Weird Warning: 2A Para St

Amidst a truckload of legal matters LINZ has taken issue with my lease here at 2a Para St, Matapuna. I’ll share the events no doubt in due course but their attempt to evict me started in earnest last July when a local builder laid claim to some scrap steel left over from a demolition job next door. The new tenant “got rid of it” to me and the cops charged me with Obtaining by Deception even though it was a civil matter and before the courts. I recount here a recent weird dream and issue a public warning to the locals who think that they can pick up a nice lease . . . “At least the Lord knows!” As always, enjoy.

There’s a big difference between civil and criminal. This is why when a constable says, “It’s a civil matter!” they generally walk away. If no crime has been committed then the Police should not get involved, and they should let the civil courts sort out disputes. This applies to lease disputes like mine with LINZ. They claim A but I claim B. Let the mediator or the judge assess the evidence and then rule, is the normal way of dealing with disputes like this.

Every now and then however things go skew whiff and you get a crooked cop or person in authority that thinks he or she knows better than the courts and sh*t happens. I’ve gotten myself up the noses of quite a few of those in authority – exposure of crooks, crims and crazies does not make you popular among TPTB, I can tell you!

The point for me is not so much that I am right, it is that due process is completed correctly and this really doesn’t go down well with those seeking to divert truth or justice for personal reasons. This has worked out in various ways with various people over the years around me and it appears that a few of these troubles are converging. Before I get into the warning proper, I’ll recap some of the issues I’ve already blogged about.

1. Karen Ngatai

I first crossed swords with Karen when I took her on after the Taumarunui Museum Trust had attempted to shaft Ron Cooke by selling The Memory Bank and shuffling the proceeds to her pet project the Council-led Railway Museum. The conspiracy was that while the Taumarunui Museum Trust had every legal right to sell TMB, they could not legally use the funds given by the community for one purpose while denying the purpose that the funds were given for in the first place. The bottom line was that Karen’s claims that, “We don’t want to kick you {Cookie} out on the street!” and “TMT wasn’t set up to house Cookie’s collection!” ware both utter nonsense. On the first matter that’s exactly what they did and we all knew it! On the second count I have over a thousand pages of evidence in two books that prove the opposite – the TMT was most definitely established to house Cookie’s collections and he most definitely did NOT want any council getting their hands on his collection I can assure you! Being called to account like this is NOT conducive to winning friends and influencing people in power. DAS one; Karen Ngatai none.

2. Josh Hawkless

Local King Country builder Josh Hawkless left some scrap steel onsite at my neighbour’s place after doing a demolition job in December 2019. When the new tenant moved in at the beginning of March 2021, he gave it to me when I asked for it. Three weeks later he opened the gate and I zipped across with my forklift and stored it all on my land at 2a Para St. A few months later, Josh rolled on up and made a scene. That’s my steel he said. I’ve just sold it and am taking it. Oh no you’re not ended up with the cops taking it by force a week or so later and the criminal charge I’ve previously shared here. It will end up back in the civil court of course as it always should have been.

3. The Crewe Murders

I’ve shared many times that the Crewe Murders have kept the country enthralled for more than 50 years. John Ingley’s book, I Fed the Baby reveals the identity of the woman who fed Rochelle and my book The Crewe Murders UNMASKED!! reveals the truth that there was a massive amount of corruption, self-interest and cover-ups even to this day. I can confirm that two key parties are still alive to this day, the driver of the truck that took the two bodies away on the Thursday morning who has psychiatric issues and the woman who covered for her relative who was actually there at the time of the murders and fought with Jeannette, who lives in East Auckland. The general thinking within the public is that the murders are unsolved, but this is false. Many knew at the time and many still know!

4. MH370 & MH17

Again the public perception is that MH370 disappeared and crashed in a location unknown. Furthermore it is widely believed that MH17 was taken down by Russian Buk missile attack. Neither is true. My working with researcher and Auckland-based author Declan Curran for over a year has confirmed for me that MH370 was stolen by way of BUAP (remote control) technology and that it landed at Diego Garcia. MH17 was shot down by two Ukrainian jets. The Dutch and their report can be seen as a cover-up by even the most casual observer and the two events were engineered by the same people.

LINZ’s attempt at my lease eviction has been an interesting exercise akin to waiting patiently for months and in some case years for the wheels of justice to turn, coming to a point of development a few days ago when I noted four vehicles on 2a Para St, all of them acting furtively. This warning relates to the possibility that third parties may get caught up in a civil dispute, perhaps criminal activity. My advice: Don’t! You know the score – don’t do it!

Background

While it is a longer-term matter, the background to this dispute can be best summarised in an email I promised to LINZ following their ‘extension’ of a month for me to vacate the property in early June 2022. As can be seen in this email, there is a lot of detail, and LINZ’s response was a general denial, and nothing more.

As promised, I give further details in response to your various communications. As previously explained I use the term “you” to refer to LINZ, Colliers and any of your staff or agents.
1. I confirm here receipt on 9 Jun 2022 of a refund received from LINZ being [redacted].
A Dispute Exists
2. Your position simply summarised is that you are our land owner; that I have applied for renewal of our lease at 2a Para St; that you have declined that application; demanded that I vacate the premises; and you have told me that you intend to use the Trespass Act to forcibly evict me come the end of the lease (plus an extra month that you have allowed me to vacate) if you have to.
3. Your decision appears to be predicated upon the lease agreement between [redacted] and yourself, and a whole bunch of personal reasons which (despite my having asked you to detail) you have not elaborated on other than in general terms in one letter to [redacted] and me of 2022.
4. In reply I state that in May of 2019, I entered into a contract with you, we both honoured that contract until 16 July 2021 when you unilaterally determined that you wanted me gone, contrary to my best interests and contrary to that agreement.
5. I claim that since August 2021 you have variously acted with malice and have failed to cooperate with me or to act in good faith in order to assign, renew or to establish a new lease.
6. I have honoured my commitments to you as per the requirements of the PLA as I have assumed that our business transactions were covered under the PLA (except in relation to [redacted]’s lease which variously attempts to exclude the PLA and defers to it).
7. I have more than once explained that I will defend any action taken to evict me or which has the potential to negatively affect my interests, and that the basis for this defence is summarised in the legal concept of Estoppel, basically you are legally stopped from doing what you say you intend to do because of things you have said or done previously.
8. There is more, but as I understand it this is the essence of our dispute.
9. If I’ve missed anything important here, please let me know ASAP.
10. Obviously until I receive further details of your actions I cannot address your claims more specifically, but in the meantime I detail two events material to the dispute as I have summarised it in an attempt at providing you with a complete picture of events that appear to have been covered up or at least missed in your presentations.
11. I believe that you do know this all anyway, but I repeat it here for the record nonetheless.
A. The initial agreement 2019
12. I am told that in 2017 [redacted] sought to terminate his lease with you but you denied him this option.
13. As part of a consolation effort you told him that if you had anybody interested in the then vacant land at 2a Para St though, then you would send them his way to “help him” out – your words as you told them to me.
14. Before moving into and investing into 2a Para St I had engaged with you constructively for a year discussing the possibility of a long-term lease of land in Ohura.
15. In 2019 you not only knew who I was but I had met your team personally in Wellington for an hour and a half and you well knew who I was and what I wanted the land for.
16. At no time had you ever indicated that I was unable to lease Railway land for any reason – to the contrary in fact.
17. In mid May 2019 I entered into direct communications with you over two vacant properties in Matapuna which included half a dozen emails and a couple of phone calls with your sales rep, Lara Mead.
18. The essence of our discussions were that I would do business with [redacted] directly with the old tannery at 2a Para St rather than yourselves with the old Mining property at 5 BP Rd.
19. You (via Lara) sought [redacted]’s approval to discuss his lease with me; he agreed to this business introduction and you did the introduction.
20. This introduction therefore had strong context for all three parties – me, you and [redacted].
21. Our agreement with you was crystal clear; there was no confusion nor opportunity for misunderstanding from any of the three parties at that time and both [redacted] and I knew very well your position and approach to this business.
22. Some things were discussed and agreed upon between us (you and me) but others were not as we both deemed them unnecessary.
23. Likewise between [redacted] and me.
24. The essence of our business agreement was that I would do business with [redacted], eventually buying the buildings from him and that he agreed to assist me in assigning the lease to me at a later stage.
25. If everything was “honkey dorey” (again, your words) you would naturally assist that assignment to me at that time.
26. The business between you and I clearly assumed that your introduction would be seen as an act of good faith between you and [redacted], done on your part to “help him” out – again your words.
27. There was no mention of any written [lease] agreement between us because this was not a formal lease assignment approved by you – yet.
28. It was a verbal agreement whereby you facilitated a direct transaction between the two of us, to “help him [[redacted]]” out.
29. I would also note here that a verbal agreement is legally binding.
30. You told me that your desire to “help him [[redacted]]” out was in fact the main reason that you encouraged me to ‘go [redacted]’s way’ rather than ‘with you’, although there may easily have been other reasons (expediency, political or otherwise) for your encouragement.
31. The main reason given though and why you encouraged me to go this way (sold me) was because you explained that “[redacted] owned the buildings” and that it would be in my best interest to buy them whereas with 5 BP Rd, you “owned the buildings”.
32. Please note that this phraseology (referring to the building ownership) were your words, whereas it was only when you later sent me a copy of the lease contract that I learned that [redacted] actually owned “the improvements”.
33. There was no talk of any non-renewal clause or that the contract did not have renewal rights because you led me to believe that assignment would be approved as a matter of course if things were “honkey-dorey” when [redacted] and I were ready to assign the lease to me.
34. This surprised me, because when a tenant owns an asset like a building it would have been normal for them to have a right of renewal but I believed your words at the time.
35. Think about it . . . why would somebody risk a large investment for only a few years when it would be (or could be) all lost at the end of a lease?
36. I wouldn’t!
37. I posit that it is more normal that when a tenant owns a building that a land owner would have a perpetual (of course a conditional) right of renewal, and that [redacted]’s acceptance of this ‘dodgy’ agreement was an error of judgment on his part 10 years ago.
38. If it was important to you, then you should have made this clear at the time but you didn’t, indeed your words created the total opposite!
39. Clearly, your actions put together with your knowledge of this abnormality also validates the thought that your actions were potentially deliberately designed to deceive me.
40. There has never been any disagreement between [redacted] and me, nor between you and me until 16 July 2021.
41. I repeat that despite your repeated attempts to ignore or downplay or deny reality on this matter, you and I entered into an agreement in May of 2019 and that [redacted] and I did business on the basis of this agreement.
42. There are three critical aspects of this agreement that I believe you need to consider very carefully:
i) The agreement we entered into in 2019 came about in the context of goodwill between all parties and also in the context of two important pre-contract events – a) [redacted] had sought to get out of his lease and you had refused this to him but had offered to “help him” out and b) I had sought land in Ohura for a specific purpose which you knew all about. Your intent was to assist a transaction, so Lara structured it in a way that enabled [redacted] and me to do business.
ii) As a direct result of both this agreement and your introduction, both [redacted] and I have always believed that you both explicitly and implicitly approved our doing business together. You knew about all the important aspects of this business deal, and you did nothing about it until August 2021, more than two years later. Any independent and unbiased analysis of this situation must conclude that either my business relationship with [redacted] had your approval or you have no idea WTF is happening in your own offices and Railways land portfolio but either way there clearly was an agreement (of some sort).
iii) This then provides the basis for my defence of Estoppel against any claim that you may bring against me based on your partial summaries supplied to me to date. Your implied claim that the lease agreement is the only document that applies to this situation omits large swathes of words and actions that you, [redacted] and I have all been involved in as far back as 2017. 
43. If it was that important to you then you should have sought to assign and approve of the lease to me prior to introducing [redacted] to me and visa versa or you should have made the introduction conditional and BEFORE I invested.
44. You didn’t.
45. Not only did you fail to do this, you actively encouraged us to do business on the basis that a future assignment was assured, assuming of course that everything was “honkey dorey”.
B. The unilateral termination
46. In early March 2021 you leased 5 BP Rd to [redacted] and at our first meeting as neighbours, he gifted some old scrap steel to me. This was left over onsite by a builder Josh Hawkless who you contracted to demolish a building in December 2019.
47. I have blogged about this event more than once, but basically I was charged with a crime under s240 CA 2016, pleaded not guilty and was totally exonerated (https://www.dennis.nz/2022/01/crooked-cops-acquitted-a-long-awaited-court-win/) by a Hamilton District Court Judge on 9 December 2021.
48. You have taken issue with the event (which is ongoing), but the conversation that you had with Constable Samuel Edwards on the morning of 16 July 2021 triggered the sending of a letter to [redacted] in August of 2021.
49. Despite your refusal to supply me with any evidence under the OIA to clarify this point, it is obvious that you made a decision to evict me some time in the few weeks between the conversation you had with Sam and the date that the letter was sent.
50. All communications thereafter must be considered in the context that you had predetermined the outcome as a result of this conversation with Sam.
51. Quite honestly Megan your [pl] actions disgust me and I really wonder if you [pl] had your brains switched on at the time that you made serious life impacting decisions based on so much emotive gossip, naked self-interest, falsehood and hot air!
52. Whatever, multiple communications between you and the Police, RDC & CLAW representatives indicate an active effort on your part to evict me, and while some matters are before the courts already (https://www.dennis.nz/2022/06/defamation-karen-ngatai-claw/) it would be fair to say that troublemakers have used gossip to influence your decision-making.
53. I cannot accuse you of an excess of good faith conduct either and as I have said above, some of your decision-making processes and surrounding conduct would IMHO be rather embarrassing if exposed.
54. Please don’t underestimate my capacity to ask questions, to work out the truth and to then speak it.
55. The key point here is that you unilaterally determined that I had an unapproved lease in July/August 2021 the basis for which was removed on 9 December 2021 when I was discharged under s147, (I note: not s146 as the Crown prosecutor sought, as you have mentioned).
Summary
56. You introduced me to the previous lessee and encouraged me to do business with him.
57. You knew and agreed what the intended lease usage was.
58. From May 2019 until 16 July 2021 you both explicitly and implicitly approved of my actions, investment and lease.
59. I own the improvements to 2a Para St which includes the buildings and they are not for sale.
60. I have invested time and money into the property on this basis and that you will assign [redacted]’s lease to me in due course (conditionally of course).
61. I do not intend to relinquish ownership of my assets without fair recompense.
62. I do not know of any legitimate reason, morally or legally why the lease could not or should not be renewed/assigned or established with me anew.
63. You have advised me that you do not have internal review capacities, thus with a likely return to you for review to you anyway from any Judicial Review or Ombudsman involvement, it is more expedient for me to detail facts as I have here and let you proceed with whatever action you deem most appropriate in the circumstances.

And to this rather detailed summary of events LINZ replied briefly saying, essentially, “No bugger off! and “we reject your summary of events on which you base your arguments as they are inaccurate“. My question asking LINZ what was inaccurate cannot be and will never be answered, unless a judge forces an answer. Nothing was inaccurate of course and can all be validated.

My Take

Again, I hasten to add here that at the end of the say, my opinion is just that. I am, as I said above, disgusted that LINZ has acted the way that they have. I believe that more than one Ruapehu District Council representative and CLAW has conspired with LINZ to attempt an eviction contrary to their previous agreement and that they have done this illegally and against all moral reason. Their attempts to do so, despite my asking LINZ not to escalate the matter from civil to criminal may involve third parties in unwelcome loss to them by way of time and perhaps money.

This then brings me to the warning thing and while I am comfortable with the concept of a God who cares and talks to us in dreams, I am aware that not all are, so please bear with me as I speak. A few years ago, I sought His advice on whether my hunch that upon returning to New Zealand He wanted me to come back to the King Country was accurate. I popped down to Christchurch to check with an older man whom I had a lot of respect for and basically on the third morning I had three unusual dreams. I call these “experiential dreams” meaning that they seemed to have more meaning than the usual mixed up processing that we usually associate with dreams. I shared them with my friend and his wife and was quite surprised to hear that he knew exactly what they meant.

Circumstances meant that his wife prepared me for his recounting in a way that I really took his interpretation to heart. Basically he endorsed that I would be living in the King Country; I would indeed experience injustice and I had a huge warning not to lash out but that I should exercise grace. All three aspects have indeed been accurate and valid.

That said, my recent experiential dream involved me scooting some 25 miles from Titirangi on an old foot scooter riding on the steel rims of the front wheel, grabbing dinner with someone on the North Shore and then stopping just shy of a massive unprotected canyon about half a mile deep. I then slipped over the side of this canyon and jumped four times outwards with this scooter in my hands, as I careered down the side of this almost vertical cliff face. The third and fourth jump I closed my eyes and had the sense of floating down very slowly, I knew that if I let go of the steel scooter it would drop downwards with gravity, yet I was going down myself, slowly in the middle of this deep canyon. A second or two after I stopped, I opened my eyes and was face to face with a bald dude in his mid forties who looked at me with as much shock as I had looking back at him. We simultaneously said “Who the f* are you?” and “What the f* are you doing here in front of me?” All I could say to him was, “Well at least the Lord knows!” and I did say that, exactly.

I then awoke properly.

All the time as I came down that canyon I could hear a repeating sound – sort of like a fog horn but not really so coarse with the warning sound transcribed as I’ve put above. Note the details – the key G major, the tempo a quarter note = 90, the slur, the pause on the full notes and repeating forever (ripetuti all’infinito).

As I struggled to interpret this I can only assume that this is a warning for those wanting to take advantage of something that is the Lord’s. I assume that it is the lease of 2a Para St, and that the Lord wanted to intervene here and warn somebody or someone that He knows. Dealing in the spiritual realm is not easy for me, despite how it may seem to others at times. Yes, I’ve caused adversity for others by standing up for the truth and yes, I know that there are people (particularly in Samoa) six foot under as a direct result of what I have said, but if this is you and if this warning applies, please act constructively for your own sake.

If He is alive and well and if He cares and if He knows that you will be reading this blog post (and I believe all of this) – then please do the honourable thing will you?

Thanks for swinging by again today!