Thank You Curtis Gregorash
This morning when I woke up I had never heard your name, I read my Herald and you have restored my faith in humanity.
In my experience we are riddled with corruption .It is concealed by those who work for it, intentionally, through ignorance and others for self preservation.
At last there is some one who not only has the values to resign but also the guts to speak out .We need more like you Curtis , there is actually strength in numbers and wouldn’t that just make such a difference on the integrity of New Zealand.
Corruption is like cancer. You can deny you have it but in the end the symptoms will be too bad and it will either become obvious or you simply pop your clogs.
I Stood as an Independent Candidate for Epsom to highlight the corruption issue. I think I have contributed to the exposure of it but only in a minor way as what I have had to say has as usual been well concealed, yes the media play their part in the concealment too .
I happen to think that if the improper swearing in of police officers is a significant issue then a fraudulent application for Law enforcement powers and as a result having this granted to a fictitious organization would also be of significance. The Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )enforced the animal welfare act for some 10 years despite having any identifiable legal persons revealed behind this trading name. Ultimately four people, who together have no evidence of having run the ” organisation ” and who MPI have no record of being the applicant , sought to have the law enforcement status revoked
Both National and Labour are involved in this corruption, and it is not as if it has not been raised with Government departments the office of the auditor general, Ombudsmen , SFO, MPI , Solicitor General , office of the prime minister etc did not know, they all knew and all played their part.
We have preciously highlighted the reason for that , it is because they all support Transparency International New Zealand . And What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ? apparently not much , they know how to deny that corruption exists just look who supports them in their quest to portray that New Zealand is the least corrupt country . In the end Transparency New Zealand is a business and needs to be paid . Rule 1. never bite the hand that feeds.
Come to think of it Transparency International New Zealand has been surprisingly quite during the election campaign .
Then the other item which was of news this week was that There are reports that Chinese communist party anti-corruption officials are looking to investigate suspects in New Zealand.
Mr Peter Goodfellow got involved in the matter as mentioned in the article but we have found connections with him and Oravida see Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?
Then there is the issue of the Crarfar farms and he manner in which New Zealand farm land is being bought up in a most non transparent way and here again we have a connection with Oravida through their former director who resigned from Orvida one day and set up with those involved in making an application for the farms the next day and then doing so deceptively in my opinion through a British Virgin Islands Company Is there an obligation to comply with directions of the Overseas investment office ?
New Zealand is all about big business we are happy to facilitate anything from International money laundering to selling off our land to unknown persons all the while we have this pretense of being squeaky clean
Three years later and another election later nothing much has changed in the mean time brand NZ has been damaged by having our companies registered here through our slack company registration processes being used in international money laundering and fraud.
We dont learn from our mistakes , we allow the real criminals to use our justice system to conceal corruption and beat up whistle blowers.
The Government and its employees all stand on the side line and are complicit. I takes a very special person to make a stand . I have heard far too may say, “I am just a few years off retirement I dont want to rock the boat. ‘ Those who remember the old TV program Gliding On.. Well Its alive and well .
I am preparing my submissions for the commission against corruption petition which was presented in June , let us hope that people vote wisely and that we will see the C word ( corruption ) Used a lot more and also see actions to combat it.
I had intended to post on this site everyday during the pre election period and I notice to my horror that it has been a week since my last post. I have been busy but not he way I intended to be and I will make certain that my time was not wasted.
Not long after I announced my intention to stand I was sued by my former lawyer Evgeny Orlov. Evgene or Eugene as many know him like to live in the grey area of law. confusion and burying people under mountains of paper are his best skills .
I am a former client of Orlov’s firm Equity law, I used to work in the office and saw how it operated. Orlov was so scared that I would talk that he took me to court to get a restraining order when I had not done anything except breathe . That order expired last November .
Now I am under siege again the tactics he uses is to throw so much at you that you will either go broke engaging a lawyer or if you do it yourself that you will miss something vial and he will squeeze in and annihilate you in court.
Orlov is no longer a lawyer but is practicing through a proxy ,Julia Leenoh,giving her heaps of experience at my expense, guess its his way of getting money for her. Last week he filed yet another set of proceedings this time his lawyer Greg Stewart is trying to to get a protection order through his client Orlov to prevent me from publishing anything about Greg Stewart. Julia Leenoh and George Bogiatto this is the application here application restraining order. The bits they complain of are here http://www.transparency.net.nz/legal-bullying/ and at the links at their name.. seems like transparency and truth dont serve them well .They prefer to work invisibly .
This getting a restraining order for yourself through your client while working in a conflicted position by acting agaisnt a former client must be a first in New Zealand and it will be testing the conflict of interest rules to the absolute hilt .
As can be seen in his application filed through lawyers Stewart & Associates Equity Law,( whose address and phone numbers are those of Equity law) , Mr Orlov requests
“Restrain the Respondent from publishing any material that may
directly or by inference lead to his identification or any other details
about his previous practice and all associated members of the practice
that has now merged with Stewart & Associates, explicit or implied,
on the Respondent’s blog Transparency New Zealand or any other
online forum accessible by the public which she can moderate”
So what has he got to hide ? the strange thing is that he has already taken defamation proceedings and I have an open offer on the table to him that all he has to do is ask me to amend what has posted and It will be done.
But basically he does not like the idea that I provide transparency e.g Look at this document from the companies office . the document is an application to remove the company SWEDLINK TRADE LTD from the register .
This application is supported by the alleged minutes of the company. Now to grasp the complexity of this meeting you have to note that the director Inta Bilder is Latvian , lives in Latvia, the director of the shareholder is in Cyprus and he company is registered to level 4 44 Khyber pass road Grafton Auckland
Now lets look at the players
Inta Bilder is widely reported in the international and local press
a search of the companies he has been involved in records that he once held 834 companies in New Zealand .A recent search reveals that the following are still showing Inta Bilder as the director
|BENTLEX LIMITED (1964808) – Shareholder|
|CARGOTEX LIMITED (2084625) – Shareholder|
|EXPORTEX LIMITED (1964816) – Shareholder|
|INFINITY INTERTRADE LIMITED (2067354) – Shareholder|
|TRANSLINE CORPORATION LIMITED (2135243) – Shareholder|
|BALLEX UNIVERSAL LIMITED (1907994) – Shareholder|
Many of the companies have now been struck off through a major cull carried out by the companies office but those named above remain.
Moving on to the next name on the list Equity trust International
company records show 2 directors
Steven James GREEN
Unit 5, 27 Fache Street, Clyde, Clyde, 9330 , New Zealand
Registrant Street: 3033004
Registrant City: Auckland
Registrant Email: @equitylaw.co.nz
Admin Name: Evgeny Orlov
Admin Organization: Equity Trust ltd
Avoiding Death and Taxes When Investing in Property – The Benefits of a New Zealand Foreign Trust for Property Investors Contributed by Evgeny Orlov, Barrister, Equity Trust International (New Zealand) [www.Trust-NZ.com]
Avoiding Death and Taxes When Investing in Property. the benefits of a New Zealand Foreign Trust for property investors by Evgeny Orlov, Barrister, Equity Trust International (New Zealand) International property investors have realised that property is one of the best forms of investment. Of course, provided that you are not stuck in a particular location: [...]
See his very convincing spiel here he is a Human rights lawyer but does not respect the human rights of freedom of expression when it comes to him .In my experience He doe not practice what he preaches. Love the bit about looking after clients.. he gave me false invoices and over charged me and agave me grossly sub standard work
news items relating to Manti Effrosyni as below
“What is this firm Interhold Ltd, which manages $ 45 million asset M.Bakieva?
Try to find out. The company is registered at the Khyber 44, Auckland, New Zealand. Her owner is registered in Cyprus Genhold Limited, whose director Cypriot Manti Effrosini (Manti Effrosyni) concurrently is director 88 New Zealand companies. ” (Copied From Google translate)
Not only are the allegations and articles Ms Haden posts, ve1y offensive
and distressing, they cause further concern to the safety of my family,
myself and my legal acquaintances because of Ms Haden’s capabilities as
an ex police woman and private investigator. I fear that if Ms. Haden is
not stopped in this way, she will stop at nothing to destroy myself and all
the people around me all because of the fact I brought a legal proceeding
When I was a cop I always had a supervisor , even after the 2 year probation period was up there was always some one who you reported to and were accountable to.
Compare that to lawyers and it appears that a law degree makes them honest and responsible . They can also go right out on a limb and cover up for their mate who have lost their practising certificate.
In fact what is happening is so good It seems i
I have just received a response from the law society with regards to Evgeny Orlov practicing by proxy it appears that it is quite Ok for him to be acting as a lawyer even though he is no longer one.
He still has copious articles on the net portraying him as a lawyerer
Not too long ago we posted an article with regards to Milk New Zealand Holding , this is the company which is purportedly owned by Shangai Pengxin
The office of overseas investment OIO Assessment at page four stated
The Applicant is Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (“the Applicant”), a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an
overseas person under the Act.
The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.
It transpired that the applicant did not comply with this direction instead another company named Milk New Zealand Holding was registered as a New Zealand company with a share holder initially unidentified but later revealed to be Milk New Zealand Investment a company registered in the British Virgin islands .
I requested information from the companies office through FYI and a response has been received .
MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT LIMITED is indeed registered in the British Virgin islands , but the companies register there does not disclose who the share holders are .
The British Virgin Islands company was registered on 24 May 2012 , the company which registers off shore incorporation has provided a certificate of incumbency which presumably is only accurate as at the date it was issued.
Additionally the final paragraph it states that the register may be kept elsewhere and their records may not be up to date .. so fat lot of use that certificate is .
But going back to the instructions of the OIO it states The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.
The agreement therefore between the applicant and the government has not been complied with and the Purchaser has no obligations to fulfill the conditions as the purchaser is not the applicant , it is a grand son who has the same name .
It is the company in between the applicant and purchaser which is of concern as this is the weakest and a very non transparent link in the chain .
I wonder if any one will do anything about it ? I have sent the open letter below to the ministers .
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:01 a.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘email@example.com'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Open letter to the Ministers of finance, land information and economic development and OIA request
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the purchaser of the Crafar farms was not the company which applied to and was approved by the OIO
The directions of the OIO appear to have been ignored , these were that “The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.”
The resulting group of companies went on to purchase more farms and a deception/error occurred which caused the OIO to state at point 16 of the application for the purchase of the Synlait farms
“In 2012, Milk NZ was granted consent to acquire 16 dairy farms known as the Crafar Farms (“Crafar Farms”). Consent was granted subject to extensive conditions, including annual reporting. The Overseas Investment Office has recently received Milk NZ’s first annual report and is satisfied that Milk NZ is not in breach of any conditions of consent.”
But the report which was produced was not from the applicant in the Crafar application but from a company which has the same name and purports to descend from the applicant.
The statement on the OIO web site states “Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk NZ), the company that purchased the 16 former Crafar Farms last year, has submitted its first annual report to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).” This statement is true however it was not the company which was approved to purchase the farms , it was in effect a name sake with questionable genealogy.
The annual report furnished further complicates matter s by referring to the purchaser of the farms as being Pengxin New Zealand Farm Group, which is a subsidiary of Milk new Zealand Holding (NZ) as opposed to a direct subsidiary of Milk New Zealand Holding, (HK) the applicant . As a fraud investigator I am aware that through the use of names assumptions can be made which divert those who accept the assumption away from the truth.
In between the company ,which was the applicant Milk NZ holding ( HK) and milk New Zealand Holding ( NZ) is a non-transparent and unscreened ,unapproved entity called Milk New Zealand investments .This has a certificate of incumbency dated 5 december 2013, which by its own disclaimer may or may not be accurate.
Milk New Zealand holding the applicant is not the purchaser or the direct owner of the purchaser and this may bring about issues of its own as the purchaser is not a party to any of the conditions agreed to with the OIO .
There appears to be a disconnect between the OIO and the MED . No one has verified that the applicant has been properly registered as directed as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993.
It would appear that the provisions of the act specified under the heading Overseas companies has not been complied with .
As per section 15 of the companies act, each company is a separate legal entity , therefore the applicant considered by the OIO and the purchaser are two separate legal persons.
By way of OIA please provide copies of any documents in which any of the ministers or ministries have considered the fact that the applicant in the Crafar farms deal was not the purchaser . And please provide copies of any consents which have allowed the purchaser to be different from the applicant .
I ask this under urgency due to the Lochinvar station being negotiated and if falsehoods exist then this should be addressed prior to the sale going through.
What would happen if the silent majority was not silent ?
Imagine if every one who is eligible to vote voted .
The undecided would become the deciders and we may all be better off because of them .
Instead of not voting if all non voters voted for nothing but ” other minority parties ” which received .48% of the vote in the last elections their vote take woudl be increased to 34.63% which would be 3.47% more than National got in the last elections .
Now wouldn’t that be a left field game changer ?
These minority parties would be in a position to form a government with any one . They could actually form a Government with every one except national and Labour .
They could throw out consultants, advisers and just runt eh country on good old common sense .
It would be any ones guess who would be prime minister but I certainly do hope that the first thing this parliament would address is corruption .
I have no doubts that those in the Grey are those who can help us beat the 1% .. are you in ????
What is the point of having laws if there is no accountability to it?
We have screeds of legislation which applies to lawyers but just about every time a complaint made to the law society comes back with the words that the lawyer concerned does not meet the threshold for that rule or offence or it is written off in some other lame manner without real consideration of the rule has been breached or not .
We appear to have allowed a Grey area creep into law a decision which says technically they have broken the rules or ignored them but we dont think that it has done serious damage. Should we perhaps re write our laws so that the law can be broken by 5% , 10% or even totally ignored or sat theft is not a theft is the sum is less than , or too bad he stole your TV but because it was old it doesn’t matter. Or simply apply the law selectively to people who you think has good reputation which will be tarnished by a conviction regardless of the facts.
I think I may have hit the problem on the head there as our legal system is built on the 12 the century legal concept in Britain.There were four inns of court Grays Inn, Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle temple , the links will take you on a fascinating voyage of discovery .
It is perhaps not very surprising that the words Bar, standing and Inns are all associated with the law .That is why only those standing can be at the bar, I can only guess that the others were under the table or dead in a corner .
Through the involvement of the Knights Templar and the inns, religion was a tool used control those both in the Inns and those on whom the law was practiced. The Fear that some harm would befall them would get any one to confess except those who secretly knew that you could tell lies and get away with it.
But fast forward to 2014, knights in shining amour are out, religion has been shown not to deliver the thunder bolts and lighting to those who do not speak the truth or act honourably . So what do we do we say to the lawyers go and form an organization and control yourselves. New Zealand Law Society
As a safe guard we set up the LCRO to which you can appeal if you dont like what the law society does but we make certain that the people on the LCRO are appointed in consultation with the law society and also funded by them.
Because of the lack of funds the LCRO is desperately under resourced and there appears to be a wait of some 2 years before the matter is determined by the LCRO , evidence of this is shown in the dates of the determinations .
To expedite matters and to make it appear that most of the lawyers are good guys the law society ” writes the complaint off ” in their early resolution process, this has the effect that people just done bother making complaints as it is simply a waste of their time. Their actions with lawyers are more akin to that of a mother of a very spoiled only child , rather than a mother of 10 who in years gone by would have given the culprit a good reason to remember why he has to stick to the rules.
I have only ever had one successful complaint to the law society and that took 3 years to complete . I was to get $30,000 after false invoices had been issued .
As a former police officer I find it appalling that a person with the full weight and responsibility of upholding the law and being an officer of the court can commit acts which when I was a police officer were crimes .I have seen people locked up for stealing a packet of tobacco yet here I have been deprived of a massive sum through false accounting and the offender is now suing me for bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy and liquidation are two processes used to ” take some one out ” which liquidation of a company is the equivalent of killing off an opponent, bankruptcy is as close as you can legally get to bopping off a person who gets in your way and if they resit they will son find that another $3,000 is added to the bill.
This week a Lawyer was jailed for stealing from clients this brings about the question, what is the threshold for theft? In my day a theft was a theft but it appears that now thefts are acceptable up to a certain limit.
I have also become aware that the law society has a process which takes time and does not allow for intervention . Since filing my complaint with regards to my former lawyer in February 2011, he has taken me to court no less than five times and my matter has still not been resolved.
He is currently trying to bankrupt me over $3,000 and sue me for $500,000 . All these court processes have strict time frames and is taking my time. It has occurred to me that if he bankrupts me for $3,000 all my issues will go away and when your broke there is no point in coming after you for more dosh cause your bankrupt.. It must be the best place to be. Perhaps my former lawyer is trying to make me an example after all he is in the business of setting up trusts so that people can hide their money overseas . I know I wont get a cent from him as he , despite his business connections does not hold assets in his own name.
A very good example of how the process is abused is that my former lawyer who was struck off as a lawyer but has had a reprieve and can practice again if the was to get a practicing certificate , is apparently running his practice through a Proxy, a very junior junior who is working under the supervision of a lawyer in Alexandra and claiming to be a branch of that law firm and having incorporated both law firms names into the trading name for the branch.
The very junior lawyer operates from the premises of the former law firm and any one not knowing would think that it is business as usual at the former law firm . I rather suspect that she is being given Practice experience by suing me, all it can do is cost me money because if I hired a lawyer and was going to get a cost payment in favour of me, my former lawyer would simply skip the country .
Now I consider taking court action without any evidence as an abuse of process , it is akin to beating some one up with a piece of 4 x2 and saying sorry wrong person , didn’t mean to hurt you .
But the law society will no doubt look at this and say no harm done and leave the door wide open to the next lawyer to make the same mistake.
In the mean time the person who has had the court action filed agaisnt them has how many sleepless nights?
This ” mistake ‘ is actually a breach of the rules and the law society has a duty to keep lawyers accountable to the rules , but the reality is that it works well for lawyers not to be hard on this kind of thing as it gives them something to put pressure on people with .
This is not the only mistake there have been many .
It is for such incidents , that I believe that the law society should not be the both the body which disciplines lawyers and holds them accountable . I have drawn up a petition to segregate the functions of the law society being 65 Regulatory functions and 66 Representative functions. And to ask the government to set up one organization which is dependent of Lawyers and only has the regulatory functions so as to hold lawyers truly accountable to the law.
A matter follows from complaint to law society , to LCRO to tribunal and even after that there is appeal
I am 4 years in on my matter and we have not hit the LCRO yet , the LCRO will need at least 6 months to make a decision then there can be an appeal to the tribunal . Bankruptcy is just a few months so it is a lot easier for the lawyer to beat up his complainant than it is for the complainant to get justice .
We need a process which work as fast as a bankruptcy application does, a process during which administrators can intervene and assess all court action between the parties and ensure that only matters are filed which have followed the rules, proper negotiation and for which there is evidence.
No more soft touch for lawyers. They need to be held accountable to the law to a Higher degree than the people who they proceed against . You can help by singing the petition
The petition is down loadable here Petition for an independent lawyers authority
Several days ago the press reported that Rawshark the alleged hacker is retiring . at the time his Twitter account @Whaledump was suspended and he tweeted through an alternative account that
The account posted that “every device used in this operation will have been destroyed and disposed of along with all the decryption keys” by the time the tweet was read.
Who ever Rawshark is must be aware of stories like mine, what happens to a whistle blower in New Zealand.
Heaven forbid that ordinary people should listen to a whistle blower, that would shatter the illusion, the perception that new Zealand is the least corrupt country. so this is how we deal with whistle blowers in New Zealand
1. Discredit them. take the focus from the actual incident and place it on another event which will be contorted to make the whistle blower appear as though they are driven by revenge. This is part of the concept of DARVO
In my case I had worked on a trust with Mr Wells, The Auckland air cadet trust. I had been the treasurer for 19 Squadron and knew how hard the kids worked for their money , most of it was to keep the motor glider GOD in the air.
When I took over the accounts for the AACT , they were a mess , the trust was losing $1500 per month , I straightened up the books asked hard questions and for my efforts was kicked off the trust by Neil Wells who was chair man and without warning stood before the other trustees and read from some notes telling them that I was bringing the trust into disrepute and needed to be removed. . I could not understand what was going on I felt totally Bullied and demanded evidence . The evidence never came and the notes which Wells had read from disappeared. The rules of the trust were re negotiated so that Wells had the numbers to remove me as trustee . As a result of this I sent aFax to him at his work telling him that I believed him to be the greatest bully I had ever encountered. ( for the record the kids no longer fly, the building they got had a massive cost and a 10 year lease.. how stupid is that ? I suspect the trust was supposed to go under that is why he had to get rid of me I ruined that plan )
As a result of this Fax I received a phone call From Lyn Macdonald the bird lady, she was at the time a council dog control oficer and was concered that she was required to volunteer her council paid time to an organisation which Mr Wells appeared to run called the Animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand AWINZ
She put me in touch with Robert Frittmann whose cat had been unlawfully euthanized on the authority of AWINZ. Robert, a security officer at the time, had tried but failed find the “organisation” and failed to get accountability.see the news item Couple demand compensation for dead cat.
It was a council officer who came under the auspices of AWINZ who had used the animal welfare act to illegally remove the cat. Tom Didovich the council Manager at the time wrote to Mr Frittmann
Like Robert ,I could not find who or What AWINZ was so together with Robert and one other person we set up a trust called the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand so as to confirm that an organisation existed as a legal person or not.
We were successful in registering our name proving that no organization by the name Of teh Animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed in New Zealand
Had AWINZ existed the matter would have finished there. I would have told the parties who and what the organisation was, instead I found that it did not exist in any legal or identifiable form. In stead we asked Questions of Both the council and MAF as to why an unidentifiable non existent organization was enforcing animal welfare law and why they were contacting to an apparently fictional Organization .
MAF had believed that AWINZ had existed as a legal person and had infact been assured of its existence, nut no one had checked. So Six years after this unknown and legally non existent person took on law enforcement authority Told Mr Wells was told to register AWINZ . But of course he couldn’t do this because we had the name . So he recruited some support and tried to pressure us into submission , just like he had removed me off the trust.
And so I came under 8 years of attack , the aim was to do as much financial damage as possible and in so doing they also destroyed my marriage and my family. We are just collateral damage to keep this secret under cover.
I find it interesting that twice now there has been intervention because police officers were not correctly sworn but one of two private Law enforcement authorities was a total fiction and we address that by throwing up walls and blinkers and pretending that it never happened. So much so that I cannot get the press to publish anything.
I often get calls from Would be whistle blowers this week from a person who was concerned with the council again contracting to unidentifiable persons this time Dialect Communications who received $8,000 in rate payers money . I have also raised the issue of 3/4 Million Len Brown received from the New Auckland council trust. No doubt his term of office will be over before the police finish their investigations .
The court also likes to back up lawyers on claims of fictional organisations and in my latest judgment from the court the Judge . Patricia Cunningham , goes out of her way to attack me instead of addressing the issue . Needles to say since I was not a party to those proceedings the party involved, Our now renamed Animal owner support trust has filed an appeal.
So folks that is how we keep our least corrupt status by destroying any one who has the audacity to say.. “but surely that wrong” that is how we are the least corrupt.. we simply bully people into silence speak up and lose your home and Family… Pretty good for the least corrupt country isn’t it ? So lets all dash out and vote for the parties which support corruption , National and Act . ( I have a silent hope for LabourAndrew little presented my petition for a commission against corruption .)
I may have got this wrong but I some how believed that the Bill of rights applied to every one in New Zealand .I also find it strange that those who claim the right of freedom of speech for themselves , are at the front of the queue to deny others that very same right .
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.
Such is the case with two persons this week One being Cameron Slater the other Evgeny Orlov.
I also notice that some one has attacked Vinny Eastwood and taken down his videos on You tube .
Cameron Slater’s matter has been well covered in the press. But then there is Evgeny Orlov.
Orlov is complaining that I showed that companies that his wife is the ultimate shareholder of , are associated with international money laundering. this is not something I made up, it was widely reported in the press that UNIHOLD was involved in international money laundering . Type in the words Orlov and MAFIA into google and the story which comes up is this one New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia
I obtained the information with regards to Unihold from this and other reliable sources and traced the companies genealogy back through the companies office. It is perhaps an inconvenient truth but it is a fact which I had no control over.
The companies have their Genesis with the GT group and SP trading companies which were reported on in many articles in the press including this one on Stuff the article commences
Mexico’s brutal Sinaloa cartel, responsible for killing 28,000 people, is using a New Zealand connection to launder drug money.
In Romania, Laszlo Gyorgy Kiss, arrested in a $14.5 million extortion case, is tied to a New Zealand address – the same one that provides cover for North Korean arms smuggling.
My research through linking companies on the companies register suggests that the activities which are reported in that article have been taken over and continued By a company again owned By a former lawyers wife .
It could just be extreme coincidence ,that in a world full of proxy directors, that this trust company uses the same Proxy directors as were used by GT Group and SP Trading and have acquired a raft of companies which were previously administered by them.
Many of the companies administered by this group which operates from the premises of the former law firm show through their archived documents that they were once companies under the control of either THE COMPANY NET TRUST or Geofrey Taylor and sons Ian and Michael .
For connecting the dots I have been has attacked me and tis former lawyer is seeking $500,000 in defamation claims for stating fact .
It occurs to me that he has a problem comprehending facts as in a most unprofessional affidavit accuses the author of New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia as being as uneducated as I am. Richard Smith mentions the lawyer and his wife by name in a well researched article .
The former lawyer claims that my lack of education is because I attended Papakura High school . I have always believed that he is is Dyslexic, this is from my observation in working with him, I believe that claiming that I went to Papakura High school is a mistake only a dyslexic could make as the only reference to my education is on my linked in profile and that school is Pakuranga College .
Lack of comprehension can be a serous matter as Richard Smith is not the only respected journalist to have written about the proxy directors and the companies involved ..
There cannot be any dispute that the companies associated with Unihold are ultimately owned By the lawyers wife , It is apparently very defamatory to make the connection between a number of news items and the ownership of a company. I have to wonder if she actually knows what these companies are involved in . The cant have done any due diligence when they took them over or have preferred to remain ignorant of the associated proxy directors involvement in international crime.
Other news items referencing Unihold and van angels are set out in detail at this link and also in this news item NZ shell company linked to alleged $150m fraud, the company in that article was Falcona systems which was 100% owned by Unihold.
as a result of the activity of these companies new Zealand was removed from the EU White list
I find it rather Ironic that I am attacked for drawing attention to the activities of these companies while the lawyer has attacked the judiciary for not allowing him freedom of Speech.
In the same affidavit my former lawyer states ” Ms. Haden does not appear to have any boundaries for she also attacks perfectly valid intemational organisations in her affidavit. For example, at paragraph 65(f) she states the completely perjurious statement that the office of Breder Suasso is unattended without providing any proof of this.”
It would appear that he cant even compute pictures. this is what was published
is this not a picture of an unattended office ” perhaps he did not recognize it was not what was portrayed on the web site .
Perhaps my lack of education fails to recognize the invisible lady behind the counter.
Long live freedom of expression for every one and I certainly hope that Vinny gets his you tube channel back up .
Last Week Penny Bright and I did a joint presentation on corruption to the good people of Helensville .
Vinnie arranged for it to be recorded through Barak Ford, I didn’t even know that it was going to be posted but am pleased it was hope you find time to watch it .
the video was Hugely popular look what happened the account has been blocked . So I have posted this instead it should serve as a warning to us all
Where has freedom of speech and right to share information gone?
The following is an open letter which I have written to the law society , I believe that this is a unique matter which has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice .
It is a matter in which justice has been perverted by using the court to conceal a public corruption where by a fictional organisation was given coercive law enforcement powers.
I have overwhelming evidence that The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ ) , which had equivalent status under the Animal welfare act as the RNZSPCA , did not have any legal existence and its application to the minister was fraudulent as to the structure nature and existence of the alleged trust.
AWINZ operated from council premises in circumstances where by the council facilities were re branded to look like AWINZ. The council resources and staff were being used for private pecuniary gain by a council manager, the man who had also written and advised on the bill to facilitate his personal business plan of amalgamating dog and stock control.
When I questioned the lack of existence of AWINZ and lack of identifiable legal persons I was sued . I had the misfortune to compound matters by taking on the wrong lawyers . I engaged Evgeny Orlov.
The following is my letter to the law Society. I bring this to your notice as I believe that this instance seriously undermines the confidence that we need to have in the law.
I refer to the decision of the high court 21 August 2014 CIV 2013-404-5088  NZHC 1987
I note that in paragraph 3 c “Harrison J wrote to the Auckland District Law Society requesting it to inquire into Mr Orlov’s competency and qualifications. ‘
My research shows that these concerns stem back to 2009 .
Mr Orlov was my solicitor in 2009 he took a judicial review and an appeal on a matter of serious public corruption where I had been taken to court on a defamation claim by a man who had written and advised on legislation to facilitate his own business plan to amalgamate dog and stock control with animal welfare.
A fraudulent application was made to the minister , it alleged that a trust existed when in reality it did not. It was later claimed that a trust which had formed some three months later was the applicant however due to the unincorporated nature of that trust there was no evidence that the application had been discussed by the individual members or consented to.
My defence of truth and honest opinion were struck out and the matter progressed straight to Quantum.( there was no formal proof other than the person who had everything to gain by deceiving the court, swearing the statement of claim as true. Later evidence has proved that it was not true.
Orlov caused irreparable damage in his appeal and judicial report which has successfully closed all doors on me despite obtaining overwhelming and convincing evidence in 2011 that I have been right all along.
Orlov also allowed items to be written into my matrimonial property settlement after I had signed it a matter which the law society forgave due to the fact that I later consented to the settlement ( I consented because I was penniless and could not survive a week longer )
But that aside with respect to the matter of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand which has now cost me so very much
1. I did not have competent representation
2. I paid Mr Orlov via Equity law limited fees based on competent representation
3. I had costs awarded against me
4. I also had massive interest charges which Orlov never warned me about
In short the repercussions from his incompetent representation was huge ,it is now such that a recent decision by Judge Cunningham, for the charitable trust involved in the litigation with me ,that her honour focused on me and not on the issues. She was concerned at the number of times associated issues had been before the court , much of this stem from trying to repair the damage done by Orlov.
I now have overwhelming evidence that there has been a miscarriage of justice but I cannot place this evidence before the court, I am exhausted and financially compromised
It has cost me an obscene sum and I too now have the prejudice of the court against me because I chose the wrong lawyer.
Given the fact that there was nothing in the public arena , that I was aware of at the time, with regards to Mr Orlovs competency I made my choice based on the assurance of the law society that their practitioners are qualified.
I did my own investigations into his law degree when I became suspicious of his capabilities and found that mr Orlov does not have a law degree .
For his qualifications he relies upon the LLb and LLM of Eugine Narodetsky.
I know that verification is badly done by many organisations and that the connection often relies on an assumption .
I have seen things manipulated and implied that mr Orlovs father is a Mr Ernest Narodetsky but I have never seen any real evidence that Narodetsky and Orlov are one and the same person.
Basically I have never seen any real evidence that Mr Orlov is Mr Narodetsky and I do not believe that any one else has either.
I am therefore seeking assistance and direction from the law society , I have exhausted my finances, Orlov is now taking me to court for the fourth time and the charitable trust needs to appeal the decision .
It is simply wrong when a client of an incompetent lawyer is left out on their own fighting the battles which he has made complicated and also while he is waging war on her for having made a justified complaint.
This is probably a unique situation and I am seeking a solution I am the victim of incompetent representation .
I ask for this to be treated with urgency