I suppose it is an act of civil disobedience for me to be making public the two judgments against me that were ordered 'supressed' by the courts of New Zealand. I have made the executive decision to make the judgments publically available, however, for the following reason: Supression, in this instance, does not help vulnerable people. Supression, in this instance, serves to conceal that the courts failed to uphold justice. The building still has at least 16 hard wired wall heaters that have been wired contrary to manufacturers installation instructions (wtih the electrical wire up against the heating element) to the best of my knowledge.
This case is also interesting because I paid the filing fees that were required to be paid for the cases to be heard. This is interesting because the Court of Appeal is making it look like I'm not accessing Justice because I'm not paying them more than $20,000 that was set by the Court of Appeal for the cases to be heard. But the Tenancy Tribunal shows that even if you pay the fee you still won't have access to justice. So, lack of money is used as an excuse to throw cases out of court, but even if you do have money to pay into the court system, you still won't have access to justice.
Also, the courts could have awarded me money at certain points and then asked for me to give the money back. For example, they could have awarded me (and not Ailsa Claire) costs for throwing out their application to have my proceedings struck out. Then I would have obtained money for that filing which I could then have used to give the courts for security for costs. But the courts have only found against me every step of the way. I post the filings because I think it is obvious to everyone that they not not being fair at all and they are not upholding the laws at all.
It is false that the landlord relied on an electrician. The evidence that the landlord supplied to the court was (1) A report from an electrician signing off that various things (light switches, electrical powerpoint outlets, rangehood) were all okay. That electrical report was very specific about the various electrical things that were in the apartment. There was no mention of a wall heater having been hardwire installed on the wall in the electrical report. That is to say, the electrical report did not say anything at all about a wall heater having been installed but other items were specifically mentioned. (2) A building report from Prestige Building Compliance that mentions that there is a heater affixed to the wall. Prestige Building Compliance is (as you might think) a building outfit of builders that do various aspects of building compliance. They are not electricians and they are not appropriate tradespeople to be doing electrical compliance (by their own admission). (3) An email from Sue the receptionist from the importer of Goldair saying that she thought the way they installed it was probably okay. There is no reason to believe that Sue the receptionist is an electrician.
I am not too sure what the courts problem is, here. Is this sort of gaslighting response from the courts something that other people experience, too, or is there some special mark against my name in NZ such that I just get continually subjected to what can only be described as garbage output.
The courts are abusive.
Though ignorance or malevolence or some combination of both the New Zealand courts do not follow best international practices when it comes to how Judges and Lawyers interact with and treat people who are before the courts claiming to have been harmed.
I asked for help with my filings.
Ailsa Claire in her capacity as CE of the ADHB chose to hire a QC to file to have my proceedings thrown out without a substantive hearing. She chose to do this rather than choosing to work with me to ensure that what happened to me does not happen to anybody else presenting for treatment from the ADHB.
The Judge berates me for the quality of my filings. Refuses to appoint an amicus. Refuses to appoint a Legal Aid Lawyer. Does not schedule a substantive hearing of the issue. Does not uphold my interlocutory (or costs involved in my having filed it). Does not uphold the motion to have proceedings struck out -- but required me to pay the costs involved in the hearing of that matter... A decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
I get invoices, now, from the ADHB saying I ower them more than $5,000 for the costs involved in their having a QC file motion to have my proceedings struck out. They seem to think they can keep adding money, compounding the bill, because I'm not paying them in a timely fashion. This is the public health system of New Zealand. Sending invoices to people for having complained (to the courts) about being unlawfully detained by them in conditions that may even amount to torture according to the UN. They are detaining people unlawfully in not fit for purpose buildings. I did not present asking for a psych assessment. They choose to keep me for one. In a room with extensive cords. With a sharp in my arm. With strobing blue-white flourescent light (not simply the usual flicker when bulbs are at end of life). With intermittent beeps from medical equipment. With the door closed. With no natural light. By myself. For more than 12 hours. Not allowed a phone call to police or a lawyer. They send me a bill for having complained.
It isn't really safe for anyone (e.g., tourists) to come here. A volcano could explode (like White Island) and then there won't be skin for grafting, there won't be nurses for burn care. They will find themselves bathed by random strangers who claim them as 'family'. There doesn't appear to be anything here...
The Judiciary will not uphold the laws of New Zealand. The point of the Independence of the Judiciary is to grant them the freedom to uphold the law. They are not upholding the law.