Search

Adobe Acrobat Document US Citizenship Renouncement Certificate, H Wilfred
Adobe Acrobat Document: 167 kB, 23 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Manco Legal Opinion
Adobe Acrobat Document: 750 kB, 1.73 minutes @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Rutherford Legal Opinion
Adobe Acrobat Document: 537 kB, 1.23 minutes @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document Human Rights and (US) Intelligence Reform
Adobe Acrobat Document: 40.9 kB, 5 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Adobe Acrobat Document NZ Removal Review Authority, Case Dismissed
Adobe Acrobat Document: 3.47 MB, 8.07 minutes @ 56kbps

Case History Section 31

 

Aug 2004 to Aug 2005

 Appeal for Residency NZ Removal Review Authority - Denied / Order to Leave

 
  • Appeal Application for Residency Filed With the RRA - December 10, 2004
  • Legal Opinion Submissions included to the RRA
  • US Citizenship Renounced, March 1, 2005
  • US State Department Issues Renouncement Certificate - April 15, 2005
  • August 9, 2005 - Appeal Dismissed, 7 Days to Appeal or Leave the Country


Section 31 provides a synopsis of documents referencing the process of Harmon's Appeal application to the New Zealand Removal Review Authority for the opportunity to obtain residency.  In spite of all the documented evidence and legal opinions presented in the case, the RRA Authority denied Harmon residency, dismissed the case, and provided him notification to leave the country within seven days. This notice came even though Harmon was stateless at that time, and therefore without travel documents; as previously reported to the Authority.  With no ability to follow such an order and clearly desiring to continue his life and business in New Zealand, Harmon was referred to the law firm of Wynn Williams and Co to advance his case under an Appeal and Judicial Review to the New Zealand High Court.  Although he and his wife Carolyn were advised that this would be a lengthy and expensive procedure,  they were left with no alternative but to continue funding this effort as an accumulated loan to Harmon from Carolyn's personal estate.  Without a work permit to enable Harmon to legally earn an income in New Zealand during this lengthy process, he was also forced to discontinue providing support payments for his children; albeit while continuing his responsibilities as Director and Trustee of the various family entities in an unpaid status.

Upon reviewing the case, the Wynn Williams legal team, Peter Whiteside and Jared Ormsby, recommended and prepared the High Court Appeal and Judicial Review with complete confidence that the RRA process was at least dysfunctional in its standard approach to Harmon's unusual case, if not completely incorrect in its findings; not the least of which were; "The appellant and his wife have no nexus to New Zealand", and "It is not for this Authority to determine whether there are any injustices arising out of matters pertaining to this appellant in the United States of America".  Considering their global telecommunications business Combined Technology, established and Directed in New Zealand by Harmon and Carolyn since 2002, along with their charitable trust, La Famia Foundation NZ;  including the respective employees, contractors, and suppliers involved; this information alone would seem to dispel the premise that Harmon and Carolyn have "no nexus" to New Zealand. In an initial summary of the case, the Wynn Williams team also pointed out:

"Arising from the unique circumstances of Mr. Wilfred, the Removal Review Authority also failed to recognize the physical harm and danger that could result to Mr. Wilfred from his removal from New Zealand and his rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international law." 

Index of PDF Documents in Case History Section 31:

 

Pg        1          US Citizenship Renouncement Certificate, State Department acceptance

Pg        1-3        Manco Legal Opinion, Barker & Associates

Pg        1-3        Rutherford Legal Opinion, Rutherford and Company

Pg        1-4        Human Rights and (US) Intelligence Reform, Foreign Policy in Focus

Pg        1-19      Final Decision of the Removal Review Authority, Case Dismissed