Back Home Page

The Plaintiff states:

That he disagrees with paragraph 2, sub section (2.1), (2.2) and also says 3 (3.3), set out in Crown Counsels Statement of reply filed with the Complaints Tribunal on the 5^th September 2001; the plaintiff believes counsel’s assessment is not correct.
On the 14^th day of November the Plaintiff received from Crown Counsel copy of correspondence directed to The Secretary Complaints Review tribunal at Wellington, and presumes that correspondence constitutes Crown Counsel’s statement in reply to the Application filed by the Plaintiff dated 27^th day of October 2001.

The Plaintiff states he received correspondence from HQ NZ Defence Force at 12-05 p.m. on the 27^th day of October 2001 marked On Her Majesties Service and delivered by New Zealand Post, that the envelope is post marked Wellington 25^th day of October 2001, that it did contain letter dated 19^th day of October signed by Col S.C. Taylor.
The plaintiff says Col S.C. Taylor wrote to him on the 25^th day of September the day after the meeting held at Rotorua and in part he wrote “noting the commitment made to advise the plaintiff not later than one month from the date of the meeting 24^th September 2001”! 

At 08-58 hours on the 27^th day of October 2001 the plaintiff posted application (item identifier EA4799783449NZ) for re-listing back before Her Honour. Further the plaintiff says he faxed Crown Counsel on the 24^th day of October 2001 seeking counsel promptly contact the plaintiff at his recorded address for service; the plaintiff received first correspondence in reply from Crown Counsel on the 14^th day November 2001.

The plaintiff believes vaccination certificates produced at Rotorua and copied upon request by Col Taylor to the plaintiff on 25^th September 2001, did not fulfil the promise again made to further advise the plaintiff one month from the date of the meeting held at Rotorua.

1.      In that matter, the plaintiff says Privacy Commissioner, Manager Investigation Deborah Marshall advised (Privacy Commissioner Ref: W2136 dated 15^th June 2001) in her letter dated 24^th December 1998 that the Army had informed the Privacy Commissioner the plaintiff had received all information it held on the plaintiff including his vaccination records.

2.      The plaintiff clearly identified documents he sort on request under freedom of information, including that they supply him with a copy of his vaccination records. At the meeting at Rotorua 24^th September 2001 Col S.C. Taylor produced a version of vaccination records, which proposed the plaintiff-received a number of vaccinations the year before he even enlisted.

3.      That on 13^th day of May 1994 the Plaintiff did request of Chief of Defence Force, Wellington (my postal receipt ref: LX002549546AU) all medical records held by Defence Force on his person and received some medical files but incomplete file by return post 25^th May 1994.
Another request was made under, and clearly set out as been made under the Privacy Act June 1994 and also again on 23^rd October 1998. The latter clearly set out the following was been requested: documentation pertaining to alleged return from active service South Vietnam medical board 18^th day of April 1968; requested that vaccination records be corrected, that all vaccinations received while serving be correctly listed and shown properly; proper documentation setting out all vaccinations received for service in South Vietnam.

4.      Again year 2001 the Defence Force was again requested to respond to the earlier request made on 18^th April 1998. While army service record files elsewhere say the plaintiff only received five vaccinations during all his entire regular force service.

While on the 24^th day of September 2001 Lt Col Taylor at the R.S.A. Rotorua produced a version of readily retrievable vaccination records from the mobilization pack being held by the department thereby disclosing a clear breach of sec 7 of the Privacy Act, a breach that has occurred and therefore the Plaintiff seeks that Justice Bathgate applies sec 11 and sec 13 (k) (m). That Her Honour gives consideration under sec 66 (b).

1)     The Plaintiff enlisted in the New Zealand Army at Area 1 Army Hall Auckland on the 10^th day of March 1964, signing on for 3 years on the active list and 5 yrs on reserve.

2)     That a Major Bryon Boyd area one recruiting Officer, conducted an IQ test and had completed a full medical assessment of his person.

3)     That the Army then entered into contractual arrangements with the plaintiff certificated within army form NZ 5B that sets out the obligations of the contracted parties.

The Plaintiff on enlistment had requested posting to R.N.Z. Armed Corps, however he was enlisted into A Platoon 1 Transport Company (GT) RNZASC and based at Papakura Military Camp. 

                                 I.      The plaintiff was soon after posted to basic recruits course No 27 at Waiouru, a course having a commencement date of 19-3-64. However the plaintiff had a accident while on first weekend leave and was Hospitalised in the New Plymouth Hosp. 4^th April 64 and discharged N/P Hosp. 10^th April 64.

                               II.      Plaintiff was then posted back to Papakura Camp ex basic recruits course on 29 April 1964, Pon No 4857, the plaintiff received something less than two weeks basic training.

                              III.      Army later without further basic training, say the plaintiff was in Aug 1965 (Army TRG 162203Z) deemed to have qualified a basic recruits course.

                           IV.      On his return to A Pt 1 Tpt Coy RNZASC at Papakura Camp ex-basic recruits course No 27, but while still undergoing medical treatment, he was placed on L\cpl to Cpl course run by A Pt 1 Tpt.

                             V.      After passing L\cpl to Cpl course, he mostly spent his time looking after the camp Petrol pumps, assisted the F.M.O; undertook 1 star driver course (Nov 64), 2 star driver course (April-May 65) and undertook the duties of driving the Papakura \ Fort Cautley leave bus and later took over the duties of Don R driver. He was posted from A Platoon at Papakura as Tpt NCO HQ. CRASC Fort Cautley on 23 Aug 65.

                           VI.      During his duties at HQ CRASC he had occasion to drive three Malaysian Officers to Waiouru, in route stopping off for one night at Taupo. Part of that duty included driving the Malaysian Officers to the Wairakei hotel, to attend a meeting with the then Regular Force Commander of the RNZASC from HQ NZ Defence Force Wellington.
That Officer and the plaintiff had a heated exchange about his having earlier been asked to sign a Re-engaging contract covering a tour of duty for service in South Vietnam as a Gunner Driver with 161 BTY in Feb \ March 1966.

The plaintiff says he was posted from HQ CRASC Fort Cautley to 161 Bty Papakura Camp on 31^st January 1966 for service in South Vietnam.

1)     At that time February 1966, he was asked to extend his Regular Force Service Contract, signing a Re-engagement contract covering a tour of duty + three months.

2)     The plaintiff received at that time in early 1966, at 161 BTY, full vaccinations and indoctrination for service in South Vietnam.

3)     An undated application for appointment as a driver with 161 BTY is on file.
However that posting for service in Vietnam, being an appointment as a Gunner Driver RNZASC with 161 BTY at Nui Dat, was soon after Re-engaging then cancelled. 

4)     The plaintiff was then re-musted back as L\cpl Driver RNZASC HQ CRASC Fort Cautley on 1^st April 1966. Confirming Pon No 5451, Army Form N.Z. 6a;

a)     The army cancelled that posting, and that had upset him, so he had raised the issue with the Regular Force Commander RNZASC on meeting him at Wairakei; Warrant Officer Rassmussen of the Devonport Work Shops witnessed the altercation between the Officer and the plaintiff.

b)     Army Form N.Z. 6A clearly shows cancelled engagement, though the plaintiff would disagree that he ever signed the application alleged to have been signed 31^st October, in any event, cancelling the contract to be effective required signatures of both parties.

Later in the year on 7^th August 1966, the plaintiff was posted to a Recruiting drive on occasion that he was grossly ill treated as he was cruelly ordered to dress in the dress of the Viet Cong.

A.     The plaintiff paraded through all Northland towns as far North as Kaitaia, he was running down each main street being pursued by others firing blanks, then falling down pretend shot dead, file ref: Mo 140 c.

B.     The plaintiff believes that sort of physiological training was cruel. As not long later, he was required to function with almost no support at all, more often than not unarmed.

C.    The plaintiff driving all alone amongst the enemy, throughout more than the one year on-active service in South Vietnam.

Army arranged a ball at Taumarunui in the Taumarunui Memorial Hall on 8^th October 1966.

1.      On commencement of the ball, the plaintiff was ordered by an Officer to partner Janet Dorothy Taylor (ne Frohlich then of Taumarunui). See signed confirming statement obtained from J.D. Taylor by Mark Cresswell Psychological Services (Aust).

2.      On his return to Fort Cautley from the freedom of the city calibrations, the plaintiff was sent back on leave to visit with Janet and her family at Taumarunui, the plaintiff dose not believe the arrangement was instigated by Janet or himself; that he should visit with her was suggested to him on his return to HQ CRASC.

3.      On the day of his return back at Fort Cautley from Taumarunui, he was advised of a second posting for service in South Vietnam.

4.      The Defence Force documents say that a posting occurred on the 10^th November 1966, the plaintiff dose not agree, and service records also say that the same posting occurred on the 1^st day of November 1966.

5.      The plaintiff distinctly recalls the time spent at Taumarunui included a long weekend, which he now understands could have been the Labour Weekend holiday. On the day of his returned to Fort Cautley he was told of his re-posting to Vietnam, this time a posting to HQ NZ V Force Saigon. The army did arrange a sweetheart to write to; and HQ staff assisted that, the plaintiff would agree he also wrote assisted letters to her.

6.      That a legal error recorded in NZ law is recorded elsewhere in direct consequence of those matters.

7.      The plaintiff records show recorded great difficulty with reading and writing.

On the day of the plaintiff’s departure for South Vietnam, the plaintiff signed a Will Declaration that was dated and signed on the 11^th day of January 1967 at Papakura, the declaration sets out a Will was signed with the Public Trust in Dec 1966; the declaration set out that he had made a Will, and the declaration that he had done so was signed a.m. just prior to his boarding a bus transporting him and others to the airport from Papakura Camp for service in Vietnam.

a.      Which was the day and date he departed for service in South Vietnam, posted as NCO Driver, HQ NZ V Force Saigon, travelling via Singapore where he spent about 10 days, before finally departing for Saigon ex-Singapore 24^th January 1967.

b.      Statement of Service MD 387 records incorrectly states he served overseas from 22 Jan 1967 to 27^th Feb 1968 when he had left New Zealand for overseas service on 11^th January 1967.

c.      His service records propose (a) a Re-engagement contract was entered into at Fort Cautley on the 31^st day of October 1966, (b) that, that contract was soon after cancelled and (c) another Re-Engagement contract entered into at Papakura Camp before L\cpl J. A. Goodman on the 10^th day of November 1966 at Papakura and another July 1967.

d.      Plaintiff thinks he was not at Papakura Camp 10^th October, however Goodman might have been, as he went to Saigon in December 1966.

e.      The plaintiff states the only Re-engagement he knowingly signed was signed while posted to 161 BTY at Papakura some time in February \ March 1966.

f.        That he would agree he attended Papakura Camp mid November, and undertook a form of medical examination. While however the files say the plaintiff was passed FE for all Service on the 22^nd November 1966, while however they also show that he underwent a Glucose Tolerance test on the 23^rd day of Nov.

g.      The plaintiff says he could not therefore have been passed FE on the 22^nd while still undergoing further medical test of that type at Papatoetoe on the 23^rd.

h.      Army rely and allege (d) whilst serving with HQ NZ V Force in Saigon he applied for premature release from the NZ Army in March 1967.

i.        The plaintiff says he did not apply for early release from the army while serving in Vietnam nor either at any other time.

j.         Army also say (e) he relinquished appointment 1^st day of July 1967 (Line 16) and assumed appointment Driver RNZASC Line 21 Collum D Pon No 189605 while in Saigon, South Vietnam. 

k.      The plaintiff begs why would he have applied for early release as army allege, and also quite soon after extend his service contract?

l.         If his contract was extended, how long for, and where are the documents?

m.    The plaintiff questions what signals were transmitted in relation to L\cpl Plumtree’s re-engagement during his service in South Vietnam?

n.      The plaintiff believes someone has forged re-engagement documents, that he was not knowingly a party to signing or cancelling the Re-engagement contract (a) on 31^st October 1966, nor a party to signing a Re-engagement contract (b) at Papakura Camp on the 1^st or 10^th day of November 1966. Nor either was he aware of (e) the Re-engagement the army files also say occurred on the 1^st day of July 1967.

o.      The plaintiff would agree he first entered into contractual arrangements with the NZ Defence Force at the time he attested for service on the 10^th day of March 1964; He attested for Regular Force Service with NZ Army thru to the 9^th day of March 1967, and that otherwise he signed a Re-engagement contract early 1966, to cover tour of duty + three months as a Gunner Driver with 161 BTY at Nui Dat, and that also he was asked to sign a document in South Vietnam early October 1967 by staff HQ Saigon, but what that document was he dose not know.

There is ample evidence from January 1966 on his service records have been re-written to portray something other than that, which had occurred; the plaintiff looked carefully at the letter 6 on file listing postings from 1966 on, and believes its very likely the whole document showing many events, was written in the same hand writing.

Subsequent to the meeting held at Rotorua on the 24^th September 2001 Army appears not to have made any reasonable diligent effort to locate and produce copies of signals relating to his re-engagement that files say occurred one way or other, during his overseas service.

        i.            Army have subsequent to meeting at Rotorua produced two signals exchanged between HQ Army Wellington and HQ NZ V Force Saigon, December 1967 but none relating to the re-engagement recorded as having occurred July 1967 during his overseas service.

      ii.            That vaccination records Col Taylor produced at Rotorua clearly display fabricated records, and there is also visible evidence of the plaintiff having received yellow fever vaccination in February 1966. A vaccination only given for service in South Vietnam, further those records produced by Col Taylor, show other vaccination given mid 1966, also related only to his subsequent Service in South Vietnam, vaccinations long before army alleged first Re-engagement contract or posting occurred 31^st October 1966.

    iii.            At the meeting at Rotorua 24^th September 2001 the Army Legal Officer attending with Crown Counsel produced three documents that army alleged the plaintiff had signed. The first produced was the alleged March 1967 application for early release document, a document displaying that appeared to have the plaintiff’s signature on it.

     iv.            The plaintiff affirms he had not ever previously set eyes on, or had been at any time party to that document. The second document produced, the plaintiff also had not set his eyes on before, and that second document was also signed with what appeared likened to his signature. While the third document produced having the signature of the Commanding Officer New Zealand Forces Vietnam on it, also has on it what can only be described as a very poor attempt at forging the plaintiff’s signature. Col Taylor, Barrister Peter Birks of Rotorua, and the plaintiff, at that meeting at Rotorua all agreed, that there were just to many points against the signature being the plaintiff’s, the signature is a forgery.

This identifying document setting out most issues is constructed in assisting the directions conference scheduled for hearing 12-30 p.m. 21^st November 2001 before Justice Bathgate, it has been constructed by the plaintiff at Rotorua on 20^th day of November 2001.

Robert Plumtree
Plaintiff

Back Home Page