Dear Ministry of Justice,

The judicial intent of allowing a "motion to strike" would seem to be the promotion of efficiency of the justice system in eliminating cases that are clearly without merit, vexatious, or without justiciable issues in which there is no chance a claimant could prevail. Various courts and tribunals seem to be clogged with Motions to strike that are not being ruled upon efficiently when this could usually be an efficient matter for a competent justice if not for political extortion. Delay defeats justice and equity. I would be grateful if the Justice Minister could answer the following questions:

1. What is the average time for a court or Tribunal to rule upon a motion to strike?

2. How does this compare to the notion of "reasonableness" in the efficient use of the Court or Tribunal's resources? Does NZ get a "perfect score" as always?

3. Are there "other factors" that a court or Tribunal must weigh besides those recognized in District Court and High Court Rules?

4. If so, what are they?

5. Is a NZ Court or Tribunal obligated at all times to give deference to the Crown or its agent over a "disfavored adversary" (in the perception of the Crown).

6. If so, what constitutional rights still exist in New Zealand? Are there any?

7. Is there any remaining "separation of powers" or has what we thought was an independent judiciary been captured by statute for all intents and purposes?

8. Who or what is "the Sovereign"? Is this the corporation known as "Her Majesty Queen in Right of New Zealand, Ltd" or is it someone or something else?

9. By what authority has NZ statute usurped Divine Law, Universal Law, Equity, Human Rights, Treaty of Waitingi, and did this happen in 1986 with the "Constitution Act"?

Kind Regards,

Dr Anna Goodwin

Yours faithfully,

anna goodwin