Its been 8 long years and i would hate to think how many thousands of dollars in OIA request but I finally have the confessions from MPI that should have been forth coming in 2006. But although they have the spin doctors out they fall short of admitting that they were duped by Neil Wells, could that be because they have been in on the act or are they genuinely not able to comprehend the laws which ordinary people have to live by .
In my recent OIA request MPI conceals corruption by playing cat and mouse I raised a number of issue with MPI , I have now got their responses and although this is strictly speaking not an admission what they are saying is that the information I seek is not available or does not exist . If it is not available then that must mean that the evidence they rely on does not exist. How do you verify the existence of a non existent organization… with non existent evidence of course.. why didn’t I think of that ???
I have integrated the questions and responses on this PDF the only conclusion which we can come to from these answers is that MPI apparently condone Neil Wells deception with regards to the fictional AWINZ .
AWINZ – the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand was one of only two private law enforcement authorities, the other was the RNZSPCA
Neil Wells was the former head of the RNZSPCA , I have been told that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree , which would be true as I have noticed that every thing Neil wells does is paid for by someone else. he was paid to set up his business plan of amalgamating dog and stock control with animal welfare, he was paid to set up a trust which he later claimed as his own to cover up the AWINZ fiction.
He used $100,000 of charitable funds to attempt to silence me through the courts, and in doing so pocketed some $57,000 for himself and has not accounted for about $150,000
When my persistence became too much for him he gave up the charade of AWINZ and moved to the King country . I know I will be accused of havng it in for him but that is not true, the reality is that I questioned the existence of AWINZ on behalf of a council officer and from there on in Wells has vilified me and made me out to be the bad egg.
I have a lot of trouble comprehending how those who are supposed to be in the game for the welfare of animals can be so cruel to humans. My family has been torn apart and my divorce which he and his associates brought about went through just a few weeks ago.
I was mortgage free but the court proceedings he brought through a group of persons masquerading as the law enforcement authority is forcing me to sell the family home. My crime.. I questioned the corruption surrounding AWINZ. No government department has lifted a finger there has never been an independent investigation .
It appears that Wells has friends in High places and the man is made of teflon he can do anything and it slides off him. It is my honest opinion that he can do things which others would get a conviction for, he does not even get investigated - yet I get done like a dogs dinner for speaking the truth I was even investigated by MAF for reporting that there was some skulduggery with a transitional facility licence.. I ended up being accused of passing myself off as a MAF officer , strange that I saw a connection back to Mr Wells .
As a former police prosecuting sergeant I know that people get prosecuted for fraud.. using a document for a pecuniary advantage is a typical offence and carries a penalty of 7 years 228 (b)
In 1999 Neil Edward Wells made an application to the minister for coercive law enforcement powers for an applicant named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand .
He attached an unsigned trust deed
the application contains many untruths being
1. the name of the applicant the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand …. No such organization existed as either an incorporated or unincorporated group of persons
2. Wells stated that AWINZ intended to operate Nationally .. this was his intention only this is supported by his business plan which he wrote years earlier for the territorial animal welfare services typically there are always more than one version of a document which Mr Wells produces and this is the version he put together for MAF who knew of his intentions all along .
3.MAF was fully aware that Wells was writing legislation for his own business plan and they also knew that he had a conflict of interest which I have never found a record of as having been declared. Maf questioned if he had declared the conflict of interest .
4. in the introduction Wells refers specifically to part 10 which is entitled the institutes compliance with section 122
- “the objects and the principle of the institute is to promote animal welfare “- I have to ask how can an institute without members have an object?
Wells makes reference to the attached deed but that deed is unsigned, which means that no one has agreed to it. an Unsigned deed is not worth the paper it is written on , it is but a proposal.
- accountability arrangements a board of trustees will control the institute. .. the Trust Board will prepare an annual report on the administration. performance and affairs of the Institute within 3 months after the conclusion of each financial year there was no board no one had agreed to this suggestion and as I have shown the trust which formed later never met and was merely there to give an impression that an organisation existed. What MPI does not get is that the applicants and the organisation need to be one and the same persons and not just connected through a similar name..
- The Waitakere City. Council has provided establishment funding for the institute . The reality was that Wells was paid by Didovich from the dog control budget see invoices 1995 1996 invoice for setting up trust invoice for recruiting trustees .
- Waitakere council denied involvement and denied that AWINZ operated from their premises
- Conflict of interest, how can an institute which does not exist, not have any members, not have had meetings , accept anything or give assurances for anything ? Wells gives the assurance that ” because the Institute will be registered under the Charitable trust act … a board of trustees will always be in control
- AWINZ was never registered under the charitable trust act probably because to do so you have to have trustees.
- How could the institute have a purpose.. something which does not exist cannot have a purpose the purpose was only that of Neil Wells fulfilling the intentions of his private business plan
- Technical expertise and experience. Neil Wells at the time was a lecturer at Unitec he had set up the course which was to be mandatory for all dog control officers to complete so as to become animal welfare officers. Wells was paid by Didovich for the training of the Waitakere and North shore dog control staff.
- The use of the concourse in the Waitakere city council premises were falsely claimed by Wells to be rented for $1 per year and MPI never checked
- Neil Wells became the council dog control manager at the concourse and re branded the facilities so that the council premises and the fictional AWINZ look as though they are one and the same.
5. the application is made by Niel Wells Trustee.. How can he be a trustee of a trust which does not exist ? the trust deed which comes to light in 2006 is dated 1.3.2000 three months after this application is made and typically there are again two documents, the deed which was supplied to me has all the pages initialed while the deed supplied to me by MAF by way of OIA is a different version
- MAF has apparently never questioned why they have a unsigned trust deed on the application and then a deed provided 6 years later which is different to a signed version.
- Wells had also given the minister further false assurances see page 6 of this document he states that a deed of trust will follow it is being sent for registration.. now we know that it was never registered and this was acknowledged by the ministry of economic developments when Wells tried to have a trust which I was trustee of and similarly named ,removed from the register.( we had registered that name to prove conclusively that AWINZ did not exist in any legal manner or form independently from trustees ) see case law page 23 Wallis v Sutton
- Wells also claims that it will be registered in accordance with section 20 (a) of the deed if you look at the deeds the signed deed the MAF version you will notice that there is no 20 (a)
- He also refers to the deed in the singular and you would think that if there are two copies that he could have sent the duplicate. in 2008 in court he produces Two originals.
6.Function of the institute heading 2. there was no trust deed, it was unsigned . It is true that Wells was paid in 1998 to bring together persons for a trust this was at his suggestion to council he was paid to recruit these persons and at the time he wrote to Maf and set out the deed which these persons were recruited for it was to have involved the council . In 1999 Wells and Didovich go round acing as if AWINZ exist wells pushes for an early commencements of the legislation they tell the RNZSPCA it exists make applications for funding making false claims again that the trust exists and of course file an application for intent in August 1999 and the application in November 1999
It would appear that MPI condone such lies and the fact that this application was successful and led to Neil Wells single handedly operating AWINZ from council premises and banking the proceeds of prosecutions/ diversions into a bank account only he administered.
The evidence I now have shows that MAF knew that AWINZ was unincorporated but never did anything to identify the members of AWINZ . Surely their lawyers should know that you contract to real people / legal entities not nondescript unidentifiable names
They did not question who the members were of the organization which made for law enforcement powers in 1999 via Neil Wells and today’s OIA proves that they have no information to identify these persons, in the absence of that evidence it supports my statements that AWINZ the law enforcement authority is a sham.
MPI did not question the fact that the trust deed which Wells attached were unsigned and never ensured that they had a copy of the deed or proof of existence of an organisation. Even if the trust formed 1.3.200 had formed sooner these persons never met and never made a valid decision together and by the terms of the deed of trust this trust ceased to exist in 2003.
Wells received some $100,000 from Beauty with compassion and he did all of this singlehandedly not even calling a meeting of his so called trust.
While MPI correctly point out that an Organization can be an approved organization under the act , they fail to grasp that an organization is a group of persons in number more than 1 . Neil Wells on his own was not an organisation , the only person who was working with Neil Wells at the time was Tom Didovich who was the manager of dog and stock control Waitakere and who was writing letter to the minister in support of Wells and offering the councils infrustructure and resources for the use of the ‘ Organisation ” AWINZ which he knew did not exist.
The concrete evidence which we have that Didovich knew that AWINZ did not exist at the time the application was made is because he went round and got the signatures of the trustees at some later stage and swore an affidavit to this effect.
Neil Wells took me to court for defamation , It has cost me a great deal , My crime has been to speak the truth. everything I say is supported by evidence. by pointing out the facts above he will no doubt again accuse me of defamtion but it is not defamtion as it is all factual ,Wells has , as his docuemtns prove, a differnt slant on life.
I will again send him a copy of this and ask for him to point out if there are any errors or inaccuracies and if he can send me a correction i will make ammendments —. as usual he wont do anything because he knows that the tricks he played by having my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out will not work a second time. Heaven forbid if I was to have a defence .
I am the innocent party here and I cannot understand why our government condones people making flee application on such major issues there are people inisde our prisons for doing a lot less .
It comes as no surprise that Wells is now back with the RNZSPCA and seeking to splice the SPCA from the RNZSPCA.NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT 2014 AGM 17022014
The legislation which Wells wrote only gave law enforcement powers to the RNZSPCA . Mr Wells was involved in the restructuring of the federation and has a recorded history with the RNZSPCA see http://animalscams.webs.com/neilwells.htm. that site also has some interesting old new items be sure to click all the links.
It appears that he has set up a hub in the central north Island The members are Waikato, Thames, South Waikato, Taupo, Turangi, Te Kuiti, Central King Country and Rotorua.
Watch this space everything I have said is the truth and honest opinion. I am not denigrating Wells I am speaking the truth and seeking justice if that is a crime I am am guilty
If Mr Wells was worried about what people say he should act unscrupulously.
Thank you to my supporters please keep the information rolling in On the other hand should you require any information with regards to animal law matters in New Zealand please contact me.
Truth must prevail as must justice.. I hope
AWINZ, the animal welfare institute of New Zealand was given coercive law enforcement powers by MPI ( then MAF ) , it was he equivalent of the RNZSPCA which is a incorporate society and a legal person in its own right.
AWINZ on the other hand has never been defined and is legally Non existent.
MPI realizing that they gave a consultant law enforcement powers under a false name have played a game of cat and mouse with me for all these years. They avoid investigating AWINZ and they avoid straight answers.
Quite frankly I am over it.
this is my response to them
Thank you very much for your reply, this calls for a further urgent response by way of OIA
I make this application urgent because I have been playing this game of cat and mouse with your spin doctors for 8 years now
How can we have confidence in MPI when it cannot be honest up front in saying that they erred in granting law enforcement powers to a non-existent organisation
MAF did not hesitate to investigate me and warn me for passing myself off as a MAF officer in 2007 the people who brought that claim against me were working with Mr Wells and they were themselves prosecuted for fraud , the act was nothing more than a way of discrediting me .
I then faced 8 years in court while MAF did nothing about investigating AWINZ, they even consulted with Wells so as to respond to me.
MAf have never acted impartially on this. Wells is a consultant and has been able to influence them at every turn, because he is a barrister MAF and MPI have turned to him for legal advice and with this latest response it appears that they are still doing that
The latest response bring about yet a another round of cat and mouse, and again there are signs of MPI avoiding their responsibility to truth and transparency .
The document is signed PP, this is a common trick when you hold the person whose name is being used to be accountable they will state that it wasn’t them and they have no idea who signed it.
Therefore By way of OIA urgently please
1. Who is the person who signed for and on behalf of Matthew Stone, Ordinarily one would expect to see a legible signature or the name written below the signature.
2. Why could the person signing this document not sign in their own name?
3. Please provide evidence that this person who signed this did so with the knowledge and consent of Mr Stone.
4. Section 122 of the animal welfare act sets out the criteria for an approved organization, one of these being accountability to the public. In view of case law Wallis v Sutton page 23 and leading legal references quoted in well-established case laws which state that “Unincorporated bodies are lawful but legally non-existent.” How did the ministry propose that a legally non-existent organisation was going to fulfil the criteria of accountability? Please provide urgently all information and discussion papers which considered the unincorporated nature of the applicant and its ability to have accountability to the public due to being legally non-existent.
5. Not only was the Approved Organization legally non-existent but no one had signed the attached deed and only in 2006 did a deed emerge which was dated 1.3.2000. This date was some three months after the application had been made. It also transpired that MAF received a different version to the deed to the one I received, no one ever questioned why the middle pages were unsigned.
Case law and legal principles are firm on the issue that in the case of an unincorporated body the individual trustees are collectively responsible for the actions of the organisation / trust/entity whatever you like to call it. Yet there is no consent from any of the persons who allegedly comprise the approved organisation and none of the resulting contracts have been signed in accordance to the deed which MPI appears to wish to rely on.
The situation is such That MAF cannot even name the persons running the approved organisation at any time, how is that accountability to the public?
The evidence which I hold, shows conclusively that the only act done by the trustees of the 2000 deed was to sign the deed, they never met they never passed a resolution. See the discussion paper Why the trustees of the 2000 deed were not the approved organisation
Please provide any discussion papers which consider who the legal persons were who were involved in the running of the approved organisation and what legal foundations you rely on for this.
And any documents which relate to any discussions communications between yourselves and those allegedly involved with AWINZ with regards to the production of a trust deed which differs from the signed one.
What consultation has MAF or MPI undertaken with a lawyer conversant with trusts? Who was consulted, when and which issue did you ask to be reviewed?
6. How did the MPI address the issue of accountability of The approved organisation to the public ( 122 ) ,as I am a member of the public and wish to seek accountability of the approved organisation how can I do this if it did not legally exist?
7. Please provide all documents in which MAF considered the involvement of the legal persons in this application and sought to identify them, seek consent from them and ensured that they were supportive of taking on a law enforcement role in their individual names but acting under the banner / trading name AWINZ.
8. Did MAF or MPI at any time seek legal advice with regards to the legal standing of the applicant AWINZ and have the manner in which the application was made legally reviewed , if so please provide copies of all documents which discuss the issues and consequences of no real or legal person making or consenting to the application for law enforcement powers
9. in 2010 the trustees of the AWINZ 2006 trust sought to revoke approved status, please provide all copies of documents which prove that each and every one of these persons had law enforcement powers through AWINZ and had consented and applied for their role as together being a law enforcement authority.
10. You state that the current details for AWINZ can be found on the charities register. Please provide the evidential trail which links this charity AWINZ to the approved organisation AWINZ other than having the same name.
there is a story about the ring of GYGES it is the foundation for the lord of the rings story , the question in the ring of Gyges is
who when given the power of invisibility will not use it for a corrupt purpose?
In 2006 I asked questions about a law enforcement authority The animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) I found that it did not exist I was promptly sued By Neil Wells who had made the application to the then minister for law enforcement powers for the fictional AWINZ.
Defamation is very hard to defend when the court strips you of your legal defence of truth and honest opinion and Neil Wells who had been an author of the Animal welfare Bill and Independent adviser to the select committee had free reign to present uncorroborated evidence to the court and confuse the court with a number of trusts which he effectively claimed to be one and the same trust.
The animal welfare trust was so secret that the trustees who were purportedly trustees were unaware of their legal responsibilities and the fact that they had become a law enforcement authority through nothing more than inference . MAF totally missed the point of incorporation, incorporation was essential so that a separate legal entity is formed in its own right separate from its shareholders or trustees and such an entity continues in existence until it is removed from the New Zealand register.
Today I obtained the case law which I have been looking for for years, case law which the lawyers for Wells should have brought to the table, Instead I was repeatedly told that I did not understand unincorporated trust. It transpires that it was David Neutze who did not get his facts right.
The case law is Wallis v Sutton and on page 23 states
Litigation involving unincorporated associations is notoriously difficult when it is not done by way of representative action.
Unincorporated bodies are lawful but legally non-existent. As Fletcher, in The Law Relating to Non-profit Associations in Australia and New Zealand p.187 puts it:
“Legal issues arising from their activities are justiciable provided they can be presented without attributing a corporate character to the association.”
At p.190 Fletcher concludes that:
“The prohibition on assuming a corporate character does not prevent the members collectively from asserting their rights either by all joining as parties to the suit or by representative action.”
Fletcher quotes an article by Lloyd, Actions Instituted By or Against Unincorporated Bodies (1949) 12 Mod. LR 409 at 411 on the subject of collective action by all members:
“Under this procedure, every member would, of course, have to be individually named and would have the full status of plaintiff or defendant, entitled to appear and be separately represented, and liable to incur separate sets of costs.”
There appears to be little case law on this subject but the diligent researches of counsel for the defendants has produced Blackfoot Stock Association v Thor (1925) 3 WWR 544, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. There Stuart, J.A. opened the brief judgment of the Court by saying:
“There seems to be no doubt upon the authorities that a voluntary association, such as the plaintiff, which has never been incorporated in any way, cannot sue except in the name of all the members unless advantage is taken of rule 20 and an order is made by a Judge that one or more of the members may sue for the benefit of all persons interested.”
It is therefore essential that we should know who the law enforcement authority was comprised of because each of those persons were liable for the action of the authority . if the people are not identified or have not consented then the law enforcement authority is nothing more than an empty shell actually its worse than than it is an invisible shell with no contents.
So Why has it cost me 8 Year a marriage, well over $300,000 the stress and blood pressure to arrive back at the point where I commenced in 2006 when I asked MAF why that had given law enforcement authority to a non existent organization.
How long will it take for some one to own up that previous labour and national governments have stuffed up and instead of thanking a whistle-blower, have allowed her to be totally beaten up.
Well we can pride ourselves for living in the least corrupt country or do we just hide it better than others?
The answer is with Plato “how would a man profit if he received gold and silver on the condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst? [589e]”
Perhaps we will leave that to Cunliffe, Banks and Len Brown to answer
IN 2006 I questioned the existence of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand which has signed an agreement with Waitakere city council animal welfare for the use of its resources infrastructure and staff
A year or so later Mr Wells took over the position of Mr Didovich who had signed on behalf of the council facility, thereby contracting to himself because The animal welfare institute of New Zealand had no existence in any manner or form at that time
Council did nothing about this it was condoned to the extent that it was covered up
Mr Wells re branded the council premises to the extent that the premises and the fictional AWINZ appeared to be one and the same causing MAF to comment “it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC”
Mr Wells in a document to the minister had talked about taking over the council business unit and acquiring the assets.
Despite trying to bring evidence such as this to councils attention I have been attacked repeatedly by council particularly by council lawyers
Just recently I raised the issue of AWINZ misappropriating Funds which they were allegedly holding on behalf of council .. again I am attacked by council lawyers and called vexatious.
Now I have been approached by a number of people who have found themselves in court on claims by Water care filed by Malcolm Whitlock
The claims to the court seek to revive debts which are 6 years old and falsely claim that water care services is the judgement creditor . Water care is a limited liability company registration number 519049 registered on 21 August 1991.
Metro water is a separate legal person registration number 863532 incorporated 30 June 1997 and struck off the register 01 Nov 2010 effectively meaning that this company no longer exists.
we obtained the court files on several of these matters and in each instance found that the court record showed
There was no amalgamation of the two identities and there is no legal basis that we are aware of for Water care claiming to be Metrowater or for substituting its name for that of Metro water in court documents.
This brings up a very serious issue of potential perjury or recklessness with the truth on the part of Latesha Harrison -Lynch and WHITLOCK & CO Barristers and Solicitors PO BOX 100449, North Shore
Under the rules for lawyers there is a requirement for lawyers act lawfully and not use their office to facilitate fraud. It is evident that Letesha & Whitlock and co would have had to have had the court documents so that the court file number could be recorded , so it would have been obvious to them that the judgement creditor on the original files are shown as Metrowater . Substituting one creditor for an other legal person does not happen by mistake.
I contrast this to o a traffic ticket I received from Auckland Transport. I dived into the High Court parked where I have always parked in the p10 spaces outside the court. Returned and found that despite returning in the time frame I had a ticket because the area had been re designated to pay and display since the last time I was there ( which was recent ) . They will not let me off the ticket. I made a mistake and I will be prosecuted for that.
Latesha Harrison- Lynch swore several affidavits, it is usual for the evidence to be attached to the affidavit and we question why the judgments were not attached on this occasion , her statement was manifestly false and had no basis for truth . Water care was not involved in the earlier proceedings and no judgement was made in their favour. Had the Judgements been attached it would have been obvious that Metro water was the judgement creditor not Water care. We suspect that the evidence was deliberately withed because most people would not pick up on this issue. People presume that lawyers act lawfully, in my experience that is not the case.
While errors on our part are punished this is not so for CCOs and their agents and in our experience they often make ” errors ” or make things up , which slip though and if pointed out are claimed to be errors .. oops sorry all care no responsibility too bad that it cost you time ,effort , stress ,loss of sleep, “we are the big boys we are the lawyers try suing us we will win a n you will lose your house. ” I believe this is called the might is right principle.
I would have hoped that some one working in debt recovery would have had sufficient experience to know the difference between one legal person and another . And if there was a legal basis for the debt being transferred from one legal person to another that this would have been proved in the affidavit rather than by substituting one person with another.
We have more than one of these matters in our possession , the matters were not withdrawn from the court and a hearing will be held on one of the alleged judgment debtors in March .
In the mean time we will be asking for an explanation and expect to see the legal basis on which Water care claims to be Metrowater.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse an lawyers have a duty to ensure that documents are filed in the proper manner.
We also have to question how the registrar allowed these documents to be filed.
We stand by our view that Metrowater could not be substituted by Watercare and as yet we have not been provided with the elusive legislation which the lawyers are reluctant to refer to as a legal basis for their ” mistake ” .
We have been asked by Jeff Usher ( on behalf of Murray Whitlock ) to amend this post and have done so in good faith despite the fact that no evidence has been supplied as to why our post is considered defamatory by them. We rely upon the following definitions
(1) Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his or her evidence on oath, whether the evidence is given in open court or by affidavit or otherwise, that assertion being known to the witness to be false and being intended by him or her to mislead the tribunal holding the proceeding.
Fraud Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain
14 Freedom 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.
The information in this post is our firm opinion and honest belief based on research and experience.
This Metro water/ water care issue is not a mistake at best it is gross negligence.
I think that I am not alone when I demand accountability on this.
copy of email to Jazz Singh counsel for council and all Councillors
I am copying this to all Councillors and news media .
I have been aware for a long time that council works on the premise that “ they simply make things up “ in order to enforce whatever they like .
They also throw up brick walls and deny facts which are the inconvenient truth.
You as counsel for council and currently acting General Counsel must have the responsibility to advise Councillors with regards to the law and a a lawyer you have an obligation by statute to act according to the law .
Jazz I am uncertain as to your experience as a lawyer and wonder if you are aware of the principle of standing
I request that you do some urgent inquiries in to the court matters water care services against various people being called in the Auckland district court on Tuesday 18 February at 10 am
The matters are over 6 years old the judgement debtor in each instance was Metro water.
Metro water no longer exists it was struck off the company records on 01 Nov 2010
The company records show that it did not amalgamate
Water care have now filed APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT with supporting affidavits which read on 7 September 2007 the judgement creditor , Watercare services , obtained a sealed order in the district court against the judgement debtor……..
The court files show that the judgment creditor was Metrowater Limited .
Metrowater is a separate legal entity from Water care and the affidavits and court intituling are clearly false .
Water care has no standing
We look forward to you acting upon this , to prevent any damage , costs or inconvenience to those being targeted.
We also anticipate that you will be conducting a full investigation as to how such false hood can be perpetrated on the courts through a council controlled organisation.
We hope that we are not mistaken that your role should be to ensure that things are done legally .
I consider that there are many issues which you should be proactive on and on which you have failed to act these are
1. You have failed to ensure that councillors followed the proper procedure set down in the code of conduct when it came to an investigation into Len brown. EY should never have been used and in fact they have a serious conflict of interests EY internationally push PPPs and have been paid handsomely by the mayor to prepare a report on their pet subject recommending that Auckland council adopt this course of action.
2. The corruption issue in Waitakere where a manager was allowed to contract the councils resources and staff to himself for private pecuniary advantage, this has been covered up and council has refused to investigate.
3. I raise the issue with your with regards to funds which were being collected by a third party for an on behalf of council and with the former counsel for Waitakere councils knowledge. I bring the misappropriation of these funds to your attention and you tell me I am being frivolous or vexatious and you quote a totally irrelevant piece of correspondence which Wendy Brandon sent to me when she blocked my emails to councillors.
4. Auckland transport tells residents to mow the berms when there is no legal basis for doing this and this actually Auckland transport showing their lack of responsibility to their own property .
5. Now I am faced with false affidavits being filed in the court in an attempt to force people to pay up historic debts.
All the hyper links above open and will detail the evidence which you are so desperate to ignore.
I look forward to you acting appropriately in each of the above matters but urgently on the matters before the court on Wednesday
I will be posting a copy of this on www.anticorruption.co.nz
One such trust is the New Auckland council Trust the other the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )
These both have a lot in common .. they are totally invisible . All it takes for one to exist is for someone to say it exists …no evidence required and that’s it trust exists. It also helps to have a lawyer confirm it as we all know that a law degree makes any one honest.
the Lack of evidence is a difficult concept for a Private Investigator such as myself to grasp as we look for evidence and these secret trusts provide no evidence at all , they are nothing but hot air .
If some one said they received a donation from molly the cat we would say sure pull the other one but if they say got the money from a trust we all say that’s OK wont pry any further . the reality is that the cat is more real than the trust but what they both have in common is the need for a human interface to be able to make transactions.
Molly the cat cant buy her own cat food and an trust cant function without humans. Molly has the advantage of being able to get out and catch her own food but a trust cant even exist until it is created by people. The reality is that these secret trusts are noting more than an invisibility cloak .
I relate back to a story which goes back to the time of Plato , it about a shepherd who after adverse weather conditions finds that the land has collapsed in one of the fields where he grazed his flock and there is now a cave. He enters it and sees the skeleton of a man beside a skeleton of a horse. He notices that the man has a ring on his finger. Figuring that the man has no further use of it the shepherd helps himself to the deceased’s ring and slips it on his finger .
He returns to his shepherdly duties and that evening as usual joins the other shepherds around the fire. He notices that they are talking about him as though he was not there . He soon discovers that the ring gives him the power of invisibility . To cut a long story short ( and depending on the version of the story ) the shepherd uses the powers of the ring to seduce the queen and kill the King there by getting great powers.
the moral of the story is .. who when given the power of invisibility will not use it for a corrupt purpose ?
I guess that question remains so give people the power of invisibility e.g. a secret trust and what can you expect.
AWINZ was so secret that even Maf ( Now MPI ) who gave it coercive law enforcement powers didn’t even know who it was. The trustees who were supposed to be the law enforcement authority didn’t know either and not one of them had signed a document stating that they were a trustee of a secret trust which was seeking law enforcement powers. Through the magic of these secret trust this trust formed 1.3.2000 was able to make an application on 22 November 1999 .
But for 7 1/2 years on the say so of a lawyer ( for that is all it takes ) AWINZ has been able to carry out feats which would be impossible and illogical for any legal person to perform. Because when you are invisible you can move through time frames forward and back ward and materialize as what ever you need to be at any given time. We accept such bullshit in our courts and that is why we have no corruption in New Zealand. Evidence is immaterial all you need is a lawyer with a good reputation and an invisible trust and this will outweigh thousands of pages of government business records.
And so we come to the New Auckland council Trust, you will not find it on any register, no one has seen a trust deed, we do not know who the trustees are , who the beneficiaries are or what the purpose of the trust is, its purpose may as well state to pervert the course of justice, but we will never know and if the document has to be produced we simply draft a new one and back date it to what ever date required.
All we know is that the New Auckland council Trust appears on Len Browns election return and according to news paper reports in 2010 it also appeared on his return in 2010 and that it has money lots of it as its given away 3/4/ million dollars to Len alone.
Such secret trusts are a great vehicle for tax evasion and money laundering but that is another story.
I was at the meeting yesterday and heard that Len Brown had had input into the Ernst and young “independent review commissioned by the Auckland Council “ Brown was able to set the parameters of the investigation and also had a chance to see what was going to be in the report before it was released. In the meeting it came through that there were portions withheld due to the treat of legal action .
If only every criminal or person involved in any employment matter had such luxury then we would seldom have convictions.
Now a few observations about the report.
Ernst and young are not investigators and are not legally able to investigate into the actions or background of a person without breaching the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010.
They are auditors.They can go through all the information given to them by Auckland council but they have no legal ability to go to the various hotels and inquire as to Mr Browns actions in his own time, they can however make inquiries with regards to particular positions in council .
I also notice that Ernst and Young ( a global company ) does not divulge which of its many thousands of employees were involved in the investigation. We do know that Ernst and young work closely with the Mayor having only just completed a review for him on public private relationships.Public-private partnerships an option for Auckland
Now when it comes to public private relationships, which the mayor favours, who would be the ones closes to the trough, could it be those in the committee for Auckland who according to a recent LGOIMA represent a significant number of the contractors to the council. Amongst the list of members there is Simon O’Connor Managing Partner Ernst & Young.
One of the concerns I have is that when a company derives an income from the person they have to investigate, then there is a vested interest to preserve the future relationship and they will not be impartial in a report and as such are not a good choice for an independent review as a bad ” independent review ” would affect their future cash flow.
I also note that the EY report is not signed , signatures seal documents, once upon a time a company seal was used now we simply do nothing. lawyers like it that way does away with liability and you can always claim that this is the version that was not supposed to be released as it was not signed off.
Without a signature any unsigned document is but a piece of paper, unless there is a chain of evidence which connects it to the creator. I will accept in this instance that the council accept tha this is the report that they have paid $100,000 for.
I am astounded that a 19 page report of which 6 are appendixes , one is a self promoting cover and one page is a pre amble should cost $100,000 , that is almost 10,000 per page .
A proper impartial investigation would have looked at the mayor conduct in terms of the United nations convention against corruption which we as a nation have signed but not ratified.
The fact that Len Brown has failed to declare that he is a the beneficiary of a trust in his Declaration of Interest Summary it is significant. No one gets 3/4 Million from a trust just for the hell of it.
It comes as no surprise to me that Len Brown categorically refused to Investigate the fictional AWINZ he knew that an investigation and exposure of AWINZ would ultimately lead to the uncovering of his own secret trust the new Auckland Council trust . The parallel is too close and corruption is therefore condoned.
I can only conclude that in my opinion Len has sold his soul, he is not independent and neither was the EY report .
I was pleased to see that we have Councillors who are prepared to live up to the name of the governing body and call the shots but we have not got enough of those with a spine, there are the fence sitters who may also have ethical issues on a smaller scale to Mr Brown.
The past council concealed and condone corruption , its good to see the stand this early into the term, I can only hope that we can clean up the act because there is a lot to clean up. with Doug MC Kay ( who I believe is a committee for Auckland plant ) going and Wendy Brandon .. ( labour wench supporting the corrupt use of council resources by her fellow Labout members ) gone perhaps there is a chance to move forward and have a city which considers people and living conditions before it dishes funds out to big corporates.
Its time for dismissals with confidentiality clauses to cease, I do not believe that I have had an accurate account of why 55 million dollars was spent on extra employee expenses in the 2012, I suspect that part of this sum probably $15,000 ( that is what I have heard the going pay off is ) went to the security officer who knows very well that he will have to pay back his windfall if he utters one word of what he saw. .. cant believe that council records cant find him, the CCTV cameras in libraries reveal visits from months back.
when we buy silence we subscribe to corruption .. its time for change.
I fully support the few Councillors who stood up agaisnt corruption yesterday
to the others.. its time to look at who you are serving.
In this years corruption perception index New Zealand again sits at the top but we have a dirty little secret we get there by stealth ( Not disclosing one’s true ideology, affiliations, or positions ) . we do not prosecute things which need to be prosecuted and we turn a blind eye to many things. our lack of corruption is a real as Santa and in turn as real as the trusts which generously gave
People such as Graham Mc Cready Agent for NZPPS Ltd is bringing about fantastic change by making those who should be accountable to the law accountable.
In New Zealand we have too many old boys looking after each other, each has a dirty little secret which the other knows.. I wont tell on you if you don’t tell on me.. wink wink nudge nudge .. except for Len brown now has his dirty little secret well and truly blown
So New Zealand has no corruption because every one is too busy winking at each other ignoring corruption, after all we all do it don’t we .. wink wink so we redefine corruption we don’t acknowledge it and as any accountant will tell you that you cannot quantify something which you don’t identify. see problems gone already.
While our legislation does not appear to have a definition for corruption the word corrupt is defined by Google as ” “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. ” Our law strangely enough does deal with corruption and provides protection except that we don’t enforce these laws , that is until Graham came along and helped John Banks on his way .
So Far Len Brown has escaped John s demise but is he any better or is it by virtue of the fact that Len is of the brotherhood of lawyers which has helped him .
So far Len Browns actions have not been labeled ” corrupt” but he is going to be censured by the Councillors a slap across the palm with a wet dish rag will really get the message across but why is every one avoiding the real issue ?? This morning I made a complaint to the electoral officer for Auckland council by my reasoning there have to be necks that roll as what Mr Brown is trying to pull looks to me like a swifty .
The funding which Brown received in the past years was the very subject in 2010 Auckland mayor’s trust hides names of campaign donors the news item states “( Len Brown) declared donations totalling $581,900.95, of which $499,000 was to the previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust. That meant he did not have to tell the Auckland Council electoral officer the names of most individuals and companies that contributed to his campaign because the trust was listed on his return as the main contributor.”
This year he received $273,375 according to my calculator that is nearly 3/4 of a million in anonymous donations dressed up and disguised as a trust .
Hang on lets hack track a bit here .. all it takes is is a name on a piece of paper to suggest that the money came from a trust and that is all that is required ? what about real evidence .. sorry I have a hang up on Evidence I am after all an investigator I like to see the evidence.. believe nothing check everything…
John Banks used the same trick ” The largest named individual donation was $20,000 from “The Main Trust”. It is not on the societies and trusts register at the Companies Office. ”
This is exactly the issue which I have been fighting with AWINZ for 8 years .. when is a trust a trust and how do we know a trust exists when it is not registered any where?
I forced the AWINZ trust which alleged to be a law enforcement authority out in to the open and as a result the story of AWINZ became a total farce - a farce which the lawyers and courts are happy to stand by , we actually support fiction in our courts and in our administration of the law and justice and a trust is a trust if some one says so.. Duh roll on Santa your real !
So back to the trusts of Len Brown and John Banks .. how do we know that they are trusts? How do we know there is a deed ? how would any one know to make a donation to them is they are secret ?
The legal status of such trust is that they only exist through their trustees. The trustees are the legal persons who act together to fulfill the wishes of the settlor ( the person setting up the trust ) there are requirements that have to exist to make a trust valid and without them a trust could be a sham .
When these deeds don’t get produced , how do we know the trusts are valid and the person getting the dosh is the intended beneficiary? How do we know that these trusts are not just a “Harry Potter magic cloak” and simply hide the identity of the person passing money on to a candidate in elections so as to circumvent the intent of the legislation ( lawyers are good at this ) .
section 103 D of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that a contributor be identified - does that mean that a contributor can use a pseudonym to circumvent the law ? Identify does that not also include to establish the existence of ?so even if it is a trust the trustees who run the trust will have this obligation placed on their shoulders and it is the trustees responsibility to identify the contributor . but we don’t know who the trustees are because we could be dealing with a fiction but we are not certain .. but thats Ok cause hes the mayor he has an LLB and he must be honest ( too bad he deceived his wife )
there is actually an offence for not complying with section 103d but who can enforce this is the donor is hiding behind a false name.. and one would have to ask.. why can’t you be open about the donation ? is it a bribe or something??
There is also a provision which specifically deals with the manner in which anonymous donations are dealt with and 103F places obligations on the transmitter of the funds. so if this transmitter is a fictional creature a trust which is not locatable or identifiable does that mean that this obligation is not enforced ?
Once again the legislation has an intention of accountability and there is a penalty on the transmitter if they conceal the identity of the donor 103 G so why does a fictional creature provide an opportunity to avoid accountability ? surely there must be an address for the New Auckland council trust, surely it must have had a bank account and some real living person must have undertaken the transactions. .. or have computers developed a life of their own and knew exactly who to give the money to.
Then there is section 103 H which places the obligation on the administrator of the candidates affairs.. ( the person doing this for Len would have been busy .. couldn’t resist ) Now If I was a betting person I would put money on the fact that the new Auckland council trust is run by the committee for Auckland who do so well out of council and nearly every member holds a contract.. ell worth belonging to such a powerful group.. all funded by the rate payers.
Once again there is an offence 103 I for the administrator of candidates affair for failing to disclose who the contributor is but again this is not a section which has ever been enforced .
Then there is good all 103 J which states that Anonymous donation may not exceed $1,500 and the excess needs to be handed over within 20 days . So in the end I think that if Len can’t identify the persons who gave him the money in the past two elections he is just going to have to give it to the general fund but since he is out of time he needs to be prosecuted.
A A candidate who contravenes section 103J(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.finally we get to 103l Records of electoral donations1) A candidate must keep proper records of all donations received by him or her.
(2) A candidate who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
So what is proper about putting a fictional body into the return?so Sorry Len its time to face the music perhaps this time some on will make the proper investigations and you will be prosecuted by the Police and the private prosecution service can take a break .
lets see if the electoral officer can investigate and pass it on to the police or will this be condoned?
Since becoming a party to the anti-bribery convention in 2001, the country hasn’t prosecuted a single foreign bribery case, and only four allegations have surfaced, the report said. It opened the first investigations into two of those allegations in July 2013.
It is strange isn’t it that there is no bribery in New Zealand , I have to agree that Bribery is pretty much no existent because we simply don’t call it that and we don’t recognize actions dressed up as ” transactions ” as bribery.
Take for example the American business man Terry Hay who is a PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED (493822) – Shareholder and PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED (709847) – Shareholder. Until recently he was a director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
I questioned the address which he used on the companies register , after proving that it was false and found that he simply rectified the matter by resigning as director, he is still however the companies major shareholder and using the same fictitious address. the companies office appears to be comfortable with this and sent me their policy on enforcement
Terry Hay is a partner of David Nathan of Auckland chamber of commerce fame.
Terry Hay was charged with a number of charges of fraud by the ministry of economic developments national enforcement unit the charges are here
He had created a fictional liquidator and director to avoid paying lawyers bill . His associate Lyn Pryor was convicted and received a slap across the and with a wet dish rag the news items are Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt
Hay absconded and lived in Honolulu he then attempted to bribe his way back in to the country the NEU refused and told him to front the judge , the NEU was wound up the charges were dropped and Hay is back in the country . The Official Information act response if here Download View as HTML
Now it appears that making a deal with the crown law office is not bribery because the payment doesn’t go to one person we just do it on a larger scale and payments are possible if you pay the government department and rely on confidentiality.
Sky city also appears to be in the news this week for providing Mayor Len Brown with a room to entertain his lady friend in. Of course he insists that he paid for it and Sky city are not going to say any different they have favours owing to them. they wish to expand.
It appears that In New Zealand Bribery is not an issue as blackmail is more then likely the tool of choice, the blackmail is not played out in any letters or by any words but with a wink and a nod, it appears that in this corruption free society of ours we have a policy where by every one has the dirt on every one else and so it is a case of let he who is without sin , cast the first stone.
The rot is coming out from under the carpet even police search warrants magically drop text between versions as demonstrated in court this week in Vince Siemers case agaisnt the Police this is a copy of the search warrant he received on the day and this is the copy which Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock produced in court as the original .
Now I happen to know a bit about originals and copies and it would appear that there are two possibilities
1. the photocopy machine which copied the original search warrant malfunctioned and copied out a version which didnt have the year and a large section of words or
2. there are two ” original versions ”
the legislation which deals with search warrants states that the copy of the executed warrant must be given to the party being searched.. It appears that Vince never got a copy n 5 years.
I am certain that there has been no bribery in this matter , but I bet there was a nod and a wink some where along the line.
Isn’t it great to live in the worlds least corrupt country. we are so free from corruption and bribery that we don’t have to have protection in place.
I am seeking urgent legislative amendments to the oaths and declarations act. There is apparently nothing in the act which requires the taker of the oath to identify or confirm the identity of the person making the oath. This comes in light of this response received from the law society response from the law society to my complaint set out below .
Co incidentally there appears to me moves afoot in the UK to do away with the oath being taken on the bible. And it makes sense that deponents are actually identifiable as Ian Abrahams, a magistrate from Bristol, said “I’m suggesting we take holy books out of the process. Instead, people will have to show they understand they could be sent to prison if they don’t tell the truth.”
While swearing on the bible may have had the effect of keeping people honest in the middle ages it has little or no effect today especially when the deponent knows that they will not be prosecuted as they cannot be identified. It may have been a different matter in days gone by where in smaller communities people knew each other but in today’s transient society identify has become a far greater issue.
While swearing on the bible may have had the affect of keeping people honest in the middle ages it has little or no effect today especially when the deponent knows that they will not be prosecuted as they cannot be identified. It may have been a different matter in days gone by where in smaller communities people knew each other but in today’s transient society identify has become a far greater issue.
Section 110 of the crimes Act makes it an offence to “makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.” However if there is an issue of identity, accountability cannot be achieved and this leaves a gap in the law where it is possible to swear a false affidavit and remaining anonymous due to the law not requiring the disclosure and confirmation of the identity of the deponent .
I suffered the effects of a false affidavit and he deponent cannot be identified or located , I am certain that I am not the only one to have been affected in this manner but many would not know that this has occurred in their case and may have suffered an injustice because of it.
By Swearing an affidavit using a name other than your legal name and using an address which is so wide that it encompasses an entire city has the effect of avoiding prosecution and putting an almost impossible task on the person against whom the document was produced to attempt to prove that the deponent was fictitious. I am certain that this is not what the law intended. So how does swearing on the Bible make this document truth ?
This issue would be easily overcome by requiring all deponents to produce valid photographic identification and full residential address including proof of residence at that address.
Ideally every affidavit must be supported by a document which shows an imprint of the passport or drivers license of the deponent and confirmed and certified by the oath taker as belong to that person. These documents could then be filed electronically with the court and held on file for a defined period of time. This is a simple but logical step which would introduce accountability.
In the absence of such a law change it is necessary for affidavits to be confirmed in court on oral evidence, if the person swearing the affidavit is not known to the party against whom the affidavit is sworn and makes the whole point of affidavits worthless and will result in more court time being consumed.
No documents had been served on me and when this was proved to the court the liquidation was reversed. See court decision
I made a complaint to the police but Mr Parker has not been able to be found as his full name was not shown on the affidavit and his address was also missing.
I am a licenced Private Investigator and am concerned with the use of unlicensed unregistered and un-locatable persons being able to swear blatantly false documents.
I published an article on my blog and was approached by a lady who had suffered the same through the same document serving company Translegal services limited
Due to her document server living in Dargaville, he was located and identified and is now facing criminal charges.
Just recently we became aware that the same lawyer swore both affidavits.
I wrote to the law firm concerned and received a short reply “It has never been a requirement to identify the person swearing an affidavit.”
I was doing some other research this week and found form C8
The form quite clearly states that a requirement is “full name, place of residence, occupation”
It is simply wrong that an unidentified person can swear a false affidavit which can have massive repercussions on people’s lives and I therefore wish to make a complaint with regards to AL Jones for being reckless in swearing affidavits in not obtaining full details from the person swearing the affidavit as required under the provisions of form C 8 .
If Al Jones has not breached any rule I would hope that the law society will tighten up on requirements for its members to obtain details and confirm identity when swearing affidavits.
On 8 October 2013 I received this response from the law society, I note that the law society evades the real issue which is the identification of the deponent the affidavit which I referred to simply said that “I, TONY PARKER of AUCKLAND. Process Server contracted to Translegal Services NZ Limited, swear:-“
The Police have not been able to locate or identify Tony Parker of Auckland he may as well have said he was “Parker from New Zealand”
If as the law society says “The lawyer taking the affidavit is witnessing the promise of truthfulness not inquiring into the actuality of truthfulness. The lawyer does not read the contents of the affidavit (unless the deponent is blind in which case the contents must be read out loud to the deponent). “Then how can the deponent be held accountable to the truth if the deponent cannot be located again or identified?
I do not agree that it was regrettable that the lawyer has been caught up in this situation, I think that the process is slack. I have sworn affidavits before JP’s and have had to produce my driver’s license or some sort of identification. I have had deputy registrars refuse to witness my affidavit because I didn’t have the words I, [full name, place of residence, occupation], swear— when I have had that information in the affidavit but not precisely as quoted.
There is a need to standardise the process so that all who take oaths use the same procedure and ensure that the deponent is properly identified.
I hope that you can see the need for this law change and that this can be implemented soon in the interest of justice.
last week we saw an item in the Herald Man jailed for scamming North Shore council this was the final saga in a series of articles which date back to 2010, ironically that is the date when Auckland council was formed.
The links to the stories are as follows
Not one of the news items mentions a whistle blower, this was revealed in this mornings paper thought a letter to the editor by Larry Mitchell
That whistle blower was indeed luckier than I was I guess it was because Hemant Kumar Maharaj and Suresh Din were not lawyers and did not know how to use the court to conceal their offending.
Had they been a Lawyer Like Neil Wells for instance they would have immediately taken action against the whistle blower and discredited him/ her .
Strangely enough Auckland Council who is according to the article “vigorously pursuing the defendants” through a civil claim in the High Court to seek full recovery of its costs.” is not at all interested in recovering or even investigating any matters relating to what went on in Waitakere city .
Len Brown claimed that the fraud which operated from 2000-2010 is historic , it would appear that it is just as historic as this matter.
Lets see what the new council will bring fortunately there will be a new CEO and a new counsel for council . Wendy Brandon is to be chief of staff for David Cunniliffe , I dare say that if the new counsel and new CEO are at all savvy we will find that we will have a new item to match this one from Spain. Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial
I do hope that they set up whistle-blowing facilities and take whistle blowers seriously it would save millions.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 12:14 p.m.
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; email@example.com; ‘David Neutze’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’
Subject: Request for investigation into the conduct of David Neutze.
attachments brookfields submissons
Good morning Howard
I see that your specialty is trusts as such I am directing this to you and as Chairman – Brookfields’ Board for investigation
I have copied in senior partners for the interest of transparency and out of their concern of the ethics of their law firm .
It would appear that David Neutze does not know the first thing about trusts and has taken 7 ½ years of legal action for and on behalf of a fiction so that a very public fraud can be concealed.
I note just recently that David did not notice that an email sent in 2012 was over a year old and not sent last month , I also believe that he signs many documents without reading them or properly comprehending he significance of their content.
He has signed the papers involved in this litigation and allowed the matter to progress , he stood by while his legal executive at the time, Vivienne Parre used intimidation tactics to coerce a solution . Then David signed the statement of claim and avoided discovery knowing that there was no evidence to support his claims. He relied on a trust deed which had long expired to claim legal standing for three people who were not together named on that deed in the first place. Identity fraud 101 and total neglect of professional duty .
I believed it to be against the rules for lawyers to use their office for fraudulent purposes and would have thought that if evidence came their way to place doubt on their clients standing that the lawyer should act in the interest of justice due to his role as an officer of the court . But David Neutze ploughs on the won’t let a truck load of evidence against his clients stand in the way always looking for some clever loophole in the rules to use to his advantage .
He even makes submissions to the court which were unsupported by affidavit and seek to explain his bad accounting as attached above .
He has effectively used the court to pervert the course of justice , this is a total abuse of the process of the court and now he is using the scorched earth policy to put me out of business effectively killing the company so that it cannot fight back and he is doing this under the Brookfields banner.
I have taken the liberty of providing you with the evidence which I have put the court a number of times and which Neutze is attempting ignore You don’t have to be a lawyer to work out that the trust is a sham all you need is basic logic abilities and the ability to read.
I have put live links in for your assistance this is a summary of the evidence.( there is a whole lot more ) by way of background I have put together s short video which shows the corruption which this is being used to conceal The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council
1. Paragraph 15 the respondents essentially challenge evidence in the substantive decision , they refer to the audit reportas though it can be relied upon in isolation for proof, the evidence has at all times been clear that audit reporthas to be read in conjunction with other documents e.g
a. Meetings of the trust - The audit report shows that there were 4 meetings between 1.3.2000 and August 2008 Page 508 audit report when the audit was conducted
i. The documents sent to the law society by Mr. Wells are minutes of three meetings one of which referred to a fourth meeting. The dates of these meetings were 10 May 2006, 14 July 2006, 14 August .2006. The minutes of 10 May 2006 referred to the earlier meeting in June 2004. This accounts for all four meetings and gives us insight into the “trust” between 1.3.2000 and august 2008.
ii. The audit reportrecorded that only one meeting minute was signed Page 508audit report and noted that at that meeting a quorum was not present. The minutes minutes 10/5/2006Page 230 record that the previous minutes were signed, None of the minutes which we had copies for were signed , this indicates using nothing but logic that the earlier meeting was not attended by a quorum and was in June 2004.minutes 10/5/2006
iii. We know therefore that there were no meetings prior to June 2004 .The trust deed 1.3.2000 states that the trust shall meet no less than 4 times per year Page 113 and those trustees are appointed for 3 years Page 110 trust deed 1.3.2000 after which time they are eligible for re appointment subject to conditions. The deed was signed trust deed 1.3.2000 1.3.2000 Page 107 which means that using basic Math’s the trustees needed to be reappointed by 1.3.2003 for the trust to continue to exist.
iv. Tom Didovich in his affidavitDidovich affidavitpage 316 states that he drove to each trustee to obtain their signatures which he then witnessed, therefore the trustees never met at the time of signing the deed and as the first recorded meeting was in June 2004 Page 230 minutes 10/5/2006which was outside the three year appointment time frame and therefore there were no trustees. QED
b. Bank accounts – The evidence regarding the bank accounts did not come entirely from the audit report although reference to it being set up in 2005 was made on page 509 this is confirmed by Mr. Wells own Affidavit paragraph 37 page 325 and the letter in which he solicited the funds from the lord Dowding fund page 220. Further my investigations with the bank in 2007 showed that there was no trust deed associated with the account , the minutes 10/5/2006page231 required the “ committee” to complete the national bank form using nothing but logic it follows that if no meetings with a quorum present between 2000 and 2006 there could not have been a resolution to open bank accounts . QED
c. Appointment of agents - there were no meeting prior to June 2004 minutes 10/5/2006 & audit report and the 2004 meeting did not have a quorumaudit report therefore the trust could not have appointed someone to act for them as such an act would have required a valid resolution according to the deed QED
d. Application for approved status – The audit reports parameters where such that the application process was outside its scopeaudit report and the fact that the trust did not make the application is derived from the common sense logical business practice which requires applicants to exist before they make an application the trust was formed 1.3.2000 trust deed 1.3.2000 the application application 22.11.1999 was made 22 November 1999, the trust did not exist on that date and could not have made the application . QED
e. Trading in the movie industry – the original trust never met , never appointed any one to represent them , ceased to exist 1.3.2003, did not have bank accounts could therefore not have employed any one, the minutes Page 231 minutes 10/5/2006 shows that a movie was currently being worked on, how could this occur through the trust without meetings or resolutions. The trust therefore did not work in the movie industry the trust ceased to exist 2003 without having conducted business or holding assets. . QED
f. Contracts – trusts need to meet to discuss and resolve to enter into agreements , contracts need to be signed by two persons, quite clearly the trust did not meet prior to 1.3.2003 and the trust ceased to exist the only document which was ever signed was the trust deed 1.3.2000 . Therefore the trust did not enter into any contracts QED
It therefore follows that a trust which never met , never decided on any thing , ever held trust assets and had no reappointment of trustees could not have jumped a vacuum and materialised into reality some 6 years later through nothing more than an unsigned bit of paper. If this is allowable for trust it sets a very dangerous precedent
I have proved this by obtaining the evidence which was deliberately withheld by Brookfields clients. In particular former Barrister Neil Wells
Despite this Mr Neutze is continuing to liquidate my company.. this is the fourth attempt I think despite a full offer of payment being made in the event of Justice Brewer coming back with a decision a against me.
Mr Neutze rightfully points out that Verisure is not a party to the appeal this is because after paying out $ 200,000 to Brookfields we don’t have the financial capacity to pay lawyers.
Last year the company was liquidated on a false affidavit, the document server still can’t be found but despite this Mr Neutze continues to use the same unreliable document service company Translegal , this to me shows that Mr Neutze approves of their service.
As a former police prosecutor I was under the misconception that the court should only be used for a legitimate process not for the bad guys to use it to beat the good guys to pulp . If lawyers acted according to the rules and to their act this would not be possible.
I note today that Judith Collins is tackling the delay in judgements, these delays have been used by Brookfields to push up interest costs and to enforce liquidation while they are aware that their client is using the court to pervert the course of justice .
I will be sending a copy of this email to Judith Collins so that she can be aware of the manner in which lawyers undermine the justice system.
I have attempted to keep you the directors informed and you have stood by and allowed it to continue I am asking you again to investigate and also o putting Brookfields on notice that when I win.. and I will win I will be suing for damages through the professional neglect of your lawyers and the massive damage that you have done to me , my family and my company.
I expect to be ignored by you gain as has been the trend so I will be publishing this letter on www.anticorruption.co.nz so that there is a public record of this complaint
Because truth matters