The Crown’s Right to Remain Silent vs. My Right to a Correct Public Record in NZ
Justice vs Estoppel: Registrar and Office Manager Powers
Open Letter to Mark Mitchell & Paul Goldsmith 31 March 2026 :
TO: Hon Mark Mitchell MP (Minister of Police); Hon Paul Goldsmith MP (Minister of Justice)
CC: The Office of the Ombudsman; The Registrar of the Supreme CourtFROM: Nicola Watkins (Applicant in Person)
SUBJECT: Bankruptcy Resulting from Court Perjury and Judiciary Administrative Negligence
Rt Hon Messrs
I am writing to formally disclose a coordinated failure of the New Zealand Justice system that has resulted in my bankruptcy. This failure stems from perjury
In the construction industry, where I have spent most of my working life, it is polite to give the "subbie" a chance to rectify themselves before you stop payment. Here, I am giving your team a fair chance to rectify your errors. Currently, my correspondence is being blocked by your administrators and downgraded beneath "deaths and murders." This is a breach of the Crimes Act 1961; perjury is a criminal offense, yet each piece of legislation is being applied in such a fragmented fashion that the Judiciary effectively writes its own laws.
When a government office tells a citizen their "Emails will no longer be addressed," and the matter is shuffled in circles between portfolios, the resulting "dizziness" is not just a personal frustration—it is the physical manifestation of a denial of Natural Justi
I have repeatedly told the Court and the Police to stop treating me like I am a tennis ball. Today was a repeat of the shunting around by your Manager, Amanda Wignell, so I decided I have had enough. I am writing this open letter because I can no longer trust that your office is even alerting you to the existence of my correspondence.
Fair Play
Minister Mitchell, you recently claimed in the McSkimming fallout that you were "disgusted" by behavior highlighted in the IPCA report and that you weren't briefed on the emails circulating those allegations. Yet, here we are in March 2026, and your office is using the exact same playbook. By allowing your Senior Advisor to issue a "communication block" on
You cannot claim to be cleaning up "police culture" on the news while your own staff is binning evidence of white-collar crime to protect the Crown’s administrative convenienc
The Court of Appeal: 10 Pages vs. The Truth
The Court of Appeal gave me a limit of 10 pages (1.5 spacing) as a self-litigant to explain why my case should not be dismissed. They then threw the case out and rushed to publish that decision online with the wrong parties labelled as the "Respondent." They did this despite the fact that I had already warned them and was copying in the Supreme Court Registrars to prevent an automatic strike-out. Currently, the Court of Appeal refuses to recall this decision, even though it incorrectly names my companies as "Respondents" alongside Highmark Homes on public websites.
The Irony and the "Truth Tax":
Minister Goldsmith, your Registrar, Chris Abraham, wants me to pay a $539 filing fee just to fix the Court's own clerical error. After my fourth memorandum was rejected, I decided to write a
This culture is something you should be very concerned about. I have submitted my recommendations for the Triennial Review 2026 while still battling just to get the Court of Appeal to read a simple memorandum. If the "Sanctity of the Court" depends on a paywall to correct a Crown-admitted blunder, then the Public Record is no longer a record of truth—it is a record of who can afford to correct the Registry.
As a constituent of Kaipara ki Mahurangi, right on your electorate border, I am requesting an appointment with your office. This follows the same precedent as the private constituent meeting I attended with David Seymour on September 27, 2017 at his offices in Epsom, before he became Deputy Prime Minister. At that time, Mr. Seymour was generous with his time and expressed genuine concern regarding the Judiciary's misuse of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The intent of that Act is clear: an employer must act in good faith. However, the system chose to ignore the Crimes Act 1961, despite perjury being a criminal offense. My concern, which I wish to discuss with you, is that each piece of legislation is now being applied in such a fragmented fashion that the Judiciary effectively writes its own laws. They post decisions online for lawyers to rely on, bypassing the Law as it is written.
Currently, the Court of Appeal refuses to recall a decision containing admitted clerical errors unless I pay a $539 "Truth Tax." This culture—where the Crown’s own administrative blunders are hidden behind a paywall—is a matter of urgent public interest that requires Ministerial oversight.
Professionalism vs. Administrative Obstruction
I want to go on record stating that my experience with David Seymour’s office was exceptional. His staff, specifically Kristen Bartlett, were professional and empathetic. Mr. Seymour himself was generous enough to go over our allotted time out of a genuine concern for the 'circus' I described.
However, the conclusion of that meeting perfectly illustrates the systemic 'Black Hole' I am fighting today. Mr. Seymour correctly noted that as a member of the Executive, he could not instruct a Judge to act, and he explicitly advised me to take my grievances to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (JCC).I followed that advice to the letter. I have since sent a staggering volume of correspondence to the JCC, documenting the exact moments where Registry conduct crossed into administrative negligence.
The Result? Another circle:
The Ministers claim they cannot interfere with the Judiciary. The Judiciary claims they are not responsible for 'administrative' or 'clerical' errors. The JCC claims they cannot interfere with 'Judicial Decisions,' even when those decisions are based on proven perjury and 'irretrievable' files. The Registrars then demand a 'Truth Tax' to fix the Crown’s own admitted blunders.This is the 'circular' reality of New Zealand Justice. If the Deputy Prime Minister’s advice leads only to a dead end, and your own Senior Advisor, Amanda Wignell, is now implementing a 'communication block' to ensure you remain 'unaware,' then the system isn't just broken—it is being deliberately shielded from accountability.
The "Wastewater" vs. White-Collar Crime Gap
Minister Mitchell, this is your McSkimming moment. You recently stated you were 'disgusted' by the behavior revealed in the IPCA report, claiming you were never briefed on the internal emails. Yet, here we are in March 2026, and your office is following that exact same playbook.
I see you frequently on the news discussing wastewater testing and drug imports. While these are important national security issues, it is a bitter irony that your department can find the resources to monitor our sewers, yet your Senior Ministerial Advisor, Amanda Wignell, is implementing a 'communication block' to ensure you remain 'unaware' of documented perjury in our Courts.
If your staff is binning evidence of white-collar crime to protect his time you
12 September 2024: After meeting with the Auckland Police Head of the CIB—who was professional enough to
analyze my 105 data and begin interviews—the file was shunted back to Tauranga and abruptly labelled spam and binned and internals redacted from the Official Information Act request. What is the point of sending some a page of black blocks when it's hiding the narrative of the officers rolling their eyes at the victim of a crime. Don't make it that obvious. 24 September
2024: Detective Senior Sergeant Natalie Flowerdew-Brown cited 'homicides' and 'the death of a five-month-old baby' as the reason my perjury file could not be resourced and she had maxed out resources just in the next breath going on holiday. The Vanishing Act: Immediately after using these tragedies as a shield to take 'no further action,' her auto-responder activated, stating she had gone on leave.
Minister Mitchell, if your staff has not forwarded my perjury report case to you, it falls into the same category as the McSkimming blunder. If you can find the resources to monitor our wastewater, surely you can find the resources to monitor the integrity of our Public Record.
When your staff uses 'homicides' as a shield to avoid investigating documented perjury, you are not providing 'Law and Order'—you are providing a bypass for criminality. I am sure you are not blind to the 'Teflon men' who walk around in suits, confident that the Crown's administrative failures and the way the Judiciary effectively writes its own laws will ensure nothing ever sticks.
You are kidding yourself if you believe the New Zealand public will remain satisfied with the job the Police and the Ministry of Justice are doing, when a basic straight forward request of the correction and integrity of our Court records is being treated as a clerical annoyance to shield the Minister's time.
If the Law cannot be applied to documented perjury, the public's trust in your 'Law and Order' platform will continue to erode. Please consider the families currently being destroyed by the Du Val collapse; they are the direct victims of the same regulatory silence and 'Teflon' culture I am documenting here. By implementing a 'communication block,' your office is attempting to manufacture a lack of awareness to claim 'Clean Hands.'
Today, 31 March 2026, your Senior Ministerial Advisor, Amanda Wignell, has intentionally sent me down her rabbit hole again.
This is not a matter of 'protecting a Minister's time'—it is a matter of a public servant, Amanda Wignell, actively obstructing a citizen's right to report criminal perjury. As a Parliamentary MP Support Advisor funded via the
You are kidding yourselves if you believe the New Zealand public will remain satisfied with 'Law and Order' branding when the basic integrity of our Court records is treated as an administrative inconvenience. If the
Signed
Nicola Watkins
Applicant in Person
Supplementary:
PORTFOLIO 1: MINISTER OF POLICE (HON MARK MITCHELL)
Scope: Investigation Negligence and Ministerial Office Obstruction.
| Date | Authority / Official | Verbatim Evidence of Obstruction |
| 25 July 2024 | Det. Sen. Sgt Flowerdew-Brown | |
| 12 Sep 2024 | Auckland CIB | |
| 24 Nov 2025 | Amanda Wignell (Minister's Office) | "I have transferred your matter to Police National Headquarters... the Minister is statutorily precluded from involving himself." |
| 31 Mar 2026 | Amanda Wignell (Minister's Office) | "Emails to this office will no longer be addressed." |
PORTFOLIO 2: MINISTER OF JUSTICE (HON PAUL GOLDSMITH)
Scope: ERA Privacy Breaches, HC & CA Lost Court Records, Registry Errors and Economic Sabotage
Why the ERA and The Courts Don't Get It Or If They Do They Are Just Being Evil
The ERA failed to grasp a fundamental reality of the New Zealand construction industry. The High Court and The Court of Appeal seconded it that our businesses woud never survive my personal bankruptcy by my ex Employer:
By allowing my family business names—Red Stag Gates and Fences and Auckland Steel Fabrications—to remain searchable alongside a toxic employment dispute for 13 months, the ERA didn't just 'make an error'; they performed active economic sabotage.
While the Hunts were slandering our reputation across Tauranga, the ERA’s digital record was destroying our lead base in Auckland. To a customer, a Google name search result linking a sub-contractor to a Court Case, a personal bankruptcy of your close family member who is your co-pilot or a 'Police matter' is an immediate deal-breaker. The ERA treated the non-publication order as a minor administrative task, ignoring the fact that every day those names stayed online, our family’s ability to earn a living was being dismantled.
The Hunt family build residential houses. The Watkins family fabricate metal. We are non competition even though they attempted to get me to sign a restraint of trade and a gagging order which by the way I refused to sign when they constructively dismissed me. The Hunt Family from Tauranga - Highmark Homes Ltd in their pursuit for revenge against me outing them for being careless employers, immediately contacted Hayes. In order to protect their brand which they polish day in and day out from any tarnish, and to have some fun, Bob Hunt hired long standing acquaintance David Hayes Barrister Sole from Hamilton who is supposed to be a Commercial Tax Lawyer, but is a Corporate Fraudster to hunt me for 7 years.
I typed a letter when I was early in my role at Highmark Homes for the former Director Bob Hunt assisted by Hayes, where Bob was threatening and harrassing former licencees and driving around their builds trying to get them to pay him royalties for which he had no legal right to do so. I realised the sales lady Tosca may have been right when she warned me to run and Bob came into the office and laughed and said "right who can I piss off today".
This is the Bob Hunt, David Hayes, Doug Lyon, Brett Martelli Pattern. They are predators and ego driven to the point they will connect themselves through any channels to live in that world where destroying other families lives and livelihoods is for sport.
Now why would they pursue me to do that I wonder? I had no interest in building houses, according to them I was useless at that job. I was a single mother with three teenagers who had in May 2017 lost their father in a motorcycle accident and I was the sole provider. Just because when I started working there and we were operating out of a 20m2 portacom with one house on the build and the sales lady told me on my first day to run while I still could - she was gone within the week ... to 3.5 years of hard working and a brand new office, 18 houses on the book and running their national marketing, their ego's told them it would be fun to destroy my finances, hurt my family. All because I told them that their ethics and morals needed an upgrade and that pornographic spam does not belong in a building office and to stop laughing at it. ERA labelling Pornographic pictures as "spam" is just denial.
I asked Member Urlich if she would be happy to work in an office environment like that, and she said no. But she doesn't record her sessions so she will narrate it however it suits when she's in a room with four men one being a clever employment lawyer who piqued her interest and delayed the hearing diving off onto their tangents about cases no one else knew about, and then it's five against one. Just one more sham government department on the gravy train creating a narrative and writing their own law with a god complex.
This blog corrects the public record for what it really is and what it really was.
This next table Minister demonstrates the pattern of errors and the ERA doubling down on the refusal to acknowledge Nicola Watkins had reported the perjury to Police from the District Court hearing which was preceding the ERA Hearing.
It also demonstrates that on a timeline for 13 months the ERA refused to comply with their own non publication orders, then a battle ensued the week of the bankruptcy hearing where the day before the hearing the two decisions naming Red Stag Gates and Fences and Auckland Steel Fabrications Ltd were removed with no apology. However, David Hayes Barrister Sole, Hunwick Law came to the hearing specifically with a copy of the ERA Decision which was for non public consumption and used it to convince Judge Brittain that the ERA was fully in support of the District Court decision. The non publication document reference is cited in Justice Brittain's Decision. The emails from Watkins to the High Court about this were rejected by auto responder from the registrar.Both my Family Businesses are Now Permanently Closed.
The determinations Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2022] NZERA 638 and Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2020] NZERA 467 are to be removed from the Authority website.
Date Entity / Official Verbatim Admission of Systemic Failure 04 Aug 2023 ERA (Member Marija Urlich)The Order ([2023] NZERA 418): Defamation Breach by ERA 13 months At the top of ERA [2023] NZERA 4183206159The determinations Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2022] NZERA 638 and Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2020] NZERA 467 are to be removed from the Authority website. [19] The non-publication order sought for the identity of the entity may address that concern and is appropriate to be granted. A non-publication order is to apply to the name of the entity identified at [28] of Ms Watkins reopening application lodged 21 December 2022: Employment Relations Act 2000, schedule 2, clause 10.
Additional Context from the Decision:
The Request: You raised concerns that references to a specific entity (your family businesses, Red Stag Gates and Fences and Auckland Steel Fabrications) in previous determinations caused distress to family members and damaged reputations.
The Decision on Reopening: While the non-publication order was granted, Member Urlich declined the application to reopen the subject determinations, stating that "any actual or substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice has not been established."
Costs: Costs were reserved, with the parties encouraged to resolve the issue themselves.
17 Oct 2024 MOJ (Desiree Costello) Initial Refusal: "The references... in the footnotes d o not amount to a breach... The removal... is a matter for [the ERA]." 30 Jan 2025 Auckland High Court Registry Registry Error: "Your counterclaim... has been irretrievable from our system, we have spent more then an hour with our IT team trying to locate the file and confirm that it has been unsuccessful." 13 Feb 2025 ERA Registry (Desiree Costello) Final Admission of Removal: "The determination [2022] NZERA 632 has been removed from the Authority online determination library." 20 Feb 2025 High Court Registry (Simone Murphy) Registry Error: "I did not get your documents... the High Court server... stated she did not get my documents." 28 Mar 2025 Court of Appeal (Lily-Ann Grant) Registry Absence: "I am currently on holiday and will not be accessing my emails." 01 Apr 202 5 Court of Appeal (Robert Hill) Registry Error: "It seems that the case notes for this were missed in error. My apologies for any confusion. Thanks to your email I have been able to track them down." 31 Mar 2026 Court of Appeal (Chris Abraham) Filing Fee Demand: "The filing fee of $539 will need to be satisfied" before correcting a court-admitted clerical error in [2 025] NZCA 28 1.
For the benefit of the Ministers I put my position forward which is the same position I take to the Supreme Court
These exerts from the ERA determination directly contradict the Acts of the Law and Member Urlich takes on the persona of the Teflon Woman dodging her 3 month mandate and taking 6 years to deny she split the same grievance into two numbers and those two grievances occurred on the same timeline, and notified prior to being stood down. Member Urlich maintains that I was "out of time". My evidence shows she is wrong but the evidence has not been heard by the employment court due to the Paywall Costs Barriers.
In the determination [2023] NZERA 418, paragraph [6] (specifically the introductory sentence and the first sub-point (i)) reads as follows:
[6] The Authority may order an investigation to be reopened on “such terms as it thinks reasonable.” The principles applicable in exercising this statutory discretion have been considered in this determination including:(i) the overarching concern is to avoid a miscarriage of justice – an actual miscarriage of justice is required or a real or substantial possibility or substantial risk of such;
[7] Ms Watkins seeks reopening on a range of grounds. In broad terms she says:
(i) the information she submitted in relation to the employment relationship problems was mishandled;
(ii) the investigation meeting was unfair and the determinations unreasonable; and
(ii) the evidence she has produced, including new evidence, if fairly considered will establish she did not breach any obligation owed to HHL and was treated unfairly and unreasonably in her employment including that she was unjustifiably constructively dismissed.
Note: "Systemic Failure" this proves the ERA had the Crimes Act 1961 sections and the Police Case Summary in their possession as early as December 2022, yet they proceeded to issue determinations while their administrators blocked her from receiving relevant evidence.
NOTE THE COVID TIMELINE DURING ERA MATTER
[8] Attached to the reopening application are documents marked exhibit A – L. The documents contain hand written annotations and include sections of the Crimes Act 1961, documents, including emails related to Ms Watkins and HHL in the period 2015 - 2017, information regarding the deletion of information from the work laptop provided in HHL’s disciplinary investigation, a police case summary report dated 1 June 2022 regarding a complaint Ms Watkins reported on 13 October 2017, information including witness statements filed in respect of the 30 November 2022 determination for which reopening is sought, documents filed in respect of proceedings between the parties in other jurisdictions and email correspondence between the Authority and the parties.
[10] On 6 March 2023 Ms Watkins lodged the police response to a privacy information request she had made dated 3 March 2023. The police response is a case summary report dated 6 March 2023, with some redactions and records complaints by the parties made about each other. There does not appear to be any ongoing police investigation into any of the complaints.
Context: This line is critical because it officially records that the Police Case Summary Report (detailing the complaints of perjury/theft) was lodged with the Authority on 6 March 2023. This proves the ERA was in possession of the police record and my privacy request findings well before the subsequent "Strategic Deletions" and the final bankruptcy hearing.
Note: This paragraph is important because it confirms the Authority was formally aware of your claims of mishandled information prior to the final 2022 determinations, yet they proceeded with the decisions that you are now challenging for inaccuracy and systemic failure.
Note: This paragraph is key because it acknowledges that the "entity name" (Watkins family businesses) was published in a quote within the 30 November 2022 determination, effectively confirming the source of the privacy breach I have been challenging.
[12] Ms Watkins’ is concerned all the information she filed was mishandled. This is a concern she raised during the investigations which have resulted in the determinations for which reopening are sought. In the 30 November 2022 determination and the 1 December 2022 determination these concerns held by Ms Watkins are recorded as is the Authority’s consideration of those concerns.
[17] Ms Watkins has raised a specific concern about reference to an entity name in the determination issued 30 November 2022. This occurred in the context of a quote from the first preliminary determination issued on 13 November 2020. The quote is an email from Ms Watkins to HHL in which the entity is referred to.
[19] The non-publication order sought for the identity of the entity may address that concern and is appropriate to be granted. A non-publication order is to apply to the name of the entity identified at [28] of Ms Watkins reopening application lodged 21 December 2022: Employment Relations Act 2000, schedule 2, clause 10. The determinations Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2022] NZERA 638 and Nicola Maree Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2020] NZERA 467 are to be removed from the Authority website.
[20] A concern is also raised that the Authority failed to consider the issues between the parties in the round that is, in the wider context of the employment relationship and the ongoing litigation between the parties including the Disputes Tribunal, District Court and most recently, the High Court. A ground for reopening cannot be established on that ground. The scope of the matters before the Authority for determination, including potential jurisdictional issues was raised with the parties and they were invited to provide submissions on that issue and their attention specifically drawn to FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102.
Context :
Paragraph [19] Note the 13-month delay. It proves the order to remove the files was made on 4 August 2023, yet my records show they weren't actually removed until 13 February 2025 (the day before mt bankruptcy).
Paragraph [20] confirms the ERA was aware of the "wider context" of litigation in the Disputes Tribunal and High Court, which supports my argument of a coordinated systemic failure.
[24] The second category is information relating to police complaints the parties have made about each other. Ms Watkins has filed information received from the police on 6 March 2023 as a result of a privacy information request made on 3 March 2023. It contains a reference to a police complaint made about her on 15 October 2017. The identity of the complainant and the details of the complaint are redacted. The information also contains a narration of a complaint Ms Watkins made to police on 24 December 2022 which records she found out on 20 June 2022 about the 15 October 2017 complaint.
[25] Ms Watkins says the information privacy request shows HHL complained to police about her conduct in relation to her use of its computer systems on 15 October 2017. She says this is significant because she did not return her laptop until after that date and around 15 October was when she was required to take a period of leave. She says this demonstrates HHL’s actions in dismissing her were predetermined.
[26] In compliance with a timetable set by the Authority to progress the investigation of 3085319 on 16 February 2022 Ms Watkins lodged a bundle of documents with the Authority titled “Affidavit of Nicola Maree Watkins 13 February 2022”. The bundle contains the following documents relating to police complaints:
(i) Exhibit K, an email dated 20 December 2021 from the Independent Police Conduct Authority acknowledgement of complaint IPCA Ref: 21-1075 to Ms Watkins date 20 December 2021. The email does not describe the complaint and the complaint itself is not included; and
(ii) Exhibit O, a series of emails in late January 2022 regarding HHL’s agent serving documents on her at that time and referring to a police complaint she made about that action and a police complaint acknowledgement form dated 26 January 2022.
[29] Weighing all the relevant factors, including desirability for certainty of litigation, the reopening application is declined.
Note: Paragraph [25] is a critical "admission of evidence". It proves the ERA acknowledged my argument that the employer (HHL) had already gone to the police to report "computer system" conduct before I was even dismissed, supporting my claim of a predetermined dismissal.
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING & REQUEST
This disclosure is made pursuant to the
Ministers, you cannot claim "statutory preclusion" when the data proves that your departments are admitting to losing files, ignoring judicial orders for 13 months, and using the tragedy of deceased infants as a shield to "bin" investigations into perjury.
I REQUEST a joint response addressing why these systemic failures have been allowed to culminate in the bankruptcy of a citizen while the perpetrators of perjury remain uninvestigated.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE PUBLIC RECORDS IN THE DIGITAL SPACE
Ministers, please also note that in the overall context of my "sacking" my employer whilst I was working from home on the school holidays supporting my three teenage children in the first school holidays after his death while out riding his motorcycle in Awhitu Peninsula, my employer's wife Amanda was emailing me telling me I had to fill in a holiday pay form, while her husband simultaneously told me "it's fine just make it work like you always do". I rely on my affidavit evidence where all the truth lies and of which I have kept all of my records from my employment experience at Highmark Homes Bay of Plenty as their Business Development Manager.
https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/body-found-manukau-heads-believed-be-missing-man
The Papamoa Police forgot to tell my children their father was found, we learnt on social media and they did not visit us at our home which was a 4 minute drive from their Papamoa station.
Nicola Watkins Applicant in Person
Under New Zealand’s constitutional framework, the conduct of a Minister and their office is governed by both legislation and official conduct guidelines. If a Minister’s office fails to provide services—such as arbitrarily blocking correspondence or failing to address a grievance within their portfolio—there are specific legal and administrative avenues to hold them accountable.
1. The Applicable Law & Frameworks
CERTIFIED VERBATIM AUDIT: SYSTEMIC OBSTRUCTION (2018–2026)
I. AMANDA WIGNELL (Office of Hon Mark Mitchell)
II. NZ POLICE (CIB & Frontline)
III. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY (ERA)
IV. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (High Court & Disputes Tribunal)
V. COURT OF APPEAL
VI. COUNSEL (Hayes & Martelli)
NOTE COUNSEL NAMES ABOVE: The Du Val Connection, A Warning on Regulatory Silence
FORMAL REQUEST TO MINISTER MITCHEL AND MINISTER GOLDSMITH
The Ombudsmen Act 1975: This is the primary "Act of Law" for your situation. The
Ombudsman The Cabinet Manual 2023: While not a "law" passed by Parliament, the
Cabinet Manual New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA): Section 27 (Right to Justice) provides that every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any public authority. A blanket refusal to "address" your emails could be argued as a breach of your right to be heard by the authority overseeing the Police.
24 Nov 2025: "I have transferred your matter to Police National Headquarters to consider. As the Minister of Police, I am statutorily precluded from involving myself in the investigation of, or the decisions made about, individual Police employees."
31 Mar 2026: "Emails to this office will no longer be addressed."
Sgt Jason Perry (03 Mar 2023): "I have told Nicola... we would not be investigating further."
Det. Sen. Sgt Natalie Flowerdew-Brown (12 Sep 2024): "I have looked at this... there are no grounds to commence an investigation. I have too many murders and dead babies to attend to."
Police Frontline File Management (29 Mar 2026): "Police have determined that the information provided does not change the status of your case. No further action will be taken."
Debbie Marsh (02 Jun 2022): "The Duty Member has instructed the AO not to forward this email... to Member Urlich."
Debbie De Jong (09 Jun 2022): "Any complaints regarding the Authority’s processes or members should be addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety."
Debbie De Jong (13 Feb 2025): "The determination Nicola Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited [2022] NZERA 632 has been removed from the Authority online determination library."
Cameron, ERA Complaints (25 Aug 2025): "The Employment Relations Authority is ‘Functus Officio’ and they are unable to assist you further."
Marina / Pauline, Disputes Tribunal (30 Jan 2025): "Your counterclaim filed for case - CIV-2023-094-001380... has been irretrievable from our system. We have spent more than an hour with our IT team trying to locate the file and confirm that it has been unsuccessful."
Simone Murphy, High Court (20 Feb 2025): "I did not get your documents."
Desiree Costello, Technical Specialist (17 Oct 2024): "The determination... refers to an entity name that is the subject of a non-publication order... the references... in the footnotes do not amount to a breach of the non-publication order. The removal of the determinations from the Authority’s website is a matter for them."
Chris Abraham, Registrar (30 Mar 2026): "No further action will be taken with this request in the Court of Appeal... I assume this request was directed to the High Court."
Chris Abraham, Registrar (31 Mar 2026): "Before your application can formally be accepted for filing, the filing fee of $539 will need to be satisfied."
David Hayes (29 Jul 2024): "Highmark Homes Limited has not engaged me to harrass you... You are wasting everyone's time."
Brett Martelli (10 Sep 2024): "I had not heard of Highmark before April this year... I am merely the local agent for Mr. Hayes."
Ministers, you would be aware of the fallout of the
There is a direct "Teflon" culture link here. The same mechanics used to shield those entities from accountability are being used by the Hunts and David Hayes to prolong my litigation for 9 years. When the Crown—through the ERA and the Police—chooses to 'bin' reports of perjury and 'ignore' court-ordered redactions, you are creating the exact environment where "Corporate Fraudsters" thrive.
If the Ministry of Justice cannot even manage a $539 clerical error in my case, how can the public trust you to regulate the complex web of entities involved in Du Val? You are allowing a culture where the Law is a suggestion for the wealthy, and a "Truth Tax" is payable by the victims if they require Access to the Justice System.
This correspondence serves as a final notice before these matters are escalated to the
I demand that the Minister of Police explains why white-collar perjury is "binned" using the tragedy of a deceased infant as a shield, and why Ministerial staff are permitted to block a citizen seeking justice.
Nicola Watkins Applicant in Person
Comments
Post a Comment