Freeman Pete
Does hereby extend a
CHALLENGE TO DEBATE
To:
Any and All members of The Law Society of NZ or New Zealand Bar Association
Any and All Judges of the Provincial Courts of New Zealand
Any and All Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
Any and All Crown Prosecutors
Any and All Peace Officers and Police Officers
Any and All Inland Revenue Agents
Any and All Corrections or Law Enforcement Officers
Any and All MP’s MLA’s or other elected officials
TOPICS TO BE DEBATED:
Do statutes enjoy the force of law without the consent of the governed?
(Freeman Pete says No)

Do courts require mutual consent of both parties to the adjudication prior to providing services?
(Freeman Pete says Yes)

Does a IRD NUMBER mean we are working legally for the legal entity known as New Zealand or Her Majesty the Queen in Right Of New Zealand?
(Freeman Pete says Yes)

Can we abandon our IRD NUMBER and avoid paying income taxes?
(Freeman Pete says Yes)

Can we fire the government and exist free of all statutory restraints and obligations?
(Freeman Pete says Yes)
Do the people of New Zealand have a right to justice and can they lawfully convene their own
courts to bring charges against the existing courts?
(Freeman Pete says Yes)

If this challenge is not accepted then it shall be deemed that all of the above things
Freeman Pete is willing to debate and defend are in fact truths and do in fact
bind the government and those to whom this challenge has been extended. If this challenge is not accepted
then a seminar explaining all these truths will be presented. Furthermore failure to accept this lawful
challenge will be seen by most as evidence that the government has been knowingly and willfully employing
negligence, deception and fraud.

hehe we should fire our government!! This would be fun!

__________________
shinde!!

Notice of Denial of Consent

DATE: ________________________________________

Whereas:
New Zealand enjoys a common law jurisdiction, and;

Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and;

In a common law jurisdiction no one can claim the right or power to adjudicate any matter without the consent of both parties, and;

Without my consent no lawful adjudication concerning myself may occur, and;

I do hereby, claim the right inalienable by any government agent to engage in discussion either directly or through an agent prior to consenting to any adjudication or administrative tribunal or other process which may generate a security interest, and;

I do claim said right has been denied to me by human beings acting as government agents in a common law jurisdiction, and;

I do hereby, re-extend my offer of discussion and negotiation in order to avoid conflict, and;

Seeking conflict as a government agent in a court of law in the absence of discussion or negotiation is a denial of basic fundamental rights, a dishonor, and an abuse of process, and;

Said dishonor, denial and abuse does cause the administration of justice to appear to be dragged into disrepute, and;

I am compelled by my honour and Faith to refuse to be party to any action which may be seen to drag the administration of justice into disrepute, and;

I do believe the path of peace is always available to those of good will, and;

I am peaceful and of goodwill, and;

I do believe peace is a fundamental right and the basic justification for government, and;

Consenting to an adversarial relationship in the absence of good faith discussion and negotiation is a breach of my Faith, and;

Abusing the judicial process and forcing me to breach the terms of my Faith is completely unacceptable to me,

Therefore be it resolved and known to any and all concerned:
That I, a human being in a common law jurisdiction in no way consent to any adjudication process of any sort by any party and that said denial of consent remains in force until any plaintiff or claimant honours the existing offer to discuss and negotiate in good faith and pure trust and under full commercial liability.
This notice is served in the interest of justice, without malice of forethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity and suffices as notice of a claim by the Affiant that a plaintiff or claimant is apparently abusing process for financial or other gain and thus causing the administration to be dragged into disrepute.

Affiant: ____________________________________________

Witnessed: ___________________________________________

Note: The use of a witness or witnesses is for the purpose of verification of identity and attestation in a common law jurisdiction only and does not constitute a change in status, consent or existence as anything except a free human being.