Allied Pensioners of New Zealand


Illegitimi non carborundum

Social Security Appeal Authority.
Auckland District Court Building.
Corner of Albert and Kingston Street

11th March 2011

For over 40 years the Crown administration has raided our public revenue, Mr. Childs overseas occupational pension is a $28,300 theft and is just one casualty of this theft:-

(1). The Supreme law relating to this appeal is the 1297 Magna Carta, our Social SecurityAct 1964 is thus subordinate. The meaning of this Act is only for statutory, state-funded benefits/pensions, with the intention of s.70 being within this meaning.Article 15 intention is bound within the meaning of the subordinate legislation of the SW Order 1990/85 which is interlocutory with this act. It is only to be invoked by certain applicants for any statutory entitlement within the 1964 Act, that not fully qualified by residency. Mr. Childs has no overseas entitlements that fall within the Act or Order meaning.

(2). Clause 29 of the still legal and binding Magna Carta of states:- [NO Freeman shall be][dispossessed of his Freehold, or] [free Custom] [or other wise destroyed:] [not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. See Google print out Exhibit 1.

(3). By deliberately ignoring the intention of s.3 within the 1964 Act (see Post script) MSD have unlawfully applied s.69G of our 1964 Act, compelled Mr. Childs to divulge the details of his private occupational pensions, on pain of their none-completion of his entitlement to the statutory NZ Super application form, then unlawfully applied 69H to his entitlements and subjected them to the direct deduction regime of s.70. This resulted in a similar amount being deducted from his NZ statutory benefit. See s.3 of the 1964 Act, Exhibit 2

(4). Note, the CEO/MSD, only has the authority to decide which overseas statutory entitlement is similar to any NZ entitlement that is exempt this Act, not ANY overseas pension.

(5). Mr. Childs private entitlements are paid as one, by the UK Pension Service. Those pensions cannot contain any statutory entitlements from that nation, a fact the MSD are well aware as in June 2006,Mr. Ogle, UK International Pension Centre manager stated in the presence of former International Service Manager W&I/MSD Mr. Ross Gillett, Mr. W. Newbury, Mr. J Child, Mr. K. Diamond (now deceased), Mr. Childs & myself:- that the UK does not export its statutory SW entitlements. As these UK SW benefits are similar to our SS/SW benefits, the only ones exported. There is a couple of exceptions, as here, the handicapped and war veterans benefits

(5). There can be no doubt that one of the pension rights is Mr. Childs Freehold property, as it states it is private and confidential as it refers to that fact on pages 40 & 56, the MSD submission while pages 58 & 60 state that his National Insurance pension is contractual and contractual condition s.115 states;- [employed by or under the Crown in a like manner as if they were employed by a private person].There can be no doubt that both pensions are his Freehold private property, see s.115 of this UK Act, Exhibit 3.

(6). All contributory entitlements from contractual schemes, including Government occupational pensions (which for all intents and purposes, are private) similar to other world-wide schemes made under similar statutory contractual conditions, are entitlements that are protected by Clause 29.

(7). In April 2000, Mr. Childs was "advised" by MSD, to open a Special Bank Account with Westpac, anaccount specifically designed by Mr. Gillett, with the object of laundering unlawfully obtained overseas occupational pension payments, to the MSD accounts. In Nov 2008 Mr. Childs discovered this deception and stopped payment of his overseas occupational pensions. A total of NZ$28,300 in that Westpac account has disappeared.

(8). Special Bank Accounts are only to be opened in the name of a recipient of an overseas state-funded, statutory entitlement, who is entitled to apply for a similar statutory entitlement, provided by our Parliament. Entitlements that are administered by the MSD by their authority contained in the 1964 Act

(9). Pages 17 - 19 of the MSD submission, describes the wrong statutory & subordinate laws quoted, noticeably our 1964 Act and the NZ Social Welfare Order 1990/85 which is subordinate to this Act, both taken out of strict precedent of law. That BRC report indicates a noticeable lack certainty and omission of evidence presented to them by Mr. Childs,

(10). In 1986, Mr. Gillett, then attached to the Nelson W&I office, initiated the first NZ High Court precedent, the failed Case Stated appeal to the Wellington High Court, M.270/86 This appeal by a Dr. W. Roe, the recipient of a USA occupational pension, is the precedent used since and against others who dare to challenge the sledge hammer approach of the MSD. Dr. Roe's pension was, as judged by Justice Davidson C.J. to be a USA SW benefit and thus liable to s.70. This absurd decision should have been appealed to a Higher Court and I am sure that if the evidence available here to-day, had it been available then, that decision would have been reversed, as in other subsequent failed appeals.

(11). The MSD submitted to the Auckland High Court Case Stated appeal CIV 2004-485-1005, that it was consistent with the Hogan 49/02 (Wellington registry), this decision then considered as being consistent with Dr. Roe's appeal decision.

(12). In a similar 2007 Case Stated decision CIV 2006-485-2588, the MSD also introduced in support of their submission, that the 2002 England and Wales High Court decision 978, was consistent with all other Case Stated appeals, a 978 decision that stated in paragraph 10 that contributory pensions were exempt that appeal. This 2002 EWHC decision has been appealed to Higher Courts, but rejected by these Courts, therefore Mr. Childs appeal must be upheld by these Higher Court precedents. Permission to appeal this NZ precedent to a Higher Court was denied as it had not been proved be other than a statutory pension but it is proven here. See Exhibit Google print out 4A-C.

(13). Pages 62-63 refers to the replies to the BRC Chairperson, pages 64-65 of the MSD to this SSA submission indicate they are aware of the ipso facto legal implications of the Government Super Fund, its unlawful topping up and the sums involved and page 66 describes how the PM's widowed mother, from 1983-2000, was subjected to similar abuse as Mr. Childs and the similar unlawful treatment of the two other needy widows, both resident in NZ all their working lives since the age of 19. All described as "Responses" which only applies to pages 62-63.

(14). If any member of this Committee has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, as does the MSD, then they are as guilty as them in perpetuating the biggest fraud that this nation has suffered since W.W.2

(15). We request that this appeal be upheld, that all unpaid NZ Superannuation statutory benefits monies withheld since Nov 2008, be paid to Mr. Childs and further:- All monies obtained by false pretenses between May 2000 until Nov 2008, plus the earned income on those monies, be paid to Mr. Childs and an explanation in the disappearance of monies from his Westpac account to the MSD, from May 2000 - April 2003. After 2003 it was remitted to the NZ Super Fund and earned interest.

F.C. Dunn.

PS. Judge Doogue in the Auckland High Court Case Stated appeal CIV 2003-485-002695 decision described in paragraphs16 & 17, how overseas occupational pensions are NOT similar to those in s.70. This description is by virtue of the purpose of the 1964 Act, a purpose for which s.70 is for, see Exhibit 5A&B for purpose of s.70.

©2009  Website by Simply Good Websites