Dear Invercargill City Council Management and Elected Members,

This request is made formally under the Official Information Act 1982, regarding streetlight assets and public infrastructure under your full ownership and control — installed exclusively across targeted locations in South Invercargill, including Elles Road, Elizabeth Street, and surrounding blocks.

This is not a routine query. It concerns infrastructure that has been deployed in deliberate deviation from all standard practice — and which independent technical assessment confirms operates in a manner that cannot be reconciled with public safety, transparency, or lawful utility function.

Independent qualified technicians, using professional calibrated test equipment, have verified data that defies all explanation for public street lighting:

- RF and EMF emissions consistently recorded at thousands of times acceptable up to 25,000 times the maximum acceptable public safety limits defined in NZS 2772.1 — levels that pose established health risks, and which are physically impossible to generate from standard lighting or low‑voltage circuits
​
- Continuous, high‑power transmissions active across 2900–3100 MHz (S‑band), plus 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and restricted military‑only frequency bands — spectrum allocated by international and New Zealand law exclusively to defence and authorised state use
​
- Confirmed phased‑array beamforming signatures — steerable, directional transmission capability requiring precision engineering, active control systems, and dedicated power — nothing found in standard public assets
​
- Synchronisation accuracy matching SouthPAN atomic clock standards — precise to one billionth of a second, delivering directional targeting of approximately 10 centimetres — capability identical to defence‑grade systems, entirely unnecessary for street illumination

It is technically and operationally impossible that the Council did not know, or could not have known:

- These units require physical modification, extra power feeds, dedicated cabling, and non‑standard equipment housings — work that simply cannot happen on public assets without authority, approval, or active oversight
​
- NO “NATIONAL SECURITY” EXCUSE CAN APPLY HERE: Streetlights are public, visible, universal infrastructure operating within our communities — national security powers do not authorise the covert deployment of unsafe, unauthorised, or military‑grade capability against the civilian public, nor can they be used to avoid accountability for public assets.

Further unavoidable concerns:

1. Deliberate unequal treatment: Why have specific streets in South Invercargill been fitted with individual dedicated power/equipment boxes for every streetlight — a costly, resource‑heavy configuration found nowhere else across the city? No engineering or lighting justification exists for this difference.
​
2. Intentional concealment: Why was this entire deployment completed without public notice, consultation, resource consent, or permanent labelling identifying function, operator, or radiation profile? Every detail of design and placement appears calculated to disguise true capability and purpose.
​
3. Public safety breached: Infrastructure owned by this Council is operating at emissions tens of thousands of times over legal safety limits — and this was allowed to happen, and remain, without public disclosure or explanation.
​
4. False identity: Streetlights do not require military frequencies, beam steering, or atomic clock synchronisation. This hardware was manufactured and installed for a covert function — misrepresented as public street furniture under your

Provide full, exact, and verifiable answers to every point below:

1. Asset ownership & specification: As legal owner of these streetlights — did Council approve or agree to the modification of these units to include transmitting, phased‑array, or precision timing hardware? Who formally specified this non‑standard design?
​
2. Installation authority: Who physically fitted the transmitting equipment to these streetlight assemblies? Was this Council staff, contractors, or unknown third parties — and on what formal authority was this work permitted on public assets?
​
3. Third‑party involvement: Who funded, ordered, or directed this deployment? Was this Lockheed Martin, SouthPAN operators, New Zealand Defence Force, or any entity outside standard public works? Name all contracting parties and authorised representatives.
​
4. Safety & compliance awareness: Was Council advised prior to or during installation that these units would emit radiation far exceeding public safety limits, or operate on restricted military bands? If so — on what grounds was this approved? If not — what failure of oversight permitted unsafe, non‑compliant hardware to be accepted onto public land?
​
5. Licensing & approval: Provide every RSM spectrum licence, equipment approval, planning consent, and EMF safety certification held for these units. Confirm specifically if any authorisation exists for military‑band transmission from public streetlights.
​
6. Ongoing operation: Who holds operational control and authority over these systems today? Has Council formally transferred control to any unacknowledged party — and if so, on what terms, and with what public record?
​
7. Public obligation: Why was no disclosure ever made to residents that Council‑owned infrastructure was operating high‑power, non‑standard, military‑capable equipment in their neighbourhood?

This Council is on notice:
How you respond now will establish permanently whether this was a deliberate decision to overlook facts you could not have missed — or whether this Council knowingly participated in deploying covert, unsafe, military‑grade infrastructure against its own residents. There is no neutral position here, and no valid excuse of ignorance.Public office carries legal and moral obligation — not authority to conceal risks, misuse assets, or operate outside law. Clarify the facts now — before this becomes the official record of how this Council failed its community

Yours faithfully,
A. Buxton

Dear Michal Gray

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 14 July 2026, purporting to refuse my statutory request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

This refusal is legally invalid, procedurally improper, and a clear breach of your statutory duties. The excuse you rely on does not operate as you claim — and the urgency of this matter removes any discretion to delay.

IRREFUTABLE LEGAL & FACTUAL POSITION

1. Section 17(d) IS NO VALID GROUND FOR BLANKET REFUSAL
Ombudsman guidance and established legal precedent is unambiguous:

- Proactive future publication is an extra initiative — it NEVER replaces or cancels your legal duty to answer an individual formal request
​
- “Will shortly be available” means days, not several weeks — your vague timeline fails this test
​
- You cannot lawfully refuse to answer simply because you plan generic release later. This is avoidance, not compliance.
​
- Additionally, you must provide answers for parts of my request that will NOT be covered in your planned release — blanket refusal is unlawful.

2. REFUSAL TO CONFIRM/DENY RECORDS IS UNLAWFUL
Stating “we do not confirm nor deny the existence of information” is not permitted under this Act — unless you cite an explicit legal authority justifying such an extreme position, which you have not done. Public bodies must be open and accountable — evasion is not an option.

3. URGENT PUBLIC SAFETY RISK — DELAY IS UNREASONABLE & RECKLESS
Irrefutable evidence suggests this system has been in operation for 5 to 6 years, beginning in South Invercargill.

This matter involves infrastructure that is entirely non‑standard, operates outside all established safety and compliance norms, and raises profound public safety and accountability concerns. It has been active within this community unchecked for years. Public safety cannot wait “several weeks” while you collate materials. Every day of delay is another day of unresolved exposure and uncertainty.

FORMAL DEMAND & NOTICE

I REJECT your purported refusal in its entirety as unlawful.

I require you to:

1. Immediately withdraw this blanket refusal
​
2. Provide full, complete, and verifiable answers to every question in my original request — within the remaining statutory timeframe
​
3. If you still claim any information is withheld — state specifically which exact legal provision applies to each separate item, and justify its application. Blanket evasion is not lawful.

4. This is deliberate obstruction of official information duties, improper application of law, and failure to address established long‑term public safety risks.

You cannot hide behind vague promises of future publication when the law demands answers now — and the community has already waited years in the dark.

Yours sincerely,
A.Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,

Matters are established beyond allegation — verified comprehensively:

The evidence compiled far exceeds anything set out here; these proceedings merely give Council the opportunity to place itself on public record — whether to speak truth, or to mislead, lie, or commit perjury.
Im not saying you know every detail or are entirely responsible for everything but being within Council, it is impossible you are unaware that something is very wrong here. You would know standards are not being followed, that paperwork is missing, or that works are happening that don’t add up. You don’t need the full picture to know the frame is crooked — and silence becomes complicity when you know things aren’t right and say nothing.

You work for the people of this community — not for hiding secrets or protecting those who break the law. This is about choosing to stand on the right side of the line before you get pulled into the mess along with everyone else. The truth is coming out — you get to decide where you stand.
Council is employed by and serves the people — not the reverse. Physical examination of units was completed some time ago after years of recordings, confirming unlawful hardware.Along with every other way of confirming it technically, Anticipating cover up project work.
When systems are built to target people inside their own homes creating opposition is inevitable.
​Public harm and unlawful activity far outweigh any procedural technicality — given the scale and deliberate nature of this operation.That is why these OIA questions remain critical and non‑negotiable. I require full, honest answers to every point raised in my original request — no evasion, no vague promises, no stalling. The law demands it, the public safety requires it, and your own integrity should compel it. Please provide complete responses within the statutory timeframe, so we can begin to address this properly rather than allowing it to escalate further.

A.Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,
FURTHER INFORMATION / ADDENDUM TO THIS REQUEST"

Regarding the stationary fixed green optical reference or laser observed consistently above South Invercargill — publicly presented as being for atmospheric research — I formally record the following: Observed Behaviour,This reference remains perfectly fixed in position overhead it does not drift, traverse, or shift alignment.

MATTERS I REQUIRE TO BE DISCLOSED AND ANSWERED
Please answer these points fully, along with all questions raised in my original OIA request that have not yet been properly addressed or answered. This addendum forms part of that original request.

1. The true actual purpose of this fixed overhead optical reference system — confirming or denying whether it is for atmospheric research, or serves another function.
​
2. The name of the controlling authority, operator, or contractor responsible for its installation and operation.
​
3. Evidence of all required approvals, permits, and resource consents — including Civil Aviation Authority clearance and Council resource consent — authorising its placement and operation.
​
4. Does this system deliver nanosecond-level timing synchronisation to local assets such as streetlights, to enable phase-coherent beam alignment or precision targeting? Confirm or deny, and explain its technical function fully.- If YES: specify exactly what infrastructure is synchronised and for what purpose
​
If NO: explain the technical function that requires such extreme fixed precision without synchronisation capability
​
5. Confirmation of any operational or technical link between this system, the SouthPAN programme, Awarua Ground Station, and local streetlight infrastructure.
​
6. Full justification for the secrecy and absence of public consultation regarding its deployment on or over public assets.

Regards A.Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,
Reference: Outstanding Unanswered Correspondence
Date: 16 July 2026

This is formal follow-up to my previous correspondence — all of which remains fully unanswered — and adds critical further evidence and context.

I wish to clarify: I am not someone who looks to lodge complaints or raise issues unnecessarily. But after six years of patience, that patience has now completely run out.

Let me be clear: I did not seek this. When this technology first appeared across the road and above my home during the COVID lockdowns, I did not set out to investigate it. My son is everything to me — and I took it extremely personally that we could not even go camping or fishing without drones harassing and intruding on us. I tried to ignore it, again and again — but it remained locked onto me, and it still is, right now today.

I am a solo parent only trying to care for my child. This system tracked us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year after year. The more it happened, the more I tried to simply get on with life — but now I am fully determined to see justice for what has been done to our lives, all carried out in the name of this programme artificial intelligence and the fourth industrial revolution.
I am just one person — but I could lay out before the community things beyond belief. I have never chosen to do that. Yet this system and its operatives have mistaken that restraint for weakness, and they have kept on going. There are matters far more serious I hold evidence of — things I deliberately chose not to reveal, because I still held back from upending everything.

I began recording only to document relentless harassment and harm to my family — recordings that captured things beyond comprehension. I hold thousands of files: footage 4–5 years old showing individuals appearing to be operatives in anti-radiation and chemical protection suits, preparing to deploy aerial devices over South Invercargill from unmarked SUVs — directly opposite the Estuary Boardwalk, concurrent with stop-bank upgrades.

My son appears in many of these — distressed, crying, his childhood disrupted and damaged by this. I kept all this private, never published it, only trying to live normally. But normal is impossible when public infrastructure operates as directed-energy capability overhead, 24/7.

Most recently — after I stated clearly I would not be a casualty in this programme, that I love my son and simply asked to be left alone — I was struck with a directed energy discharge from the tower across the road. It overheated my body and blew the local pole transformer. This was recorded and witnessed. It appears you would rather attempt to neutralise me than cease unlawful operations.

I possessed evidence capable of dismantling this operation years ago. That was never my goal — I only sought peace. That option was taken from me.

I now propose a public meeting, where this full body of evidence — early recordings, emissions scans, incident records — is presented openly. This gives Council and authorities the opportunity to explain what is happening, answer to the community, and account for infrastructure operated in our name.

I would not need to write repeatedly — if you simply answered the questions and addressed the facts the first time.

These answers are not for me alone — the community is owed them. This situation carries potential to escalate irreversibly at any time. I have nothing to hide, and I am no longer deterred by intimidation or tactics. Actions taken against residents and children warrant no leniency.

Transparency and accountability remain your choice. The evidence is complete, and it will not disappear.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS FROM MY ORIGINAL AND PREVIOUS REQUESTS, AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE NOW PROVIDED.
Regards

A. Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,
Thankyou for your reply i formally advise that immediately following the submission of my evidence and allegations over recent weeks, and exclusively during my absence from the Invercargill area, unnotified, coordinated works were undertaken across the full corridor I have identified: from Elles Road through to Elizabeth Street. This activity occurred over the period commencing 7 July 2026 through to approximately 12 July 2026, affecting primary power enclosures, modified streetlight assemblies, and auxiliary infrastructure previously documented by me as bearing non‑standard fitment consistent with covert transmission capability.

2. SPECIFIC INSTANCE – NESS & ELIZABETH STREET, ASSET #711583

Time‑stamped photographic and video evidence confirms that during this period, full excavation works, traffic management, and utility crews were deployed at this location, without prior public notice or scheduled works notification.

E.g .The original installation – a custom high‑power sealed enclosure bearing unique permanent asset identifier 711583, documented on 4 July 2026 – has been completely removed and replaced with a generic standard utility cabinet. The original asset identification marking has been erased entirely. No explanation or record of this change has been provided to date.

3. RELEVANCE TO THIS INQUIRY

The infrastructure removed and altered corresponds exactly to the primary assets I have identified as having been modified to support non‑standard capability, including phased‑array transmission, near‑infrared emission, and associated high‑power supply.

These enclosures provide the dedicated power conditioning, timing control, and auxiliary support infrastructure required to operate such systems. While antenna elements and emitters are housed within the upper fixture, the modified enclosures I documented are essential proof of non‑standard capability – and their removal is consistent with deliberate concealment of that infrastructure.

The timing, scale, and selective nature of these works – occurring only after my formal disclosure, only upon my absence, and limited exclusively to assets I have flagged – establishes prima facie evidence of deliberate evidence tampering, concealment of unauthorised infrastructure modification, and obstruction of this official inquiry.

These actions are inconsistent with routine maintenance, scheduled upgrade, or safety works. They align fully with the reasonable inference that these interventions were carried out specifically to remove physical evidence relevant to the matters I have raised.

I further observe that any documentation provided that does not align with the timeline, location, and physical evidence I have presented – including backdated entries, generic descriptions, or justifications that do not explain the removal of unique asset identifiers and high‑specification hardware – will be treated as further evidence of an attempt to conceal the true nature and purpose of these interventions.

4. DISCLOSURE REQUEST & IDENTITY NOTE

Pursuant to my right to a complete and transparent inquiry, I request full provision of:

- All work orders, approval documentation, and authority to commence works for every asset altered within the Elles Road to Elizabeth Street corridor between 1 July 2026 and 12 July 2026;
​
- Contractor details, traffic control permits, and asset register amendments relating to these interventions;
​
- All technical assessments, safety reports, or justifications for removal of the original high‑specification hardware and its replacement with standard fitments.

Identity clarification: I reserve the right to use an alias in any public facing material. As noted previously, I have never sought to pursue this matter for attention, recognition, or publicity of any kind. However, for the purposes of this inquiry and all official proceedings, you are already aware of my true identity, and I am fully prepared to stand by this submission and attach my full legal name to all matters contained within it.

Yours sincerely,
A. Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,

Please note: while my more recent questions regarding works undertaken between 7 July and 12 July remain essential to these matters and it was essential it was publicly added , I now request that you set those aside for the present time. I wish to afford you the opportunity to provide a full response to my original enquiry first, without undue pressure or distraction. Nothing further untill then.

Regards A.Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,

Please note: while my more recent questions regarding works undertaken between 7 July and 12 July remain essential to these matters and it was essential it was publicly added , I now request that you set those aside for the present time. I wish to afford you the opportunity to provide a full response to my original enquiry first, without undue pressure or distraction. Nothing further untill then.

Regards A.Buxton

Dear Michal Gray,
To save Council time and avoid unnecessary time wasting I wish to add the following clarification

This technology appeared directly across the road and above my home on Elles Road, South Invercargill during the first COVID lockdown. Rather than maintain the position that this infrastructure consists of "standard streetlights," would it not be prudent to reconsider that assessment?

This system operates using seven distinct military-restricted frequency bands,active right now ,and has been directed at my home with 30-centimetre positioning accuracy matching exactly what is described in Lockheed Martin Patent US20140220990A1 — "Phased Array Antenna Mesh Network for Wide Area Surveillance and Targeting This appeared shortly after the first 5g tower did,
None of these frequencies are licensed or allocated for civilian use. After years of being subjected to this technology, and under this continuous bombardment and trying to maintain any sense of a normal life raising a son with disabilities, particularly over the last year the intensity increased it has been impossible to function properly or maintain normal daily life.
every opportunity for this to be addressed properly was given , That silence is no longer an option — yet even now, significant restraint is being shown withholding full public disclosure, The relevant documentation already exists for this , it is simply a matter of reviewing it.

Dear Michal Gray,
CLARIFICATION OF RECORD:

A patent reference previously cited was incorrect. Patent US20140220990A1 relates to LTE/4G interference reduction and is owned by Nokia, not Lockheed Martin. This error changes nothing. The facts below stand on verifiable footage, video documentation, spectrum analysis, and physical examination
- Deployment commenced during the first COVID lockdown in South Invercargill — tower → Skynet mesh network → covert streetlight rollout — no consent, no public warning, no consultation

Directly aligns with World Economic Forum and Fourth Industrial Revolution frameworks requiring nationwide sensor infrastructure, ocs cleaning services, which cleans the council offices , owned by clayton dublier rice, sits on the board of the world econimic forum , as does the entities that effectively own the companies that rolled out the infrastructure.

Spectrum analysis confirms seven frequency bands restricted , none licensed for civilian use in New Zealand Physical examination confirms, systematic vegetation clearance — establishing unobstructed line-of-sight for beamforming significant evidence of covertly operated technology.

Video footage documents phased array antenna installations over five years — deployed without public notice or disclosure Irrespective of any circumstances — whether the Council had full knowledge of the technology being deployed or not which it's safe to assume most wouldn't , but whoever signed off the responsibility and accountability inevitably rest with the Council. It is your approval that allowed this infrastructure to be installed and operate within our communities.

Yours sincerley