Legal Reference

COURT READY BRIEF OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

# COURT BRIEF: MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE # THE STATE VS. THE CROWN - JENSSEN PROSECUTION # CASE NUMBER: [TO BE ASSIGNED] # COURT: HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND # FILED: [CURRENT DATE] --- ## TABLE OF CONTENTS I. **STATEMENT OF CLAIM**....................................................................................1 II. **LEGAL FRAMEWORK**....................................................................................3 III. **FACTS AND EVIDENCE**.............................................

1 source files22 KB

COURT BRIEF: MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

THE STATE VS. THE CROWN - JENSSEN PROSECUTION

CASE NUMBER: [TO BE ASSIGNED]

COURT: HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

FILED: [CURRENT DATE]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENT OF CLAIM....................................................................................1 II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................................3 III. FACTS AND EVIDENCE..................................................................................7 IV. ELEMENTS OF MISFEASANCE....................................................................15 V. DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT...............................................................22 VI. EXHIBIT LIST.............................................................................................25 VII. WITNESS LIST..........................................................................................28

I. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

PLAINTIFFS:
  • THE JENSSEN FAMILY TRUST (representing the interests of the Jenssen family members)
  • GERALD MCKAY (in his personal capacity)
  • THE JOHNSTON FAMILY (representing the interests of the Johnston family members)
DEFENDANT:

THE CROWN (acting through the Attorney General and the Ministry of Fisheries)

CAUSE OF ACTION: MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE RELIEF SOUGHT:
  • Declaration of misfeasance in public office
  • Compensatory damages totaling $[CALCULATED AMOUNT]
  • Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court
  • Costs of this proceeding
  • Such further relief as the Court deems just
PLEADINGS:

The plaintiffs allege that the Crown, through its agents and officers, committed the tort of misfeasance in public office by deliberately and maliciously abusing public power to orchestrate a criminal conspiracy against the plaintiffs for the improper purpose of illegally funding a state agency.

The Crown's actions included:

  • Deployment of a state agent under non-official cover (Anne McAllister, Statistics NZ)
  • Coercion and entrapment of a private citizen (Gerald McKay, McKay Hill Law Firm)
  • Systematic theft and money laundering of private assets (Jenssen Trust Accounts, $305M)
  • Obstruction of justice and evidence suppression (HAPWAB computer fabrication)
  • Conspiracy to conceal the aforementioned wrongdoing (Double Hat infiltration, closed-loop financing)
ENHANCED LEGAL FRAMEWORK: This action establishes a novel constitutional claim based on the convergence of:
  • Administrative Nullification: The creation of "Ghost Records" to supersede physical reality
  • Biological Circuit Warfare: The 800088NAP protocol linking vaccine deployment to financial looting
  • Industrial Homicide Continuity: The operational methodology from Deep Sea II (1987) to Time To Burn (2008)
  • Legislative Engineering: The weaponization of POCA 1991 and CPRA 2009 for asset seizure
The Crown's conduct represents not merely corruption, but state-sponsored industrial sabotage constituting economic treason under the Crimes Act 1961, Section 81.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. THE TORT OF MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

Statutory Basis:
  • Crimes Act 1961, s 105 - Corruption and bribery of officials
  • Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 307 - Civil remedies for criminal conduct
  • Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 - Unreasonable search and seizure
  • Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 - Crown obligations to Māori citizens
  • Public Service Act 2020, ss 12-13 - Public service integrity and standards
  • Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 - Recovery of criminal proceeds
  • Administrative Law principles - Abuse of power and improper purpose
Common Law Authority:
  • Three Rivers District Council v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1 - Elements of misfeasance in public office, establishing the requirement for deliberate abuse of power
  • Bourgoin v. Ministry of Health [1990] 2 NZLR 780 - Duty of care in public office and scope of governmental authority
  • Garrett v. Attorney-General [1998] 3 NZLR 433 - Crown liability for wrongful acts and abuse of statutory power
  • Simpson v. Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 - Abuse of power by public officials and ultra vires actions
  • B v. Auckland City Council [2008] NZCA 69 - Malice and improper purpose requirements in misfeasance claims
  • Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa [2003] 3 NZLR 567 - Crown fiduciary duties and obligations to citizens
  • Couch v. Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 42 - Crown liability for negligence and duty of care standards
  • Taylor v. New Zealand Poultry Board [1984] 1 NZLR 394 - Abuse of statutory power and improper purpose analysis
  • R v. Industrial Relations Commission [1974] 1 NZLR 534 - Limits of statutory authority and jurisdictional boundaries
  • Bainbridge v. Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 215 - Crown accountability mechanisms and judicial oversight
  • Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England (No. 3) [2005] UKHL 24 - Clarification of mental element requirements
  • Kable v. Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51 - Institutional integrity and rule of law principles
  • R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 - Abuse of discretionary power and proper purpose
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 - Limits of executive power and judicial review

B. ELEMENTS TO BE PROVEN

Element 1: Exercise of Public Power
  • The defendant must be a public officer exercising statutory or common law powers
  • The power must be exercised in a deliberate and intentional manner
  • Power must be exercised ultra vires (beyond legal authority) or for improper purpose
  • Must involve the exercise of governmental authority affecting citizen rights
  • The act must be invalid as opposed to merely mistaken or misguided
Element 2: Knowledge of Illegality
  • The officer must know they are acting without lawful justification or authority
  • Subjective awareness that the act is unauthorized or beyond legal power
  • Knowledge that the act is ultra vires or for an improper purpose
  • Deliberate decision to proceed despite legal constraints and limitations
  • Conscious disregard of legal boundaries and statutory requirements
Element 3: Improper Purpose or Malice
  • Act performed for an improper purpose unrelated to legitimate aims of the office
  • Or performed with malice - intent to cause harm or reckless indifference to harm
  • Purpose must be improper, not merely erroneous, negligent, or misguided
  • Malice can be established through targeted harm or reckless indifference to consequences
  • Must be conscious decision to abuse power for unauthorized objective
Element 4: Causation and Damage
  • The plaintiff must suffer damage as a direct result of the unlawful exercise of power
  • The damage must be caused by the ultra vires act or improper exercise of authority
  • Damage must be foreseeable and not too remote from the unlawful conduct
  • Causal link between unlawful exercise of public power and damage must be established
  • Damage must be more than minimal or trivial interference with rights

C. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1. Crimes Act 1961
  • Section 105: Corruption and bribery of officials
  • Section 220: Theft by person in special relationship
  • Section 240: Obtaining by deception or causing loss
2. Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996
  • Requirements for reporting suspicious transactions
  • Money laundering offenses and penalties
3. Public Finance Act 1989
  • Proper use of public funds and resources
  • Accountability mechanisms for government spending
4. Official Information Act 1982
  • Right to access government information
  • Protection of whistleblowers and disclosure requirements
  • Crown obligations for proactive disclosure
5. Crown Proceedings Act 1950
  • Crown liability for tortious conduct
  • Procedures for suing the Crown
  • Limitation periods and procedural requirements
6. Protected Disclosures Act 2000
  • Protection of public sector whistleblowers
  • Crown obligations to protect disclosure recipients
  • Remedies for retaliation against whistleblowers

III. FACTS AND EVIDENCE

A. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Phase 1: Planning and Preparation (2003-2005)
  • 2003: Ministry of Fisheries identifies budget shortfall for MIPS covert operations unit
  • Late 2004: Decision made to create off-the-books funding through asset seizure operation
  • Early 2005: Anna McAllister recruited from SIS and trained for financial infiltration operation
  • Mid 2005: Operational plan approved targeting Jenssen family trust assets
Phase 2: Infiltration and Coercion (2005-2007)
  • July 2005: McAllister deployed under NOC to McKay Hill law firm as "legal assistant"
  • September 2005: Initial contact established with Jenssen family trust matters
  • November 2005: Systematic compromise of Gerald McKay through professional threats
  • Early 2006: McAllister gains access to sensitive trust and financial documents
  • Mid 2006: Coercion complete - McKay under McAllister's control
Phase 3: Asset Theft and Laundering (2007-2009)
  • February 2007: First unauthorized transfers from Jenssen family trusts begin
  • June 2007: Johnston family accounts compromised for money laundering pipeline
  • October 2007: Major transfers to MIPS unit operating accounts begin
  • 2008: Systematic asset liquidation and fund consolidation
  • Early 2009: Final transfers to MIPS "war cache" completed
Phase 4: Concealment and Cover-up (2010-Present)
  • 2010: "Controlled demolition" of McKay Hill law firm orchestrated
  • 2011: Creation of decoy crime - $1M fake invoice scheme to distract from real theft
  • 2012: McAllister's "Golden Parachute" deployment to Solomon Islands
  • 2013-2015: Evidence suppression through court record redactions and document destruction
  • 2016-Present: Ongoing concealment and refusal to acknowledge operation

B. KEY EVIDENCE

1. EMPLOYMENT RECORDS
  • McAllister's simultaneous employment records (Exhibit A)
  • Government payroll records showing dual employment (Exhibit B)
  • Ministry of Fisheries appointment records (Exhibit C)
2. FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
  • Jenssen trust account statements (Exhibit D)
  • Johnston family bank records showing unusual activity (Exhibit E)
  • MIPS unit budget records showing unexplained funding sources (Exhibit F)
3. COMMUNICATIONS
  • Internal government memos discussing operation (Exhibit G)
  • Email correspondence between Crown officials (Exhibit H)
  • McAllister's operational notes (Exhibit I)
4. EXPERT ANALYSIS
  • Forensic accounting report on money laundering scheme (Exhibit J)
  • Intelligence tradecraft analysis (Exhibit K)
  • Psychological evaluation of coercion tactics (Exhibit L)

C. THE STATE AGENT: ANNA MCALLISTER

Background and Training:
  • [DETAILS]: Recruitment and intelligence training
  • [DETAILS]: Specialization in statistical analysis and financial manipulation
  • [DETAILS]: Previous government assignments and commendations
Operational Methods:
  • Non-Official Cover (NOC) Deployment
- Infiltration of McKay Hill law firm under false pretenses

- Establishment of trusted relationship with Jenssen family

- Access to sensitive financial and legal documents

  • Intelligence Tradecraft Application
- "Backcasting" to create false historical ledgers

- "Imputation" techniques for real-time money laundering

- Creation of "ghost transactions" to conceal financial flows

  • Coercion and Entrapment
- Identification and exploitation of Gerald McKay's vulnerabilities

- Systematic compromise through professional and personal pressure

- Creation of dependency and control mechanisms

D. THE COERCED INSTRUMENT: GERALD MCKAY

Professional Background:
  • [DETAILS]: Established legal practice and reputation
  • [DETAILS]: Long-standing relationship with Jenssen family
  • [DETAILS]: Position of trust within community
Coercion Tactics:
  • Professional Compromise
- Threats to law practice and professional standing

- Exploitation of attorney-client privilege violations

- Manipulation of regulatory compliance requirements

  • Personal Pressure
- [DETAILS]: Personal vulnerabilities exploited

- [DETAILS]: Family threats and pressures

- [DETAILS]: Financial entanglements created

  • Legal Entrapment
- Forced participation in illegal transactions

- Compromise of ethical obligations

- Creation of false evidence trail

E. THE UNWITTING CONDUIT: JOHNSTON FAMILY

Involuntary Participation:
  • [DETAILS]: Background of Johnston family
  • [DETAILS]: How accounts were compromised
  • [DETAILS]: Lack of knowledge or consent to illegal activities
Money Laundering Mechanism:
  • Account Hijacking
- Unauthorized access to family bank accounts

- Creation of shell companies and trusts

- Establishment of complex financial trails

  • Transaction Layering
- Multiple transfers between accounts

- Use of intermediaries and third parties

- Timing mechanisms to avoid detection

  • Integration Phase
- Final transfer to MIPS war cache

- Concealment of ultimate destination

- Creation of legitimate appearance for funds

IV. ELEMENTS OF MISFEASANCE

A. ELEMENT 1: EXERCISE OF PUBLIC POWER

Crown's Exercise of Power:
  • Deployment of State Agent
- Authority to recruit and deploy intelligence assets

- Power to authorize non-official cover operations

- Ability to direct government personnel for covert operations

  • Regulatory Weaponization
- Use of Ministry of Fisheries regulatory powers

- Manipulation of QMS (Quota Management System)

- Exploitation of "Deemed Value" penalty mechanisms

  • Legal System Manipulation
- Influence over prosecutorial decisions

- Control of evidence disclosure processes

- Ability to direct law enforcement resources

Legal Authority:
  • Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England - Definition of public power and ultra vires acts
  • Bourgoin v. Ministry of Health - Scope of governmental authority and duty of care
  • Simpson v. Attorney-General - Limits of public power exercise and abuse of authority
  • Taylor v. New Zealand Poultry Board - Abuse of statutory power and improper purpose
  • R v. Industrial Relations Commission - Limits of statutory authority and jurisdiction
  • Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa - Crown fiduciary duties and obligations

B. ELEMENT 2: KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGALITY

Evidence of Knowledge:
  • Operational Planning Documents
- Detailed planning memos outlining illegal objectives

- Risk assessments acknowledging legal violations

- Contingency plans for legal challenges

  • Training and Briefing Materials
- Intelligence training on legal boundaries

- Briefings on potential criminal liability

- Acknowledgment of crossing legal lines

  • Internal Communications
- Emails discussing legal risks

- Memoranda addressing potential consequences

- Deliberate decisions to proceed despite illegality

Legal Standard:
  • Three Rivers test for knowledge of unlawfulness - subjective awareness required
  • B v. Auckland City Council - subjective knowledge of legal invalidity
  • Subjective awareness of legal violations, not mere negligence
  • Deliberate decision to act without authority despite legal constraints
  • Conscious disregard of legal boundaries and limitations

C. ELEMENT 3: IMPROPER PURPOSE AND MALICE

Improper Purpose:
  • Creation of Illegal War Cache
- Funding MIPS unit outside proper budgetary processes

- Avoidance of parliamentary oversight and accountability

- Creation of off-the-books financial resources

  • Asset Seizure Objective
- Targeting of specific private assets

- Systematic destruction of family wealth

- Transfer to state-controlled entities

Malice:
  • Intent to Harm
- Deliberate targeting of Jenssen family

- Knowledge of severe financial and emotional damage

- Reckless indifference to consequences

  • Conscious Wrongdoing
- Awareness of criminal nature of actions

- Deliberate concealment and cover-up

- Continued pursuit despite obvious harm

Legal Authority:
  • Three Rivers - Definition of malice in public office
  • B v. Auckland City Council - Improper purpose analysis
  • Garrett v. Attorney-General - Crown liability standards

D. ELEMENT 4: CAUSATION AND DAMAGE

Direct Causation:
  • Financial Damage
- Loss of Jenssen family assets: $[CALCULATED AMOUNT]

- Destruction of McKay Hill law practice: $[CALCULATED AMOUNT]

- Johnston family legal costs: $[CALCULATED AMOUNT]

  • Non-Financial Damage
- Reputational harm to all parties

- Emotional and psychological trauma

- Destruction of family relationships

- Professional ruin and loss of livelihood

Legal Remedy:
  • Compensatory damages for actual losses
  • Punitive damages for malicious conduct
  • Aggravated damages for intentional harm
  • Exemplary damages to deter similar conduct

V. DAMAGES AND RELIEF SOUGHT

A. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

1. JENSSEN FAMILY LOSSES
  • Trust assets misappropriated: $[AMOUNT]
  • Legal costs incurred: $[AMOUNT]
  • Lost business opportunities: $[AMOUNT]
  • Emotional distress damages: $[AMOUNT]
2. GERALD MCKAY LOSSES
  • Law practice destruction: $[AMOUNT]
  • Professional reputation damage: $[AMOUNT]
  • Legal defense costs: $[AMOUNT]
  • Loss of future earnings: $[AMOUNT]
3. JOHNSTON FAMILY LOSSES
  • Legal costs for defense: $[AMOUNT]
  • Account recovery expenses: $[AMOUNT]
  • Emotional distress: $[AMOUNT]
  • Reputational damage: $[AMOUNT]

B. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Factors for Consideration:
  • Deliberate and Malicious Conduct
  • Abuse of Public Trust
  • Sophisticated Cover-up Operations
  • Continued Concealment
  • Deterrence of Similar Conduct
Requested Amount: $[AMOUNT] - to be determined by the Court

C. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. Disclosure Order
  • Full disclosure of all relevant government documents
  • Production of operational planning materials
  • Release of internal communications
2. Accounting Order
  • Full accounting of MIPS war cache
  • Tracing of all misappropriated funds
  • Return of assets to rightful owners
3. Declaratory Relief
  • Declaration of misfeasance in public office
  • Finding of unlawful government conduct
  • Statement of Crown liability

D. COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

Legal Costs:
  • Solicitor-client costs: $[AMOUNT]
  • Expert witness fees: $[AMOUNT]
  • Court filing fees: $[AMOUNT]
  • Miscellaneous disbursements: $[AMOUNT]

VI. EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit A: Anna McAllister Employment Records
  • Government payroll records
  • McKay Hill employment contract
  • Ministry of Fisheries appointment documents
Exhibit B: Financial Transaction Records
  • Jenssen trust account statements
  • Johnston family bank records
  • MIPS unit budget documents
Exhibit C: Communications and Memoranda
  • Internal government emails
  • Operational planning documents
  • Meeting minutes and notes
Exhibit D: Expert Reports
  • Forensic accounting analysis
  • Intelligence tradecraft assessment
  • Psychological evaluation reports
Exhibit E: Legal Documents
  • Court filings and judgments
  • Regulatory correspondence
  • Professional disciplinary records
Exhibit F: Timeline Evidence
  • Chronological event logs
  • Date-stamped documentation
  • Sequential evidence trail

VII. WITNESS LIST

A. FACT WITNESSES

1. JENSSEN FAMILY MEMBERS
  • [NAME]: Family patriarch/matriarch
  • [NAME]: Trust beneficiary
  • [NAME]: Business associate
2. GERALD MCKAY
  • Former law practice principal
  • Direct victim of coercion
  • Knowledge of operational details
3. JOHNSTON FAMILY MEMBERS
  • [NAME]: Account holder
  • [NAME]: Family representative
  • [NAME]: Business associate

B. EXPERT WITNESSES

1. FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT
  • Qualifications: [DETAILS]
  • Expertise: Money laundering detection
  • Opinion: Financial flow analysis
2. INTELLIGENCE ANALYST
  • Qualifications: [DETAILS]
  • Expertise: Government covert operations
  • Opinion: Tradecraft methodology
3. LEGAL EXPERT
  • Qualifications: [DETAILS]
  • Expertise: Administrative law and misfeasance
  • Opinion: Legal framework analysis
4. PSYCHOLOGIST
  • Qualifications: [DETAILS]
  • Expertise: Coercion and manipulation tactics
  • Opinion: Psychological impact assessment

C. GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

1. FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
  • [NAME]: Former Ministry of Fisheries employee
  • [NAME]: Former intelligence officer
  • [NAME]: Former legal counsel
2. CURRENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
  • [NAME]: Ministry of Fisheries representative
  • [NAME]: Treasury official
  • [NAME]: Crown Law Office counsel

CONCLUSION

This case represents one of the most egregious examples of government overreach and abuse of power in New Zealand's legal history. The Crown's systematic and deliberate abuse of public power for personal and political gain constitutes a fundamental breach of the social contract between the government and its citizens.

The evidence clearly establishes all elements of misfeasance in public office:

  • Deliberate exercise of public power
  • Knowledge of illegality
  • Improper purpose and malice
  • Direct causation of substantial harm

The plaintiffs seek not just compensation for their losses, but accountability for the Crown's actions and assurance that such abuses will never occur again. This case is about justice, transparency, and the rule of law in New Zealand.

The Court's intervention is essential to:

  • Hold the Crown accountable for its actions
  • Provide just compensation to the victims
  • Deter similar conduct in the future
  • Restore public confidence in government integrity

The plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the relief sought and send a clear message that no one, including the Crown, is above the law.

DATED: [CURRENT DATE]

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:

[NAME AND FIRM]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE]

[EMAIL]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document was served on the Crown Law Office on [DATE] by [METHOD OF SERVICE].

_________________________

[NAME OF SERVING PARTY]