Take notice that the appellant is the appellant to his appeal (plaintiff
to his claim), not to that of the monarch’s delusional judges to which he is
not a party! He protests against the illogical misuse/abuse of his name for
these judges’ delusional fictive appeal/application against the Attorney-
General (case no. SC 103/2016) contrary to natural/logical justice!

[2] Quoted Case-Laws Prove S.5-BORA Supreme-Court Jurisdiction

[2.1] The appeal’s Appendix H at point [5] also mentions a recent High-
Court ruling examining the Canadian judicial practice of law corrections.

[2.2] The ignored Supreme-Court memorandum (7/9/16, Appendix L)

especially for this Application for Leave to Bring Civil Appeal further lists
Appeal-Court rulings using SS.5,6 Bill of Rights Act BORA for overruling
2 conflicting statutory laws: [2000] NZCA 403 and [2012] NZCA 184.
[3] Additional Proof of “Pre”- judicial Dismissal of Claim and S.8-
Supreme-Court-Act Jurisdiction

[3.1] This SC-memorandum (7/9/16 points [1-5]) shows the additional

proofs of the “pre”-judicial dismissal of the original claim.
[3.2] Its other points counter judge Nation’s unlawful threat of disabling
natural justice and democracy by ordering the refusal of filing the plaintiff ’s
truthful law-correct argumentation, similar to the Appeal Court judges!

[3.3] 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 claim/appeal,
then this dismissal decision is superior to interlocutory decisions.
This direct-appeal provision should safeguard/uphold the public’s
democracy, and if it cannot be invoked in such maximum public-
democracy-interest case for invalidating the anti-democratic S.24 Local
Electoral Act, then the judiciary has provenly unlawfully invalidated it in
favour of royal fascism and corruption – a crime against the general public!

[3.4] 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 [4] 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

[4.1] 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 – see point [0.5]!).
[4.2] 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/claim, 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!
[4.3] This new unlawful hurdle would also apply to this very appeal for
nullifying the antidemocratic S.24 Local Electoral Act, if O’Regan, who acts
in a serious conflict of interest, were not removed from this case!:

[5] 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 judge Nation and the Appeal Court judges, from
being publicly corrected!
But these judges cannot hide any more their logical bias in favour of the
defendant/respondent 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 law-correcting natural justice also by
producing delays and costs, obviously in order to actively prevent
constitutionally safeguarded democracy -- the appellant even explicitly
added an ignored urgent priority to the appeal application! (see point [0.8])

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 defendant/respondent monarch;
The appellant applies for SC-judge O’Regan’s removal from this case!

Conclusion

[6] 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!”

[7] 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.

[8] The General Public should take notice that the responding/defending
monarch R via its judiciary has now actively and maliciously honourless
prevented local democracy in time for the October 8th elections, invalidated
Parliament’s rights-providing statutory laws and reduced its members to
windowdressing prostituting PR serfs in order to uphold secretive fascistic
totalitarian rule, because naturally this monarch is diametrically opposed and
incompatible to the public’s democracy as per natural royal tradition!

[9] Remark: Due to an oversight while using the original claim

argumentation for the appeal, most cover sheets wrongly state Plaintiff and
Defendant instead of Appellant and Respondent.

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

(Fritz Fehling, Appellant)

The Revolution Has Started!