Dear Ministry for the Environment,
A member of your staff has secured a $75,000 payment by taking legal action against me

The proceedings were commenced after attacking my employment with false documents which your lawyer solicited from the New Zealand law society
When I chose to retire the lawyer used the same false documents to commence defamation proceedings . The purpose of the false documents was to negate the corroborative evidence which I relied on for the truth of my statements .

During the proceedings your lawyer provided me with information which proved that the law society letters were false but despite this your lawyer failed to acknowledge the fact and the Statement of claim continued unchanged for some 2 ½ years

The law society has failed to act and this is now a police matter

Your lawyer instead of being proactive on being told catagorically that the law society documents were wrong ( by the law society ) opted to take harassment proceedings based on the fact that I was asking what the purpose of the proceedings was .- my only contact with your lawyer was due to the proceedings against me .Had Ino tbeen under attack I would not have had any contact .- I believe the action was entrapment

In filing the harassment proceedings the original statement of claim in the defamation proceedings was affirmed as being true and correct, when it was not.

I reported this apparent perjury to the police, but it was not pursued by them on the advice of their legal team despite the lawyers own affirmation which proved the facts .

Your lawyer then changed the SOC and misled the court with regards to the term “lawyer” in a matter dating back to 2006 when the term Lawyer was not defined in law
Lawyer was defined only from 1 august 2008 as someone holding a practicing certificate .

The proceedings are now at an end, the success on the lawyers part is in my mind directly attributable to the lawyer status and the employment for the ministry of the environment.

This is acknowledged in the decision CIV-2018-085-000258 [2021] NZDC 20011 where Judge smith considered the lawyers standing as a " government lawyer " and "position with the ministry of environment" .

An award of $100,000 was made in the lawyer’s favour this was reduce to $75000 by the high court

The court of appeal identified errors made by the lower courts but felt that it was not in the public interest for the matter to be reheard.

Having had my career ended on false documentation your lawyer has now obtained a attachment order to my pension and has tried to increase this sum .

MY OIA is with regards the duties and obligations that your staff have when representing themselves in court in a private matter.

I request a copy of policies and guidelines for your in house lawyers who use their position in court while being self-represented .

Please provide also documents and policies with regards to integrity considerations in being self-represented in court when relying on their status as a ministry
What facilities and policies exist for oversight of this action and what obligations are on the lawyer to advise their superiors of the events.

Please also provide any guidelines that you have for accepting complaints and investigations for such matters to protect the integrity of the ministry

should you wish to investigate this I am happy to provide the necessary evidence

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden