posterIts 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..

 

 

  • Management, how could a CEO be appointed when the trust never met  proof that the trust which formed 3 months after this application never met is  in this document
  •  

    • 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.

     

    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

     

     

    cat and mouse8 years ago I asked the question  who or what is AWINZ Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand

    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.

    Today I received my latest reply  via  FYI.org.nz the response  is short and sweet and he author  does not  even have the decency to identify himself ( sure sign of  ducking for cover ) reply re awinz

    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.  

     

    invisible ringSecret trusts have been in the news   a lot  just recently   I  for one am very happy to see that secret trusts are not   so secret any more, they are the greatest vehicle for fraud .

    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 staffmou

    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”

    vested

    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.

    watercare
    the accompanying affidavit  states

    affidavit

     

     

     

    we obtained the court files on several of these matters   and in each instance found that the  court record showed

    metrowater

     

     

     

     

    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

    Perjury

    108 Perjury defined

    (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

    NZ Bill of  rights 

    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

    Jazz                                        URGENT

    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

     Regards

    Grace Haden

     

     

     

    shhhHot topic of the week    .. secret trusts.

     

    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.

     

    To find all the council  candidate   returns   use this link    this is the link to Len Brown’s return 

     

    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.

    santaIn 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?

    nudge nudgeNew Zealanders have an issue that goes beyond a lack of resources, the OECD said: They don’t believe their people or companies would pay bribes in the first place.

    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.

    “The low number of allegations is not a reflection that New Zealand is immune from foreign bribery,” the OECD warned, saying the country must raise its awareness efforts.” source

    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.

    John Banks    also  didn’t accept  a bribe  that is  why he too is in    court  his bribe was called an anonymous donation  see   Banks is going to trial! and Judgement Judge Gittos 16 Oct 2013

    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.

     

     

    bibleOpen letter to Judith Collins and Chester Borrows

    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, saidI’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.

    Background Circumstances

    On 20 July 2012 my company VeriSure Investigations Limited was put into liquidation based on an affidavit of service sworn by Tony Parker though AL Jones of Thomas and co .

    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.

    whistleblower northshore 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

    Council workers charged in $840k corruption case

    Council official accused of $840,000 scam

    Men accused of $840,000 scam back in court

    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.
    To: ‘johnston@brookfields.co.nz’
    Cc: ‘dickey@brookfields.co.nz’; green@brookfields.co.nz; ‘David Neutze’; ‘schnauer@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘gilbert@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘abraham@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘delugar@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘corlett@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘miller@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘oreilly@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘youngj@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘paterson@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘mccombe@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘harland@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘ferner@brookfields.co.nz’

    Subject: Request for investigation into the conduct of David Neutze.

     attachments   brookfields submissons 

    response to submissions in opposition brookfields final

    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

    Regards

    Grace Haden

     

    VeriSure

         Because truth matters