PRUNUSTOFT

Gently's log, an account of a very brave 20 foot hood's skipper's journey north from Sydney NSW 
to Port Douglas in northern Queensland.

  History of Vietnam War 1950 through to 1966 page, exposes many aspects of the early build-up and outrageous deployment of SEATO forces in predominately 
Mahayana Vietnam.

Find many other photos using the active links in the left-hand column.

Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law. A person effected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination accept of course me.
I  tried in accordance with the laws of New Zealand to obtain my right of lawful discharge from the New Zealand army, thus far without success.

The NZ Defence Force continues ongoing deprivation of my lawful entitlements.  

Recently again contacted the office of the Ombudsman raising issues in respect in-action of a department official of the courts. I did that in relation to a document correctly earlier filed with Ombudsman Littlewood before departing NZ in 2004.

A legal document filed with him under section 13 of the Ombudsman Act.

Ombudsman Littlewood in his reply advised that he has had a discussion with the Ministry for Justice.

I then received correspondence from General Manager Higher Courts Andrew Hampton. Within his even more recent correspondence, General Manager Higher Courts in part explains he is unable to comment on judicial proceedings.

This because it is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system that, in order to maintain the integrity of our judiciary, judicial proceedings operate entirely independently from Ministry of Justice officials.

A High Court Judge on 16^th day of December 2002 at Rotorua, Justice Harrison, did not dismiss my High Court Appeal. The appeal remains active and my lawful correspondence to the Governor General was and remains consistent with Justice Harrison’s decision-making and direct reference to the Governor General during the hearing of appeal. These legal matters recently raised with a Minister in Helen Clarks government related to a soldier’s grievances correctly communicated in accordance with law and filed with the Governor General under sections of the Human Rights Act, Bill of Rights Act and Armed Forces Discipline Act.

Those matters are judicial matters protected as such under the separation of powers expressed within the New Zealand Constitution. Judicial matters are not matters Cabinet or politicians of any persuasion have any right to involve themselves in.
No Minister has a right to impede the lawful duty of a soldier, or either the findings of a High Court Judge or the legal and lawful duty of the Governor General.

The document the Honourable Governor General received from Robert Plumtree is and remains a judicial matter that has been lawfully expressed as a matter of law under the Human Rights Act, Bill of Rights Act and Armed Forces Discipline Act. Which are not matters of course Ministers can fiddle with; it is a JUDICIAL MATTER that is supposed to be protected under the separation of powers within the CONSTITUTION ACT 1986

I understand the Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement. The Act first recognises that the Queen – the Sovereign in right of New Zealand – is the Head of State of New Zealand, and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative in New Zealand. The legal document I filed with the Governor General is a document filed by a serving soldier in Her Majesties armed forces service. The Governor General is the highest authority of the NZ armed forces at that time left for me to complain to, and the Armed Forces Discipline Act filed with the Governor General demands if the higher authority complained to is unable to resolve the soldier’s grievances he or she must act in accordance with law and take the soldiers grievances to the next higher authority, which in these matters clearly means
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11. 

The Constitution Act supports relevant decisions of the courts, for instance, upholding the rights of an individual against the powers of the state, and in determining the extent of those powers.

It is my understanding the Cabinet essentially is a body established by convention, it has no legal power; and the House acting alone has very limited powers to make decisions with full legal effect. The courts do, and my actions are consistent with the findings of Justice Harrison of the New Zealand High Court at Rotorua on the 16^th day of December 2002. Consistent also with the findings of the General Manager Higher Courts that it is a matter that is a judicial matter.

The office of Governor-General sec. 1.11 of the Letters Patent requires Ministers to keep the Governor-General fully informed about the general conduct of the government, and to furnish the Governor-General with such information as he or she may request on any matter relating to the government of New Zealand.

I therefore ask the Minister will you please exercise your prerogative as a Minister of the Crown? Please ask the Honourable Prime Minister to inform the Governor General of the current situation in respect to the legal responsibility of the Commander in Chief of the New Zealand Armed Forces to comply with the laws and the provisions of the New Zealand Constitution?

Both the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act contain other expressed legal rights within the correspondence sent to the Governor-General that I am referring to.

Minister please act to bring my concerns to the attention of Prime Minister Helen Clark as I am been unlawfully being deprived of my rights expressed in the document lawfully filed expressing relevant aspects of the Human Rights Act, Bill of Rights Act and Armed Forces Discipline Act.

Please enjoy your visit.

Cheers and very best wishes from;
Robert