PoO failed in its efforts to establish the personal wealth of a bloke named Kemp Adrian Paerata. We did establish he hopes to increase it to the tune of $55 million, to be provided (if all goes well for him) by New Zealand taxpayers.
This Paerata bloke is described as a Taupō resident who works in wastewater treatment.
Our interest in him was triggered by news that he has lost a High Court appeal regarding a driving offence.
But somehow he has the means – does it involve legal aid? – to declare his intention to take his case to the Supreme Court.
His bizarre judicial antics are reported by The Post, which tells us:
A Taupō motorcyclist who billed the Government, police and courts $55 million “for his time” has lost his High Court appeal after arguing New Zealand law did not apply to him because of Māori sovereignty and “sovereign citizen” principles.
Yep. The motorcyclist is Kemp Adrian Paerata, who was convicted and discharged at Taupō District Court on one charge of failing to stop when followed by blue and red flashing lights and sought to appeal his conviction at the High Court in Rotorua.
He represented himself – and, for good measure,
… he filed an invoice seeking $55 million from the Government, police, courts and others, alongside documents asserting New Zealand Police were merely a company, that Parliament had no jurisdiction over him and that he was equal in sovereignty to King Charles III through his whakapapa.
Justice Layne Harvey dismissed the appeal, ruling that New Zealand courts had repeatedly rejected such “sovereign” claims.
“Central to Mr Paerata’s case on appeal is that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court or of the police,” Justice Harvey said.
“The courts have consistently and unequivocally rejected sovereign citizen pseudolaw arguments.”
When it comes to the matter of the traffic offence, Paerata maintained he had not seen the flashing lights, saying he had 60% hearing loss, had just left a counselling appointment with his psychologist and was distracted by that session.
If the next Government shies from hobbling or disestablishing the Waitangi Tribunal, but seeks new blood to sit on it, Paerata’s legalistic credentials and thinking should be taken into consideration.
Paerata filed documents relying on He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, historical court decisions, biblical passages and an “Affidavit of Life” distinguishing himself from the legal name written in capital letters in the documents.
“He also sought to refer at length to a 1666 statute and related legislation which I asked him not to read,” said Justice Harvey.
Paerata argued that because roads within the Ngāti Tūwharetoa rohe remained under unextinguished native title, New Zealand law did not apply to him.
He also contended he was not legally a “driver”, claiming the term applied only to people paid to drive, such as truck or courier drivers.
Justice Harvey said some of the material reflected the hallmarks of sovereign citizen pseudolaw, including the “strawman” argument that the legal person named in court is different from the living individual.
The judge noted recent academic research had identified increasing overlap between sovereign citizen theories and Māori sovereignty arguments, but said neither could succeed in challenging the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts.
Justice Henry acknowledged that Paerata’s whakapapa might demonstrate “mana tuku iho”.
This is something which non-Maori cannot demonstrate: it refers to an inherited right, authority, prestige, or status derived through descent. It is the spiritual power and leadership authority handed down from ancestors and the atua (gods) through generations in accordance with tikanga, or (for our English-language readers) Māori customs.
But Justice Harvey said that did not exempt Paerata from the law.
The judge also found the authorities he relied on did not support the propositions he advanced and said courts had consistently described such jurisdictional challenges as “plainly unsound legally” and “frivolous and vexatious”.
Then came the portent that the case will be taken to the Supreme Court:
“Finally, I note that Mr Paerata confirmed that if his appeal was dismissed, then he intended to appeal further until his case reached the Supreme Court,” Justice Harvey said.
Filing an appeal in the High Court of New Zealand costs a standard court filing fee of $744.
But total costs can escalate significantly if a litigant requires hearing scheduling fees, document sealing fees, or private legal representation.
Moreover, if the appeal is lost, the judge may order the appellant to pay a portion of the successful party’s legal costs and formal disbursements
Alas, there is no mention in The Post report that the judge made such an order in the Paerata case.
It costs more to appeal a case to the New Zealand Supreme Court. The expense often reaches tens of thousands of dollars once lawyer fees and potential adverse costs orders are factored in.
Following the July 2026 Ministry of Justice fee updates, the mandatory regulatory costs for a civil case include:
His bizarre judicial antics are reported by The Post, which tells us:
A Taupō motorcyclist who billed the Government, police and courts $55 million “for his time” has lost his High Court appeal after arguing New Zealand law did not apply to him because of Māori sovereignty and “sovereign citizen” principles.
Yep. The motorcyclist is Kemp Adrian Paerata, who was convicted and discharged at Taupō District Court on one charge of failing to stop when followed by blue and red flashing lights and sought to appeal his conviction at the High Court in Rotorua.
He represented himself – and, for good measure,
… he filed an invoice seeking $55 million from the Government, police, courts and others, alongside documents asserting New Zealand Police were merely a company, that Parliament had no jurisdiction over him and that he was equal in sovereignty to King Charles III through his whakapapa.
Justice Layne Harvey dismissed the appeal, ruling that New Zealand courts had repeatedly rejected such “sovereign” claims.
“Central to Mr Paerata’s case on appeal is that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court or of the police,” Justice Harvey said.
“The courts have consistently and unequivocally rejected sovereign citizen pseudolaw arguments.”
When it comes to the matter of the traffic offence, Paerata maintained he had not seen the flashing lights, saying he had 60% hearing loss, had just left a counselling appointment with his psychologist and was distracted by that session.
If the next Government shies from hobbling or disestablishing the Waitangi Tribunal, but seeks new blood to sit on it, Paerata’s legalistic credentials and thinking should be taken into consideration.
Paerata filed documents relying on He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, historical court decisions, biblical passages and an “Affidavit of Life” distinguishing himself from the legal name written in capital letters in the documents.
“He also sought to refer at length to a 1666 statute and related legislation which I asked him not to read,” said Justice Harvey.
Paerata argued that because roads within the Ngāti Tūwharetoa rohe remained under unextinguished native title, New Zealand law did not apply to him.
He also contended he was not legally a “driver”, claiming the term applied only to people paid to drive, such as truck or courier drivers.
Justice Harvey said some of the material reflected the hallmarks of sovereign citizen pseudolaw, including the “strawman” argument that the legal person named in court is different from the living individual.
The judge noted recent academic research had identified increasing overlap between sovereign citizen theories and Māori sovereignty arguments, but said neither could succeed in challenging the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts.
Justice Henry acknowledged that Paerata’s whakapapa might demonstrate “mana tuku iho”.
This is something which non-Maori cannot demonstrate: it refers to an inherited right, authority, prestige, or status derived through descent. It is the spiritual power and leadership authority handed down from ancestors and the atua (gods) through generations in accordance with tikanga, or (for our English-language readers) Māori customs.
But Justice Harvey said that did not exempt Paerata from the law.
The judge also found the authorities he relied on did not support the propositions he advanced and said courts had consistently described such jurisdictional challenges as “plainly unsound legally” and “frivolous and vexatious”.
Then came the portent that the case will be taken to the Supreme Court:
“Finally, I note that Mr Paerata confirmed that if his appeal was dismissed, then he intended to appeal further until his case reached the Supreme Court,” Justice Harvey said.
Filing an appeal in the High Court of New Zealand costs a standard court filing fee of $744.
But total costs can escalate significantly if a litigant requires hearing scheduling fees, document sealing fees, or private legal representation.
Moreover, if the appeal is lost, the judge may order the appellant to pay a portion of the successful party’s legal costs and formal disbursements
Alas, there is no mention in The Post report that the judge made such an order in the Paerata case.
It costs more to appeal a case to the New Zealand Supreme Court. The expense often reaches tens of thousands of dollars once lawyer fees and potential adverse costs orders are factored in.
Following the July 2026 Ministry of Justice fee updates, the mandatory regulatory costs for a civil case include:
- Application for Leave to Appeal: $1,515 (Required to seek permission to have your appeal heard).
- Scheduling and First Day of Hearing: $1,377.
- Subsequent Half-Days: $688.50 per additional half-day.
- Interlocutory Applications: $551 (For side-issues or procedural matters).
In civil appeals, a litigant may be ordered to pay money into a court trust account (often several thousand dollars) to prove the other side’s costs can be covered should the appeal be lost.
But if you cannot afford these costs, you can apply for a fee waiver through the registry on the grounds of severe financial hardship or public interest. Alternatively, civil and criminal Legal Aid funding is available for eligible applicants, which caps lawyer fees at set government-approved hourly rates.
And so we revisit the question which kicked off this article: how wealthy is Kemp Adrian Paerata?
He will be significantly wealthier – we imagine – should he ever be paid the $55 million to which he imagines he is entitled.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.