Is Auckland Council Blackmailing Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright?

Is Auckland Council Blackmailing Mayoral Candidate Penny Bright?

In response to a few posters at a busy Auckland Intersection advertising a protest to stop council corruption,
Complaints led to A Letter From Malcolm Heinrich: 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council

"...
Dear Madam
Displaying signs on a public place without permission of the Auckland Council, breach of Auckland Council Bylaws..."

Laws basically prohibiting anyone from putting up any kind of message on any council property without the council's permission and threatened a fine of up to $20,000 if she ever did it again.

---

This 1 act by Mr Heinrich possibly breaches 2 laws:
1
It's ILLEGAL for the council to pass by-laws inconsistent with the bill of rights act:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."
2
It's ILLEGAL to Blackmail people:

(1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication..
(a) ...cause the person ... to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
(b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss...

(2)Every one who acts in this manner ... is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to...

(3) This ... means any benefit, pecuniary..., privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.

Punishment of blackmail
... imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

Penny has made a full response to the council and they are required to explain themselves by 5pm Thursday 1 September 2016.

Penny's Full Reply:

FYI - this in my view, is a significant attack by Auckland Council on citizens' LAWFUL rights to 'freedom of expression':
____________________________________________________
25 August 2016
'Open Letter' / URGENT Privacy Act request to Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town:
Dear Stephen,
I have received by mail, a letter dated 2 August 2016, signed by Malcolm Heinrich, 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council, which states the following:
"...
Dear Madam
Displaying signs on a public place without permission of the Auckland Council, breach of Auckland Council Bylaws
Auckland Council has received a complaint regarding the placement of illegal signage on public utilities, at the intersection of 446-450 Manukau Road, Epsom.
An inspection, on 27 July 2016, found fly posters advertising a protest in Queen Street, authorised by you, attached to Council utilities. This constitutes a breach of the Auckland Council Bylaws that prohibits displaying any signs on public land without permission of the Council. Fly posting on public utilities is an illegal activity, which damages property, contributes to littering, and also adds a significant burden to ratepayers in clean-up costs.
AUCKLAND COUNCIL SIGNAGE BYLAW (2015)
7.(2): Amenity
A person must not attach to or display any publicly visible signage on any street furniture, road, bridge, underpass, overpass, tree or any other council or Auckland Transport infrastructure on a road or in a public place, without the approval of the relevant authority.
AUCKLAND COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY AND NUISANCE BYLAW (2013)
6.(2).(a): Nuisances, safety and behavior in any public place
Except at a facility or site specifically provided, or with the prior written approval of the council or a council controlled organisation, a person must not use a public place to: display or fix any graffiti, posters, signs or advertising devices on any property that is under the control of council or a council controlled organisation;
Our records confirm that no such permission has been granted for the placement of poster signs on public utilities at that location. Auckland Council requests that you cease placing signs on Council utilities, and request permission for any such activity in the future.
We also wish to inform you that any further breaches regarding illegal placement of signage on public land, can result in Auckland Council taking escalated enforcement action, which can result in seizure, and possible fines not exceeding $20,000.
Yours faithfully,
...
Malcolm Heinrich
Senior Bylaw Inspector
Licensing and Compliance Services - Central
Auckland Council "
____________________________________________________
It appears that Malcolm Heinrich, 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council, in my considered opinion, is woefully ignorant of the following LAW, which is directly pertinent to this matter:
ie: The Local Government Act 2002, s. 155 (3)
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/2002/0084/l…/DLM173401.html
155Determination whether bylaw made under this Act is appropriate
(1AA)
This section applies to a bylaw only if it is made under this Act or the Maritime Transport Act 1994.
(1) A local authority must, before commencing the process for making a bylaw, determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.
(2)If a local authority has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem, it must, before making the bylaw, determine whether the proposed bylaw--
(a) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and
(b)gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
(3)No bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, notwithstanding section 4of that Act.
Section 155 heading: amended, on 28 June 2006, by section 16(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 26).
Section 155(1AA): inserted, on 28 June 2006, by section 16(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2006 (2006 No 26).
Section 155(1AA): amended, on 23 October 2013, by section 90 of the Maritime Transport Amendment Act 2013 (2013 No 84).
________________________________________________________
The following lawful right to which I am entitled is the right to 'freedom of expression', as enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/1990/0109/l…/DLM225513.html
14Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
____________________________________________________
Please URGENTLY provide ALL/ANY information held by Auckland Council, or Auckland Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), (particularly Auckland Transport), which pertains to this complaint, and above-mentioned letter by Malcolm Heinrich, 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council.
I am particularly seeking any 'legal' advice / information provided Auckland Council 'in-house' legal services, or any other qualified lawyer, from any other body, firm or the like, on this matter.

Please be advised, that at the Auckland Council Governing Body meeting held today (Thursday 25 August 2016), I formally raised this matter directly with Auckland Council elected representatives, and this was 'live-streamed'.
http://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/…/250816-governi…

Attached to the Minutes of this August 25 Auckland Council Governing Body meeting, will be a copy of the above-mentioned letter by Malcolm Heinrich, 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council, and a copy of both pieces of the above-mentioned pertinent legislation.
In my considered opinion, I allege that this above-mentioned letter by Malcolm Heinrich, 'Senior Bylaw Inspector, Licensing and Compliance Services - Central, Auckland Council, in these circumstances, effectively constitutes a form a 'political' blackmail.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/1961/0043/l…/DLM330263.html
237Blackmail
(1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent--
(a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
(b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.
(2)Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
(3) In this section and in section 239, benefit means any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 238
Section 237: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).
____________________________________________________
Please also be advised of the following:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/1961/0043/l…/DLM330268.html
238Punishment of blackmail
Every one who commits blackmail is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 238(1)
Section 238: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).
____________________________________________________
I require this information by 5pm Thursday 1 September 2016.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
(2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate).