Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« 3 "Feds" in Cheyenne, Wyoming, formally charged with kidnapping, attempted murder | Main | Russia Ratifies $100 Billion BRICS (Brazil / Russia / India / China / South Africa) Development Bank »

Re: R v MEREDITH, A KARL, C KARL, BROWN, CRAIG: CRI-2013-088-003345

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <>
to: Thomas Joseph Brown <>
cc: Kevin Patterson <>,
"" <>,
"" <>,
"" <>,
"Hensen, Adell" <>,
Huriwaka & Dawn Harris <>,
Ngai Tupoto Admin <>,
SupremeLaw <>
date: Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:24 PM
subject: Re: R v MEREDITH, A KARL, C KARL, BROWN, CRAIG: CRI-2013-088-003345
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our continuing investigation of Human Rights Treaties has confirmed,
once again, that New Zealand did ratify the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") on or about 28 Dec 1978:

Therefore, it is a formal obligation imposed by said International Law
that all judicial proceedings in New Zealand must be conducted
by qualified judicial officers in Courts of competent jurisdiction.

Insofar as any such officers are concealing information about
any association, or affiliation, they may have with the Crown of England,
they are committing fraud upon all Proper Parties.

"Fraud" is variously defined as failing to disclose what
should have been disclosed.  Cf.  Black's Law Dictionary,
for example.

If New Zealand were NOT an independent and sovereign nation,
there would have been no need for New Zealand separately
to ratify the ICCPR.

Thank you for your professional consideration in the matter
now affecting our colleague Thomas Joseph Brown.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. U.S. UCC 1-308)

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Joseph Brown <> wrote:




Arrival of your email attempting commercial negotiations via intimidation is acknowledged; thank you for confirming justice has nothing to do with your business, which appears more akin to perverting the course of justice by avoiding due process.


You mentioned that you would send along a copy of The Queen v G & O reference (CA250/2013, 9 May 2013) if requested, so would you please send a copy by return email.


And along with that you are required to instantly present a copy of your lawful authorisation from Queen Elizabeth II to be proceeding in this matter under your guise of "CROWN SOLICITOR", please ensure that is attached to your return email. You are overdue and grossly negligent, having failed in your DUTY OF CARE in this essential instance.


It is noted that so far your paperwork has represented "THE CROWN", "THE QUEEN", and now in this "R" assumed to be "REGINA"; it appears from your legal schizophrenia that you are being intentionally deceptive for pecuniary gain. Who exactly are you representing MR SMITH? Which QUEEN, which CROWN? It appears from your persistent avoidance of answering this simple question that you are running some sort of scheme or artifice to defraud. Who do you represent MR SMITH? Who? 


Judge Davis ordered you directly to present FULL DISCLOSURE from the IRD, and this must also include lawful authorisation from Queen Elizabeth II to the Commissioner to enforce involuntary performance and direct taxation upon the tangata whenua of this land as you are attempting to do.


Your silence so far in your honourable obligation to instantly provide yours and the COMMISSIONER's lawful authorisation to proceed in this matter is taken as your confirmation that you have no lawful right to be acting as you are, as well as prima facie evidence that you intend to severely harm my being and others of our Hapu through violations of our fundamental human rights and ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE by denying due process. 


I offer my humble apologies if I am in error, but so far there has been zero evidence presented that there is any lawful representative of Queen Elizabeth II acting under Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 at any stage in this matter, and I fear gravely for my health and wellbeing because of this apparent evasion and deception on your part. Please correct me now if I am wrong and I shall make a most profound public apology to clear the air.


For the record, all the information on this matter has already been forwarded to investigative journalists and others in various countries overseas, and the matter is being closely monitored. The world will know if you are able to front up with the truth of who exactly you represent or not, your call MR SMITH!

In Honour,




On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Patterson <> wrote:

16 February 2015


Mr Thomas Brown

Mr Timothy Meredith

Mrs Carol Karl

Mr Andrew Karl

Mr Craig


By EMAIL: ''; ''; ''; ''





1.      You are each charged with criminal offences committed in breach of sections 143B(1) and (2) of the Tax Administration Act 1994.  You have elected trial by jury.  The trial is set down to commence on Monday, 23 February 2015 in the District Court at Whangarei before Judge de Ridder.  I have been assigned to prosecute this matter for the Crown.  You have each chosen to defend yourselves at trial.


2.      Each of the offences with which you are charged is punishable on conviction by a term of imprisonment (not exceeding 5 years) or a fine ($50,000) or both.   These offence provisions under the Tax Administration Act 1994 can be found at In fact all New Zealand legislation can be found on line at that website.


3.      Whilst you have every right to defend yourself at trial  and whilst I recognise that you could ultimately be acquitted, you should know that if guilty pleas were entered by you at a relatively early stage the Court can give up to a 25% discount when calculating the end sentence which might otherwise have been imposed.   This discount can be given on top of other discounts (e.g. discount for remorse, personal circumstances etc). The prospect of a 25% discount is important because depending on the charges faced, it can mean the difference between receiving an end sentence of imprisonment or home detention, or home detention and a non-custodial punishment or simply a fine.  The prospect of a 25% discount is lost if a person is convicted after trial. 


4.      At this time if the prosecution secure convictions in the present matter it intends seeking a term of imprisonment for each defendant.


5.      In terms of the charges faced and what the prosecution must prove to the requisite criminal standard to secure a conviction, there is a rather helpful Court of Appeal decision: The Queen v G & O reference (CA250/2013, 9 May 2013).  You are well advised to read this case.  If you do not already have a copy please let me know and I can arrange to send you a copy. Some relevant cases can also be found on  For example, the tax evasion case The Queen v Brent John Gilchrist & Others [2013] NZHC 643. 


6.      The Sentencing Act 2006, amongst other things, also sets out the prospect of a defendant, before trial, receiving a sentence indication from the Judge.  That is, a defendant can ask the judge for an indication of his/her end sentence ‘if’ a plea of guilty was entered.  In general the judge giving the indication is bound by the indication given until the ‘offer’ expires.  Of course the judge can refuse to give a sentence indication.  Important from your perspective is the fact that a jury cannot be told that a sentence indication was sought and received and, as the case may be, declined.  The Sentencing Act can also be found at


7.      Other pieces of legislation which are important in any trial are the Evidence Act 2006 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  The former controls what evidence may be admitted at trial, the latter the overall procedure at trial.  For example, under sections 40, 43 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006 the prosecution is seeking to have evidence about historic tax evasion by Carol Karl, Andrew Karl and Timothy Meredith admitted in the present trial.  You will have the opportunity at the start of the trial to formally object or consent to the applications made by the prosecution.  If you object the judge will hear argument from the prosecution and each affected defendant.  This is set down to take place on Monday, 23 February 2015.


8.      I hope what I have outlined above is helpful to you but, it is important that you note that as the prosecutor I cannot advise you.  You make your own choices. You should seek legal advice from your own lawyer on all matters raised above.




Yours faithfully









Senior Solicitor


February 20, 2015 | Permalink