Dear Carmel Sepuloni,

1. Are you aware that Brendon Boyle CEO MSD is having staff use serious criminal actions when dealing with clients? ( signing false names on documents = forgery according to Crimes Act 1961 - MSD admits these actions at Social Security Appeal enquiry, is ordered to desist by Social Security Appeal Authority yet continues these same criminal illegal actions whilst appealing to the High Court )

2. What legal authority is used by MSD to permit CONTINUED / CONTINUING USE OF criminal actions whilst appealing to a higher Court? ( We do not allow sex offenders to continue ruled criminal actions while they appeal to a higher Court yet apparently MSD has such legal right...please inform me what legal avenue allows continued criminal actions ).

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar

Dear Info (MSD),

Thank you for the reply. Not having received a personal copy this was only seen on 22 November.

Yours sincerely,

Gregory Soar

Dear Info (MSD),
Dear Minister Sepuloni,

Dear Minister Sepuloni,

1. That MSD requires clients to be honest, acting legally at all times re dealings with MSD and regularly asks for signed declarations this is so makes it untenable the organisation remain headed by Brendon Boyle post his non legal actions, criminal according to the Crimes Act 1961. This is also confirmed by Collins J in THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v L [2018] NZHC 2528 [26 September 2018] when he says, “there is no legislative or common law authority for Committees to have used fictitious names and signatures when determining Ms L’s applications.” This leaves the Crimes Act 1961 declaring criminal acts in the signing of false names on documents. The public can not have faith in one who resorts to these types of crimes.

2. I formally question the suitability of Mr. Boyle as continuing head of MSD as it seems his decision making is floored in the extreme. I understand a lawyer made a similar call in regard this case. I wish to formally add my name to this call. Some questionable actions are:
- serious category four criminal actions by staff and no legal authority to do so as per Collins J ruling.
- no proof his actions would lessen risk due such abuse, indeed it may even inflame anyone to take action against any staff member not just those one has any grievance against when identifying that person is not possible.
- that public perception of faith must be had in MSD.
- that equality of law is upheld ( beneficiaries are severely disciplined by MSD if forgery / signing known false declarations is undertaken )
- failure to recognise a duty of care to clients well being / safety
- inability to prove allegations that lead to this treatment to the degree the client was any form of risk. Staff unilaterally decree without any form of trial or right of defence in return( removal from local office to RCU thus BRC false names etc ).

It simply cannot be tenable that Mr. Boyle retain his position. I ask he be removed to restore faith in MSD.

I also believe the State Services Commissioner erred in allowing the continuation of a criminal action whilst under appeal and should be investigated also. He should have removed Boyle until he was cleared rather than permit continued criminal actions within a state Services organisation as his employment requires.

Yours sincerely,

Gregory Soar

Dear Info (MSD),

The portionforwarded to Minister Sepuloni is outside formal response time..please explain?

Yours sincerely,

Gregory Soar

Dear Carmel Sepuloni,

I have an OIA request response dated 8 Nov saying a portion of my OIA REQUEST was sent you on 8 Nov re do you know aboutcriminal actions at msd which is now seriously outside formal response guidelines.

May I please have your response to prevent a need to complain to the Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar

Dear Info (MSD),

I do not recall a response to the portion sent to Minister Sepuloni.
Please clarify when Minister Sepuloni replied and how so I may follow up or please reply / advise a reply time.

Yours sincerely,

Gregory Soar