1 of 3

APPENDIX H
Natural-Justice Principles;
Addition to Statement-of-claim Argumentation for Immediate
Determination, After Recusal of judge Nation (4/8/16)
 2 of 3

LIST OF NATURAL-JUSTICE PRINCIPLES

for S.105(1,2(a)) Human Rights Act
and for a general Remedies & Sentencing Act design
Not necessarily complete… by Fritz Fehling 17/2/2015

[1] Definition of Natural Justice per Universal Democracy Constitution

Natural: Following the logical causal chain, arranging real causes/
events and their real results/consequences in the time-correct sequence;
It does not mean first-past-the-post, virtual or mad!
Justice: Balance of the adherence to reasonable agreements, including
democratically originated laws under the safeguarding frame of this
Constitution (NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 BORA); It includes correction of
breaches with compensation of victims as one part, with the aim to prevent
repetition of breaches
[2] Preconditions
a) Right to basic (financial) life support, eg. Universal Basic Income
b) Right to automatic Habeas-Corpus hearing after 2 days detainment to prevent
gross injustice through Human-Rights violations by police resulting in unlawful
detention or even death by eg. severe depression with hunger & thirst strike
c) Right to present a case or a defence, incl. legal-assistance aspects
d) Right to appeal at least once per S.27(2) BORA; Appeals to 2nd appeal
instances should be in form of question(s) of law, which could always reach the
Constitution Court as absolute final instance in order to safeguard BORA;
Wrong interpretations of factual matters leading to wrong applications of laws is
always appealable, because this contravenes Natural Justice per S.27(1) BORA!
[3] NATURAL-JUSTICE PRINCIPLES
a) Natural adherence to reasonably BORA-consistent wordings of laws
b) Natural adherence to reasonably BORA-consistent wordings of contracts
c) Maximising of BORA-consistency of law interpretations (S.6 BORA)
d) Partial or full modification or invalidation of law parts that are inconsistent
with Natural Justice and BORA per SS.4,5 BORA, limited to the extend that
these laws and the law structure become workable per S.6 BORA without
disabling Parliament.
e) Correction of breaches of a), b), incl. compensation of victims via sentences/
remedies with the aim to prevent repetitions and improve society.
f) Maximising of Natural-Justice precision
i) of defendant’s identity; The use of companies and organisations is to be
minimised to avoid undue punishment of associated innocent members by
hearing costs, without disadvantaging victims.
ii) of remedies/punishment targets/sources; similar to i) above, but can differ
from original 1st defendant’s identity. Companies, organisations or even
national society can become liable to protect victims and the public interest.
iii) of victim(s)’ identity for proportional direct attribution of compensatory
and declaratory remedies.
 3 of 3

g) Regard of remedy impact on victim(s); If point e) together with h) disable

timely full compensation of severely affected victims, the national society or
involved company/organisation may act as a buffer to bridge or partly fill the
gap.
h) Regard of impact on offender(s) for the purpose of preventing societal or
physical/mental damage through eg. extreme wealth, depression, starvation
i) Adjustment of monetary punishments according to wealth of offender(s),
so that the correction effect is not diluted for wealthy persons; The difference
between appropriate compensation to the victim and total height of payment
is directed to the national society.
ii) staggered sentence according to availability of regular income and/or
assets, eg. via periodic detainment, part-sale of assets, instalments, attachment
orders, with incentives for speedy delivery and/or disincentives for dragged-
out delivery to maximise efficiency & fairness and to reduce victim’s suffering.
Profits/assets accumulated from offences/breaches should be seized
iii) change of remedy if original sentence/remedy cannot be fulfilled
(equivalent adjusted sentence)
v) sentences/remedies never nominally disappear before having been fully
enacted; they can only be temporarily tempered, reduced or halted if no
outlook of timely fulfilment!
j) Avoidance of discriminatory treatment for similar transgressions, consequently
incorporating aggravating (incl. foreseeable impact on victims)/mitigating factors
in sentences/remedies.
k) Limitations of Natural-Justice principles only inverse proportionately/
degressively to gravity of offence, incl. any prosecution and conviction-register
time limits (eg. murder/manslaughter/serious-assault convictions never disappear
from register, because these offenders have damaged a mental firewall!).
Remarks:
Such principles need to be enshrined into one Remedies & Sentencing Law that
applies to every other law as part of Natural Justice, removing the present
confusing multitude of remedies provisions with their many exemptions in
favour of preventing accountability of fascistic mates. The S.92I,M Human-
Rights-Act remedies provisions could be a starting point.
“Common”-law case examples from jurisdictions without a S.6-BORA-similar
interpretation direction (esp. England) are not admissible for NZ jurisdiction.
Interlocutory decisions need to be appealable to Supreme Cpourt, because cases
are unlawfully thrown-out before any hearing, esp. cases against police’s criminal
wrongdoings by preventing the formal laying of charges!
Natural-Justice principles serve as the correction tool to improve society by
correcting individuals that are the basis elements of society. This is why
dictatorial rulers, incl. royals, and organised criminal fascistic gangs (incl.
freemason brotherhood) try to prevent democracy and replace it with their
hidden rule: they live an excessive greedy life on cost of everyone else and refuse
to learn self-restriction, thus needing strong external restriction similar to spoilt
nasty juvenile brats! It is not surprising that judicial and political fascists prevent
any legal definition of Natural Justice and its principles.