I was out in Remuera this afternoon collecting signatures for the petition for a commission against corruption . there were many who welcomed it with open hands, others who said why do we need to petition for it it should be automatic.. …. and then there were the true blue Banks supporters who found it defamatory that we even mentioned the fact that Politicians should not take graft and that council oficers had to spend their employed time serving the public not themselves.
Perhaps there were some who were wondering where they themselves would have been had it not been for our loose definition of corruption and the lack of accountability. their lives may not have been so comfortable and perhaps they see the Vanksy episode as there for the grace of god go I.
One old geezer aged late 80′s even started assaulting us and pulled my love of my life, my Samsung galaxy out of my hand and damaged the case. managed to get a shot of him not a very good one he wasn’t worth chasing its too big to upload but I will sort it. He probably went home and had a coronary when I said this video would go viral.. he knew what it meant and hightailed out of it.
Just shows though that those supposedly prim and proper people have a very dark side to them of course he would have had a friend some where to get him off.. but the point is that we are all equally accountable to the law and what right has he got to start hitting two women because they don’t share his views.
We even had one idiot say that of course it was right for Councillors and managers to make some money on the side .
On that issue have a look at this trust EcoMatters Environment Trust run by former waitakere Councillors , don’t know how active the other trustees are but too often I see trustees there as token gestures only and many don’t know what is going on, I am not saying that that is the case here but It is one that the authorities should audit especially when you look at the EcoMatters financials records and see that they received $2.4 milion and wrote 750,000 off to OVERHEADS .. Alarm bells !!!!!! certainly needs an explanation at the very least
In the mean time I am not going to ask questions no one else seems to m ind.. its not worth being sued over.. 6 years is enough in any ones books.
its time we had an independent commission against corruption and made them all accountable.
I refer to my earlier post an open letter to ministers .
I have received a reply from Judith Collins 1625 – Grace Haden
The following is my open letter to the minister in response
To the Minister of Police and the SFO
Ministers of Justice.
Dear Minister,
Thank you for your response 17 April.
The issue which I have is that currently, it is impossible to report corruption.
The Issue which I seek assistance with is the inability to report corruption. For 6 years I have tried to report corruption without success, despite having a truck load of evidence obtained from the government’s own files.
The two forms of corruption which I wanted to report are
State capture. –
- The incident where a person wrote legislation for his own business plan
- and advised on that legislationto see it become law.
- He subsequently made an application under that very legislation, for a fictitious organisation to obtain law enforcement status.
- He was politically so well connected that despite objections of Maf and treasury as to the approval of the approved organisation ( section 121 Animal welfare act )
- he was able to re write caucus papers
- to see the fictional organisation become a law enforcement authority
- The reality was that at all times he was the only person of this fictitious organisation and used this to derive a personal income.
Public office for private pecuniary gain.
- The use of a territorial authority’s staff, infrastructure resources and plant to derive a personal income from the public.
Neither of these matters has been independently investigated and this needs to occur in the public interest.
When I took it to the SFO they said” where is the fraud”, the police said I did not have sufficient personal interest to be a complainant. The ombudsmen say it is now historic, the auditor general and state services commission were not interested and MAF are doing all they can to cover up.
I am not asking you to get involved in my personal battle. My battle however would not have occurred if there was somewhere where we could report corruption.
My incident is proof that territorial authorities and Government departments alike cannot investigate or monitor corruption and in fact facilitate it.
There are too many people within these organisations who are all too happy to see opportunities for self-enrichment due to slack or non-existent policies and controls.
We desperately need a definition for corruption Once defined we can implement policies which prevent corruption and methods by which accountability is ensured.
As to our justice system Yes it is efficient, so efficient in fact, that a person can be heavily fined on the uncorroborated evidence of a person who seeks to conceal corruption and who does not provide the court with any evidence at all except his verbal testimony.
I made a complaint of perjury to the police who felt that it was uneconomical to pursue. If we can accept lies in court where is the justice? And why should economy be relevant to justice, we cannot cheapskate on the integrity of justice.
Our courts are based on the same principal as gambling, you may have the best hand but if your opponent is financially more robust, then you cannot see their hand and have to fold.
When the courts are dependent on buying your right to justice there can be no justice.
If we deny people their lawful right to a defence, provide no evidence of their guilt and allow uncorroborated evidence to slander them, then the court is open to abuse and unsafe.
Currently you can win by using strategy alone and the most common strategy I see used is that of financially depleting your opponent so that they cannot afford justice, conceding through economic pressure alone. This ensures that only the rich win in civil proceedings.
I am however not asking you to intervene in my court matter , I would however ask for an investigation in to the integrity of our courts and seeking accountability of the courts to the rules and of lawyers to their codes of conduct as set down by the regulations.
With respect to corruption I simply have exhausted all means of reporting corruption and would like to know what avenues we have to do so.
Corruption and Fraud have a lot in common, if we do not define it and do not allow for the reporting of it , then be default we are corruption and fraud free which enables us to claim the top spot as the least corrupt country in the world. – Very clever really and good for business confidence and obtaining more targets of fraud and corruption.
Eventually our true colours will shine through we need to be proactive against fraud and corruption and I seek your assistance to do so.
Yours sincerely
Grace Haden
The following is the submission which I have made with regards to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill .
The fact that our government even considering such a move without consideration to ant corruption measures shows that there is a need for an independent commission against corruption hence my petition.
The Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee
I am a licenced Private Investigator , former Police Sergeant and an anti-corruption specialist.
New Zealand was amongst the first to sign the United Nations convention against corruption in 2003 and since that date we have done little to honour the treaty.
Here we are again poised to transform a bill into legislation and I have to ask what anti-corruption measures have been considered in writing the bill.
Caution has to be taken in creating legislation from the moment the first bill is drafted. I have documentary evidence of persons with vested interest writing legislation for their own business plan and their own financial growth. In that particular case the person became an employee and advisor of the select committee through the transition of the bill. Yes it happened in New Zealand but we prefer to keep this quite.
It is therefore important for the select committee in the interest of corruption known as state capture to consider
- Who wrote the bill
- what interest have they declared
- What prompted the need for the bill in the first place.
- is the writer of the bill involved in its transition stages
- What purpose does this person have for the bill/ resulting legislation ?
Ideally the bill’s author should be truly independent and have no future aspirations as to the fruits of the bill or the legislation arising from it.
The party the author of the bill is connected to also warrants consideration , what is his/ her connection to the party . In the instance I use as an example the writer/ advisor utilized the legislation for self-enrichment and to facilitate it this person had the opportunity to heavily edit the caucus papers of the minister whose portfolio the legislation directly related to. Whilst treasury and ministry opposed the approval for the establishments of a law enforcement authority under that legislation, approval was given by caucus on the strength of the caucus papers .
My next issue is with the definition of person referred to in the interpretation act and relied on for this bill.
Person includes unincorporated groups. This is a very loose term and gives provisions for person and persons unknown to become involved in the ownership model. see Anthony Molloys QC article on trust busting
When we allow for invisibility we open the door to corruption. The persons need to be real and legally definable. Unincorporated trusts are a vehicle for of corruption , the deeds are not visible and not recorded. No unincorporated body which does not have true transparency should be considered.
This also implicates companies , as we often don’t know who the owners of New Zealand companies are , due to our very loose processes with the company registrations and before we even consider sharing public assets with third parties we have to be certain that we know who they are.
Currently a New Zealand company can be owned by foreigners but because the company is registered in NZ we consider it a legal NZ person even if we cant see beyond some names which could very well be fictional directors and a overseas registered company of which we have no proof of registration or control of continued registration. .
Further there are the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption itself. What considerations have been given to the terms and expectations of this treaty ,which we signed and then relegated to the bottom draw? What articles of this treaty have been considered in the drafting of this legislation and what consideration has been given to transparency and the right to access information from the third parties who through this legislation could become part owners of our national assets?
And what of the power companies themselves, will we still be able to seek accountability under the state sector act? Or any other provision? Or will the companies be deemed private and the information they hold will no longer be available under the official information act and will they still come under the jurisdiction of our public watchdogs such as the Ombudsmen and auditor general?
Power is already a monopoly. The definition for corruption is monopoly & discretion – accountability.
I fear that this bill will diminish the accountability of the power companies further, giving greater scope for discretion in already well-established monopolies what this bill is doing is opening the door to corruption even further, the only people who stand to lose are the New Zealand citizens who currently own the assets through the crown.
This bill has not considered corruption, it is a vehicle to asset strip the county.
We appear to be hell bent on profit, what is wrong with a model where by the people are the owners and shareholders and the benefits of their shareholding is that in return they receive economical gas and electricity bills .
The profits for that third party shareholders will seek, has to be paid by someone . The people who will pay for this initiative are the consumers, the people of New Zealand.
Have we not learnt from the sale of telecom, the sale of the rail ways, the rich get richer the poor are left to foot the bill we should be looking at closing the gap not continue to increase it.
Where there are shareholders there is an expectation of profit . There is a radical notion one which we adopted in the past and one we have lost sight of, and that is service .
We could have a power service but only if the assets remain those of the people and the profits are fed back into the asset.
Lastly where is the cost benefit analysis in this? Where is the need to consider partial privatisation what studies are there to show what serves our country and our people best.
It appears to me that this bill is not one that will serve in the interest of the country, it will serve well for a small group of people who are already anticipating personal wealth creation as a result of this bill passing into law.
We should be legislating for accountability and transparency not be creating laws that will allow our assets to pass into unseen and unaccountable hands.
Yours sincerely
Grace Haden
Licenced Private Investigator
Please down load a copy of the petition 
. visit our petition page
To the Minister of Police and the SFO
Ministers for court
Ministers of Justice.
Copies to my local MP and to Minister for Local Government and Prime Minister
Dear Ministers ,
I am writing to three ministers because what has happened to me affects all your port folios and even if you don’t choose to help me ( which I hope in the name of justice you do ) at least it may serve to make change so that others don’t have to go through what I have endured.
I questioned corruption.. gross public corruption a potentially massive public fraud and two forms of corruption known internationally as State capture and use of public office for private gain as defined in the United nations convention against corruption in articles 17, 18 and 19 .
This matter of extreme corruption a matter for which I have been hauled through the court for 6 years and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending and seeking justice , I am now in bankruptcy court and facing liquidation of my company ( again vexatious ) .
If this is how we treat whistle blowers then we will see corruption grow disproportionately.
Nothing is negative if it can be used in a positive manner, and because of my background and experience this matter is well documented and serves as a great resource to be used to enhance our approach to corruption.
I request that the Minister of Police conduct an investigation in to this matter of serious corruption which has been totally ignored and ask why the police will not intervene in perjury matters involving barristers and why fraud and corruption are not worthy of investigation.
I request that the Minister of Courts and Minister of Justice conduct an investigation into this case because I believe it shows how totally unsafe our justice system is. No one should be able to win a case without producing any evidence and without proving a statement of claim.
I must point out that this case is political and involves huge back ground interference through the labour party connections of Mr Wells.
Executive summary
I am a former police officer now a Private Investigator
I uncovered corruption in Waitakere city council where by an employee was using the council staff, infrastructure , resources and facility to derive an income for himself in a false name.
- I found that this person had written and advised on legislation then he had made an application on behalf of a fictitious body for law enforcement powers to make this fictional organisation equivalent to the RNZSPCA
- He took legal action to cover up, using false claims and using underhanded tactics to prevent me from having a defence or a formal proof hearing.
- He has perverted the course of justice and committed perjury and misled the courts.
- The legal action can only be of benefit to himself financially and to prevent the investigation of his crimes.
- He is using charitable funds and is now using the court in an attempt to release the charitable funds to himself.
- I am before bankruptcy court and my company is being liquidated by oppressive means.
- We have been denied justice. The courts have been manipulated and misled; the police, SFO and other agencies have not intervened.
- No government body wants to be involved every one dives for cover or seeks to cover up their involvement
- It would appear that in New Zealand the penalty for questioning corruption is extreme we have no real means for Questioning corruption.
Background
I am a licensed private investigator, former Police Sergeant ( NZ Police 1974-1989 )
In 2006 I was approached By a Waitakere city council dog control officer , Lyn Mc Donald QSM , she asked me to find out who or what the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) was. Lynn was having to volunteer her council paid time and prioritise work for to AWINZ, the “organisation” had a logo identical to that emblazoned on the gate , cars and building of the council dog control and he so called head of the organisation was her council boss Neil wells.
I found that the council dog control division being run by Mr Neil Wells was contracting to AWINZ .Mr Wells had signed the Mou for AWINZ with the previous manager and was therefore now contracting to himself.
Wells was using the council infrastructure and resources to run AWINZ and by using the same l
ogos
there was an appearance that AWINZ was a council controlled organisation.
Even when brought to the council’s attention they preferred to cover up than to investigate.
Mr Wells had been the head of the RNZSPCA and after being removed from office worked on a business plan to set up a private SPCA which integrated with council resources and intended to derive an income from the public purse.
Mr Wells a barrister volunteered to write the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act to facilitate his plans and was employed as independent adviser to the select committee at the time when the bill and a further bill introduced alongside it were considered and passed into law.
During this time Mr Wells used the information which he acquired through the involvement with the select committee to set up his business venture in Waitakere city.
When the act passed into law Mr Wells and Mr Wells only, made an application using the pseudonym AWINZ for an approved organisation status under section 121 animal welfare act , a provision he had written into the legislation himself . (This type of corruption is called State capture).
Currently there is only one Approved organisation the RNZSPCA but for some 10 years AWINZ had the identical law enforcement powers which include the lucrative section 171 where by an approved organisation can keep the proceeds of prosecution. (Fines can be up to $250,000) .
MAF never sought to verify the existence of AWINZ, they had a relationship of trust with Mr Wells and prefer to accept his uncorroborated word rather than show their own ineptness.
This was to have been a perfect fraud but due to my involvement in seeking answers from MAF and council , Mr Wells plans for AWINZ came under the spotlight and although no one has done anything about prosecuting Mr Wells my questions prevented his fraud from growing.
Just recently an article appeared in the NZ Herald SFO will try to detect financial crime in its infancy, effectively this is what my questions with regards to AWINZ achieved , this would have been a massive public fraud and with time probably undetectable, but because I identified the fraud in its infancy it was not big enough for the SFO and too complex for the police. I was further deemed not to have enough personal interest to make a complaint about the fraudulent matter I could prove. Those who did investigate, e.g. the charities commission did so by asking Mr Wells and accepting his uncorroborated replies.
The scenario Mr Wells ran goes like this
Council paid officer in council vehicle locates offence under animal welfare act.( animal welfare act is not a territorial body enforcement obligation )
- Animal welfare work prioritised over council work being dog and stock control
- It was reported to Mr Wells manager council dog and stock control
- He referred the complaint to AWINZ ( a pseudonym for Mr Wells )
- The CEO of AWINZ and the only person involved with the approved organisation Mr Wells , refers the matter to AWINZ barrister for prosecution
- Mr Wells barrister either prosecuted or offered diversion
- The proceeds of the prosecution were handed back to Mr Wells the CEO AWINZ and banked into a bank account bearing the fake organisations full name , an account to which Mr Wells was the only signatory and only person to have any association with the account.
Effectively he ran a one man RNZSPCA – but without the need to pay out costs or pay employees. The fictitious AWINZ was a parasite on council (public) resources a means by which the council manager obtained public money into an account he controlled.
This type of corruption is internationally called using public office for private gain. In New Zealand it is apparently legal.
The Waitakere city councils Lawyer did everything he could to obstruct me, and I have since found that there were many other corrupt practices going on in Waitakere city and many of the officials had a finger in the pie somewhere. I can only guess that my complaint would have opened up a can of worms, so it is easier to let them crucify me than deal with the corruption.
Wells was well known in MAF and yielded far more influence than an outsider should. He has been able to use his associations in MAF to restrict the information released to me and prevent investigations. (I have documentary evidence which proves this)
These associates who are now close to retirement do not wish to have their parts revealed and are therefore diligent gate keepers concealing the past and using their influence to ensure that all government correspondence is channeled through them , thereby preventing any independent investigation.
It is of note that the very people involved in the approval process in 2000 are the same people who are now in control of release of information. It was therefore only with the involvement of the over worked Ombudsmen’s office that I had documents released to me late last year being the audit report and the letter from the alleged trustees relinquishing the approved status.
When I came along in 2006 and started asking Questions as to who or what AWINZ was, Mr Wells identified me as threat and the best form of defence is attack.
COURTS
Mr Wells took defamation action against me and won using the most dirty legal tactic which prove that in New Zealand you do not need to have any evidence at all to win in court. this is how he won.
He had two persons; one a well-known former Mayor, the other a JP claim to be trustees in the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a trust which Mr Wells had concocted after the application for approved status had been made.
- These people who had no physical evidence of together being trustees or the approved organisation , filed a statement of claim and relying on identity fraud claimed that they were the approved organisation .
- They issued false claims in the court which gave rise to nearly 20,000 in interlocutory applications , these included passing off and breach of fair trade against a legally registered entity with the same name of which I was a trustee.
- No evidence was provided for any of the allegations and once the costs were trumped up the claims was withdrawn.
- I made the mistake of making a complaint against the judge who without hearing or seeing any evidence said I had to pay $2000 and give an apology and influence the legally registered trust to change its name.
- The same judge continued her involvement and I was given two weeks to find $20,000 or have my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out. ( I was a married woman no sizable independent income and could not raise the money )
- Mr Wells and his fake trustees were, at the same time, told to file a new statement of claim.
- I knew that a new statement of claim would bring my defence of truth and honest opinion back in.
- There was no new statement of claim and while the judge’s order against me was enforced Mr Wells continued with the old statement of claim and persuaded the court that it could go straight to Quantum.
- I should have had protection through the formal proof hearing but since Mr wells had no evidence we simply skipped that too.
- There was never a hearing other than the quantum hearing.
- I produced and affidavit in mitigation of damages as invited by the act and this affidavit was used against me as evidence of ” further defamation” despite the fact that defamation is only defamation if you tell leis. Truth is never defamatory.
- There was not one document produced or one witness called who claimed to have received anything from me, none of the statements were proved to have been made by me or proved that they were not true or that I knew they were not true.
- Effectively Mr Wells has proved that in New Zealand you can get nearly $100,000 costs against someone without evidence
- Mr Wells uncorroborated evidence was accepted by the court and the court at its own initiative did some Google searches – I don’t know what the court saw but it was attributed to me and I was therefore guilty.
To complicate matters Mr Wells has fabricated a trust which never met and he claimed that this was the approved organisation even though there are no signatures from any of the trustees consenting to their involvement in the law enforcement body or them having any involvement with the approved status or bank accounts.
Mr Wells appointed people to the trust ad hock and without any legal basis , this trust then formed into a charitable trust and the funds raised by public donation which were the charities assets were used to fund the litigation from which only Mr Wells could profit. (money laundering )
Mr Wells portrayed me to the court as a vexatious beast hell bent on making his life a misery , the judge took these uncorroborated statements on board and the resulting judgment which is a full scale attack on my integrity has been an extremely useful document for Mr Wells who has used it to allege that I am trying to re litigate the matter and that I was found to be a nasty piece of work by the court.
My appeals were unsuccessful , largely because the lawyers I engaged were incompetent in everything except billing and the fact that they were up against lies and a hugely prejudicial document , Judge Joyce’s decision.
My 23 year marriage failed and while my life was crumbling round my ears I tried to keep ahead of the appeal process. Mr Wells proficient in a practice called swamping attacked me from every angle ,I suspect that he even got other lawyers to take legal action against me because I was suddenly bombarded.
Mr Wells blocked every appeal and the court continued to repeat everything the lower court had said. All without evidence and all become great ammunition for Mr Wells to use to prevent investigation.
Throughout the court process Mr Wells portrayed AWINZ to be one entity misleading the court that it was in reality
- A pseudonym for him in the application for approved status and the dealings of the approved organisation
- The name of a trust which he retrospectively set up and claimed to have formed in march 200, the deeds to this trust have been documented lost more than they have been available.
- The litigants who had no proof of being trustees.
- A new trust which claimed to be a continuation of the 200 trust comprising of the litigants plus the manager dog control who preceded Mr Wells and assisted the setting up of the approved organisation by signing the MOU and writing to the minister on behalf of two councils giving approval.
- This trust became the charity, posed as the approved organisation and used the charitable funds Mr Wells had scavenged off another charity to pay for the litigation.
My company Verisure investigations Limited was guilty because it was considered my alter ego.
Mr Wells persuaded the court that there had been full formal proof hearing when the facts have never been examined. My attempts to have a right to justice were called attempts to re litigate and I was called vexatious for pursuing my right to justice.
And so I became the villain in the piece with less right than a criminal has all because I questioned corruption.
I created a perjury file, a fraud file both of which the police rejected.
The SFO interrogated me as if I was the offender.
I have worked in CIB I know what fraud and perjury are yet no one wants to touch this matter. Mr Wells continues to commit offences as if he has immunity.
In the end I made a complaint to the law society with regard to the conduct of all lawyers involved.
Mr Wells tasked with mitigating the damage for all of them produced fabricated documents which circumvented me and based on these documents the lawyers were exonerated by the law society.
I requested the documents, which were in electronic form and proved by their properties that they had been freshly manufactured.
These documents were such that their existence was dubious due to evidence obtained by MAF in the audit report which claimed that they were destroyed by a computer crash in 2008.
Had these documents existed they should have been produced in court, instead discovery had been avoided. The documents proved that the allegations of the plaintiffs having a claim against the legally incorporated trust were false.
If this was false then there would have been no interlocutory costs and my defence of truth and honest opinion would not have ben struck out.
Mr Wells would have had to have had evidence for the hearing and I would have had a chance for a fair hearing and I know that I would have won because there was no evidence of defamation- just truthful statements which did not fit in with Mr wells corrupt practices.
The matter is currently with the LCRO.
I believe that I prevented a major public fraud. Mr Wells is now attempting to bankrupt me, having sealed the court judgement on the 24th November 2011 he initiated bankruptcy proceedings against me less than 10 working days later without bringing the now enforceable debt to my attention.
He also saw it fit to escalate the costs. by some $25,000 and is also claiming $40,000 of public charitable funds which he used to pay for the litigation in all he is using the court to complete his final fraudulent steps and he knows that I am not impecunious . In all the charity he set up after litigation commenced and funded the litigation but was not a party to the proceedings, used public charitable funds to pay the lawyers.
The charities commission lists the Animal welfare institutes financial reports AR002 AR003 AR004 AR005 each of them claim the very assets Mr Wells is seeking to liquidate my company and bankrupt me for. The Charity has paid over $100,000 for litigation from which only Mr Wells can profit.
Mr Wells has committed just about every crime in the book; he has been clever and made it complicated so that no one wants to touch it.
He appears confident that he can get away with it and is continuing to make false representations to the court.
My crime of questioning corruption has cost me my family , my marriage, prevented my business from growing, cost well over $100,000 in lawyers’ fees and now I am facing malicious bankruptcy and liquidation over claims made in an attempt to use the court for money laundering.
All I have ever wanted was a day in court with the truth on the table and every one held accountable to the truth equally.
I have been punished for speaking the truth and questioning corruption.
I have exhausted every avenue open to me. I am sick of banging my head against brick walls.
My question to the Ministers to whom this is addressed is – are you the Ministers of Justice, Police and Courts going to stand by or can you use my story to make New Zealand a better place and ensure that the corrupt cannot do this again.
When there is no accountability to the truth and the police don’t investigate perjury or fraud then the doors to corruption are wide open.
When our courts don’t require evidence and are persuaded by spin and NLP then there can be no justice .
I have evidence to substantiate everything I say but if no one wants to look at it, what use is it? I am happy to work with any police officer assigned to this to save on police time and costs, but I will not prepare yet another file to see the police push it aside.
The ombudsmen have now come back and said it is historic.. It wasn’t historic when I reported it to them.
Everyone has turned their back on me, it was not my problem it was the nation’s problem, and corruption always is.
I look forward to hearing from each of you, our corruption free status is but a perception, and perceptions are illusions. Let’s deal with reality
In today’s herald there is an article Watchdog in crisis, MPs told and yesterdays article Bulging backlog creating a ‘crisis’ in Office of the Ombudsman
6 years ago I asked a simple question ” why does this private law enforcement authority not exist ”
MAF had failed to check the existence of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand , which was given statutory powers of search and seizure and the ability to prosecute the public.The person completing the application had written the bill for the legislation and had advised on it. He then ran an SPCA type organization using council resources, staff and infrastructure to derive an income for himself.( banked into an account with a pseudonym , an account only he had access to )
I did not mean to be a whistle blower but because I proved categorically that the organization did not exist and was nothing more than a fiction ,I was hauled through the courts .
MAF have done nothing but cover their backs and those involved in 1999 are the same persons who now control the release of information and have gone all out to protect themselves withholding information , doing limited audits which had parameters set so as to avoid the fraud .
When MAF had the results of the audit, the perpetrator wrote to them and demanded that this information was withheld from me , this information proved that I had not defamed any one . It took the ombudsmen 18 months to release these papers , during which time I battled the courts in an attempt to get justice. A time during which my Family was physically torn apart.
I complained to the state services commission about MAF’s breach of code of conduct but MAF provide them with a version of events again collaborating with the perpetrator, this resulted in the state services commission choosing not to investigate.
I have now obtained the report which was provided to the SSC and found the following statement proving that MAF have also influenced other government departments and ministers offices so as to control information ” Consequently, all correspondence from GH directly to the Minister, and all that referred to the Minister from the PM and other Ministers get transferred to MAF to manage and respond too.”
How convenient .How nontransparent.
While MAF was not able to investigate it does appear to have clairvoyant tendencies because in September 2011 MAF knew about bankruptcy action which was not commenced until December . No evidence of any bankruptcy proceedings was available anywhere prior to mid December , proving that MAF is still collaborating with the perpetrator the very person who made a false application for approved status in 1999. see anticorruption.co.nz.
The ombudsmen office is the only form of accountability we have , Government departments know the ombudsmen to be ineffective ( because they are so bogged down ) and Long serving government officials know the system, they are trusted and some abuse their trust and when they face retirement they have to go to all lengths to cover the errors or transgressions of their past .
I suspect that my case, which is totally provable, is the tip of the ice berg of corruption in New Zealand but no one seems to be interested.
As an investigator I use the equation Corruption = monopoly+ discretion- Accountability .
Without an effective ombudsmen office there is no accountability .
We silence those who speak up with court action in a civil jurisdiction which denies justice… you need only look up Law system a ‘laughing stock’ Anthony Molly QC has been speaking out on this for years. I fully support him.
IF government departments were made more accountable and transparent and dealt with issues of integrity by means other than covering them up, the work load of the ombudsmen would be reduced and we may just win the battle against corruption
In the King Country opposite the Te Kuiti airport at 1308 state highway 3 lives a barrister who knows a great deal about animal law matters.
He appropriately calls his business Animal law matters and will no doubt be opening for business in the king county area soon.
The reason Mr Neil Wells of Animal law matters is so well versed on animal law is because he played a very large role in the current animal welfare act. He wrote the no 1 bill and was independent adviser to the select committee.
Mr Wells a former RNZSPCA president left the SPCA in the late 1970′s in circumstances detailed in the press , his current wife and then Christine was with him at the time .read article dec78,
In 1979 there was a split of the SPCA following the decision to have the societies paid officers supervise work by the animal action group which Mr Wells Headed.. split in SPCA . Mr Wells at the time was also the president of the Royal federation of new Zealand societies for the protection of cruelty to animals. this federation was to eventually fold on 7 December 2000.
In 1989 Neil Wells was the director of world society for protection of animals see 9 apr 89 wspc
It is believed that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree and in 1993 he was a legal consultant to the RNZSPCA when he quit over an issue with the Kaimanawa wild horses .
Mr Wells had been a close friend of Bob Harvey and together had worked in advertising and saw the Kirk government into power in 1974. . In 1994 this relationship was to reformed when Mr Wells became an animal welfare consultant to Waitakere city council ne wells 27 july 1994.
He worked with the manager dog and stock control at the council Tom Didovich who is now a piano player in Henderson .
In January 1996 Neil Wells shared his business plan for a Teritorial authority Animal welfare services with Tom as can be seen the trading name was a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time and the charge out rates clearly show that this was a money making venture.This was to form the basis of the new legislation and the concept for Mr Wells perfect fraud.
Mr Wells produces a poster 
stating There is Profit in animals and indeed there was.
With the good people of Waitakere paying for their dog control officers to be trained by Mr Wells to be animal welfare officers , Mr Wells sets up a pilot program which is entirely his own initiative. The complication is that there was no legislation in place so he volunteers to write it. see article how to write legislation for your own business plan .
Not only did Mr Wells write the No 1 bill he was also independent advisor to the select committee, with no record of his declaration of conflict of interest to found.
What was significant about the legislation which came out , was that it provided for approved organizations , the criteria are set out in section 122 and MAF had their own selection criteria for approved organisations on top of this as well .This enables the setting up of organizations other then the SPCA to be animal welfare law enforcement authorities.
Stringent selection processes were required as the approved organization was able to make money from fines due to section 171 of the act which returns all proceeds of prosecution back to the approved organization wiht fines up to $250,000 this is what was going to make Mr Wells Rich . IT was a license to print money.
As soon as the act became law Mr Wells made an application to the minister for approved organization status using a pseudonym Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ) he claimed the organization existed when in reality it did not and had never existed except in his mind. He even convinced the RNZSPCA that He and Tom Didovich had set up a trust RNZSPCA meeting with didovich and wells. while he and Didovich were misleading the RNZSPCA Graeme Coutts who also became a trustee for AWINZ witnessing vital documents for the RNZSPCA documents which saw the federation cast aside and a whole new regime instigated. all no doubt preempting a law change .
Stranger still that Coutts, Wells and the RNZSPCA at the time all shared the same building the Coutts relationship with the RNZSPCA was so close that when they shifted he moved with them .
Mr Wells is well known and trusted by MAF and despite being asked a number of times to produce a trust deed, Mr Wells avoids this but gives MAF and the minister assurances that the trust exists and will be registered. However no one else is ever seen to be involved with the approved organsiation. Open letter to MAF
The ” organization ” was to run from Waitakere city council premises for $1 per year using the council staff resources and infrastructure all “ volunteered to the Fictional AWINZ which was even to use the council logos as its own .In all it was so seamless that no one knew if AWINZ was part of local government , part of government or a private enterprise. It was a private enterprise a trading name for Neil Wells who acted in circumstances which internationally recognized as corruption being State capture and the use of public office for private gain.
When a diligent MAF officer seeks to oppose the application Mr Wells writes to his mates in MAF 18 aug 2000 and generally tells him what he wants, then after a brief meeting with his mate Bob Harvey the then president of the labour party the AWINZ application goes to the newly elected labour party minister and is approved.
AWINZ a non existent organization became a private law enforcement authority .. and no one at Waitakere city council or in Maf ever had communications or sought confirmation from any of the other alleged trustees … but it gets better…
In 2005 Tom Didovich who had written to the minister on behalf of not one but two councils Didovich for waitakere and Didovich for north shore had to leave Waitakere dog control due to a personal relationship issue , Neil Wells applied for and got the job.
The game plan was simple and I have documentary evidence for every step
- Neil Wells manager dog and stock control and CEO of the mythical AWINZ ( which is actually no more than a trading name for himself) uses the Waitakere and north shore dog and stock control officers to prioritize animal welfare work over council work.
- when an animal welfare incident is reported to Mr wells council manager by the dog control officer he passed it to
- Mr Wells CEO of AWINZ who approved it for prosecution and passed this to AWINZ barrister Mr wells who offered Diversion .
- the funds are paid into bank account to which only Mr Wells had access, the account was in the name of AWINZ when no such organization existed.The national bank where the account was held had no trust deeds associated with the account
In 2006 was approached by a dog control officer who thought things were quite wrong, with two others we proved that the animal welfare institute of New Zealand had no legal existence by incorporating a identically named trust incorporated trust on 27 April 2006.
Once Mr Wells became aware of this he had a need to create an organization and got his mate Wyn Hoadley , former mayor of North shore and fellow animal welfare worker to become a trustee. At a meeting on 10 may 2006 Wyn Hoadley was appointed trustee pursuant to a section which was not present in the deed and a deed which was missing on that occasion , there is no written record of her becoming a trustee apart from a manufactured document.
To prove the existence of an organization a trust deed materialized in June 2006, this deed was dated 1.3.2000, the trustees had never met or adhered to the deed of trust, the deedby its own terms had expired.
Even more incredibly the minutes which showed ms Hoadleys appointment was missing in 2008 when AWINZ was audited by MAF but some how a fresh copy re appeared for the law society in 2011 ,( open the document and right click on it and select properties you can see when this document was created.)
The three alleged trustees, without any evidence of being trustees filed a Statement of Claim , the objective was to force us to give up the name and the web site which drew attention to the short comings of AWINZ. Mr Wells threw in defamation as a good measure, we have yet to see any evidence of the allegation he made ( no evidence was ever produced ) and interestingly enough what was attributed to me was proved to be true by the audit report which Mr Wells then fought long and hard for to have withheld.
In the mean time AWINZ commenced fund raising using the logo which was emblazoned on the council premises suitably adapted to create confusion
donation request 
the funds raised were banked in to the bank account which Mr wells was the sole signatory of .
In December 2006 a new trust deed was signed this one included the litigants and Tom Didovich the former manager who had had a finger in the pie. The purpose was to obtain charitable status which was attained so that the charitable funds of this new trust could be used to pay for the litigation, see How to get your litigation funded through the public purse . while public funds were used to pursue them Mr Wells is now claiming the money as his own through a statutory demand served on my company. ( isn't that money laundering???)
As a side line Mr Wells used the mythical AWINZ to monitor animals in the movies such as Lord of the rings and saw to it that a false end title was attributed to the movie documents are as follows AHA 6 dec 2000 lotr others who tried to speak up were silenced . His wife Christine has been performing these duties through the charity.. what a great way to avoid tax !
In the mean time I have had a six year battle through court, I have been denied my defense of truth and honest opinion because Mr Wells saw to it that my defense was struck out all because I could not find $20,000 in two weeks.
Mr Wells is good, he never lets lack of evidence stand in his way in fact he won the case against me through manipulating the court ,telling lies and not producing any evidence, the most spectacular bit is that he even managed to avoid the trial all together and we jumped straight to sentencing without me ever having been found guilty of defamation. In the end we had about 5 separate AWINZ groups being represented to the court as if they were the one and the same and a legal entity. Only one was the approved organization and it was never definded who comprised that.
Wells committed what I believe was perjury and I have the evidence to prove it but he persuade the court that the new evidence I had was not relevant and denied me the right to appeal. It transpires the law is not about evidence and truth at all as a former Police prosecutor I still cannot believe that the civil jurisdiction can operate without facts.
In October I filed new evidence before the court , being the audit and the documents which Wells sent to the law society attempting to prove that Hoadley was a trustee . What is significant is that Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts claimed that the legal entity AWINZ which I was part of had passed themselves off as them and had breached the fair trading act , with our organization coming into leal existence on 27 th April 2006 how can three people who rely on retrospectively created documents claim passing off and breach of fair trade when they claim that they became an organization three weeks later ?
It was the costs for these claims which struck out my defense of truth and honest opinion. Defamation has NEVER been proved and everything attributed to being statements by me have been proved True. Truth is never defamatory.
Wells has now had the judgements sealed and has gone straight for the jugular serving a statutory demand on my business and I expect that bankruptcy proceedings will be served any day. Even in serving the statutory demand he could not get his facts straight.. if near enough is good enough for a lawyer then Mr Wells and Mr Neutze of brookfields are your men. Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields
So if you think animal law matters you need to read my other blogs you will find the searching the key words Neil Wells, AWINZ . I am of the belief that this was to have been the perfect fraud using council premises to run a private law enforcement authority, mr wells was on a winner he could not lose until I asked a few questions and unsuspectingly became a whistleblower.
I expect the new evidence to change things this year, whistle blowers should never be punished like I have been , My crime was to say excuse me but why does this law enforcement authority not exist.
Beware farmers and pet owners of the King country Mr Wells is out to make money should you be prosecuted by him please contact me and I will happily assist you and guide you through the tactics which I have experienced at his hand.
Grace Haden Verisure Investigations Ltd
Congratulations Pita you are on to it!
I have read the article and agree with every bit of it.
The police go for simple policing anything that gives a quick clearance and the courts are harsher on some people than they are on others.
When I was a cop in south Auckland I remember attending the scene of a burglary, no entry had been gained and here was little damage. Nearby there was a Maori gentleman I asked him what he had in his bag, , he showed me inside it- it was empty apart from a crow bar.
I had to arrest him and he was cooperative, I expressed his cooperation in the court report and he got 3 months. Which I thought was grossly unfair and disproportionate.
On the other hand I find that it is impossible to make a police complaint against white collar criminals who commit offences which sit under the threshold of the SFO.
Perjury for example is one offence which is never prosecuted and so the door is wide open for anyone to swear anything as true and not have accountability.
To try to lay a complaint against a barrister is almost impossible and it therefore proves that in New Zealand we are not all equal we don’t have the same access to the law , we do not have the same access to our rights under the bill of rights and there is a lot more corruption out there than any one wants to admit to.
We set up lots of investigation agencies, we have the LCRO,SFO, IPCA , IRD, MAF, NEU, housing New Zealand etc .. why don’t we just roll them all into one independent commission againt corruption and we will get rid of the obstacles which prevent matters from being investigated properly.
Only by stomping on corruption will we stay ahead of it.
Corruption is like a cancer, every little bit which remains takes on a life of its own.
Only when Lawyers Police and people in positions of power are held accountable will we make progress, statistics of people in Jail are meaningless they only serve as an illusion that the system is working.
There are more real criminals in Remuera than there are in Otara.
Go the Old boys! Bring in a commission against corruption.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 26 September 2011 3:47 p.m.
To: Wayne.McNee@maf.govt.nz; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; j.key@ministers.govt.nz; simon.power@national.org.nz
Cc: Catriona McDougall ; ‘George.capes@maf.govt.nz’; ‘sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz’ ; info@winstonpeters.com; ‘damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘executive@transparency.org.nz’; ‘phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz’ ; ‘p.sharples@ministers.govt.nz’
Subject: AWINZ revocation letter.
Good Afternoon Ministers and Mr Mc Nee
This simply has to be a case study as to why Privatisation does not work and why New Zealand needs an independent commission against corruption .
It was a pleasant surprise to get the revocation letter last Friday, I have worked over the weekend to address it and have my response and covering letter herewith along with official documents from Waitakere which raises interesting questions. waitakere dog annual report 08 waitakere dog annual report 09 waitakere dog annual report 10
I am very disappointed that Mr Wells who applied for approved status and ran a law enforcement authority on his own for 10 years as a parasite off council resources, has not yet been investigated. I have done nothing wrong yet I have been punished more than any criminal and lost more than any whistle blower should . ( whistle- blowers shouldn’t be placed at risk )
(Click here to see what an approved organization is and the wide spread powers it has)
If we don’t deal with corruption it grows like a cancer.
Wells made a false application for approved status , told lies to the minister and again in the revocation letter lied when he claimed that AWINZ was a voluntary organisation.
- AWINZ was nothing more than Mr Wells Himself. It was voluntary in the sense that the council paid staff “volunteered” their council paid time to AWINZ, if they did not they lost their council jobs courtesy of their manager Mr Wells.
- Wells had written the animal welfare No 1 bill and inserted the approved status in the bill to suit his own 1996 business plan forTerritorial authority Animal welfare services.
- He was Independent advisor to the select committee and had inside information which he then used for private benefit.
- As soon as the act passed he made an application stating that a trust had been formed by way of trust deed when no such trust existed.
- AWINZ operated from Waitakere city council premises, it used the same logos as the council animal welfare services which Mr Wells was head of.
- The council staff prioritised animal welfare work over dog control and in the past 4 years some 13% of all jobs were animal welfare, using council vehicles which had deceptively similar logos as that which AWINZ adopted and from premises which were council owned.
- While there were no dog and stock control prosecutions , Mr Wells prosecuted animal welfare matters and raised funds using the council logo , this money went into an account only he administered, the account being the animal welfare institute of new Zealand. Fines can be up to $250,000 payable to the approved organisation which prosecuted ( section 171 ) .. great income for a barrister with his own approved organisation using council staff and resources to get his work.
- In 2006 I questioned the existence of AWINZ and was sued by people who had no standing and also by Mr Wells for defamation for speaking the truth. Truth is never defamation !
- I have been called vexatious because I sought justice more I sought justice through the court the more I was labelled vexatious
- It has cost me my family , my marriage , health issues, it has prevented my business from growing due to the character assassination I was subjected to , $200,000 in lawyers bills and Mr Wells still wants a further $200,000 for a legal process where I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, where my affidavit in mitigation of damages was used as evidence of further defamation and the formal proof portion was simply skipped. I have been sentenced without having been found guilty.
- The lawyers who were involved with AWINZ and the cover up Neil wells and Wyn Hoadley used the charitable dollar to pursue me to get a judgment , without any evidence, which would conceal the truth. The court was being used for the concealment of crime.
Government departments give false claims , if they were traders they would be accountable to the fair trading act. The MAF biosecurity site states
The purpose of the MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Animal Welfare Directorate Animal welfare is, generally, to contribute to the fulfilment of the following animal welfare mission:
• to support the expectations of New Zealand society for the welfare and humane treatment of animals;
What about the humane treatment of people, MAF has stood by and watched me get beaten up over the past five and a half years, if I had treated and animal like I have been treated I would have been prosecuted. I have endured torture because MAF did not act. Do people get a lesser standard of protection than animals?
• to administer the Animal Welfare Act 1999 in an effective, responsible and fair manner;
What is effective about not acting when a serious issue of accountability of an approved organisation is brought to your attention.
What is responsible about ignoring the fact that law enforcement authority has been given to a non-existent body and undefined name.
What is fair about leaving me to go through the court process which saw my family torn apart, my business all but ruined and huge financial loss when you had all the information and the resources which could have supported me.
• to contribute to New Zealand’s reputation as a trusted and sustainable producer of animals and animal products.
How do you enhance your reputation when you act in ignorance of internationally recognised forms of corruption and fail to act when corrupt practices are brought to your attention ?
I have found that in NZ there are two ways to protect reputation.. the most preferred method is to simply ignore the person who raises and issue and leave them to beat their head against a brick wall the other is to act pro-actively, which is a practice which new Zealand has not seen in a very long time.
I would like to know when The government is going to take Corruption seriously give whistle-blowers the protection which is afforded to whistle-blowers worldwide by the united nations convention against corruption , which we are signatories of.
I would like to know why justice is not attainable through New Zealand courts and why lawyers can mislead the court and get away with it.
In all NZ appears to be a miss mash of rules and regulations which are applied according to who you know or who you are.
Web sites such as MAF’s Biosecurity Animal welfare give assurances which are but empty words and it appears that everything in this country including justice is a sham .
In the 3 years that National has been in Power I have been ignored , Corruption needs to be addressed and this case needs to be one which is dealt with urgently 5 years of persecution is enough.
Please find my reply to the revocation letter herewith
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
To the members of NEAC and NAWAC , senior management MAF and Ministers
I am writing to all of you with regards to my concerns that there appear to be corrupt practices within MAF.
In 2006 I questioned the existence of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) , it is an approved organisation under the animal welfare act. And has the same status and powers as the RNZSPCA.
What is significant under the act is that penalties can be up to $250,000 and by virtue of section 171 they are payable to the approved organisation which undertook the prosecution.( this provides opportunity for fraud )
AWINZ is what I believe to be the perfect fraud- but instead of the authorities dealing with it I was taken to court on a private prosecution By Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley on trumped up charges and defamation.
5 years of court battles later It has cost me my 23 year marriage and about $200,000 not to mention the damage to my business and my personal reputation and my family.. forget about cruelty to animals this has been a total assault on my family.
Effectively there is still $200,000 in court costs and damages to be paid , this for a court proceedings where I was denied a hearing on the facts, I was effectively sentenced without being found guilty first. .. but that is beside the point on what I am approaching you for.
AWINZ was the brain child of Neil Wells
Neil Wells and Bob Harvey worked together in 1974 in advertising their campaign saw the Kirk Govt into power.
Wells was director RNZSPCA and later became involved with the various animal welfare advisory groups and wrote many of the codes.
He came up with the idea to set up a Territorial authority Animal welfare services where by dog and stock control operated by councils would be given extended powers to become animal welfare officers.
He worked with Bob Harvey and set this up In Waitakere as a trial.
He then wrote the No 1 Bill for the animal welfare act to facilitate his business plan by introducing the approved organisation status.
He became the independent advisor to the select committee in the time leading up to the bill becoming law.
When the bill was passed but before the act became law he made an application for approved status for AWINZ , claiming that AWINZ was a trust and that it was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act 1957 .. the reality was that no one else ever signed or showed any evidence that he could make this application in their names.
In 2006 I was approached by an AWINZ animal welfare officer and who was also a council employee. She was concerned that she had to volunteer her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare jobs over dog control work.
I found that the logos for AWINZ and for the animal welfare at Waitakere city council where Mr Wells now worked as manager were deceptively similar and he was running fundraising campaigns using the logo sending out donation request with the dog registration, he further claimed that AWINZ was a charity when it was not.
With others we had formed a trust called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand and had legally registered it. Neil Wells now finding himself caught out needed the name to cover up and took legal action against me for passing off, breach of fair trade and defamation, the object at all times was to intimidate me and force the release of name.
I have evidence that he committed perjury in court and misled the court, none of this apparently matter in NZ but this is not an issue for you .
Due to the questions I had raised AWINZ was audited and in July 2009 the audit report published. audit report awinz
As a result of this audit AWINZ chose to relinquish its approved status but despite this continued to operate until December 2010 when I drew the ministers attention to the fact that it was still operating.
AWINZ is now no longer an approved organisation .
The conflict of interest for Mr Wells was
He was manager dog and sock control Waitakere.
He had signed an mou MAF for AWINZ
He had signed an mou for AWINZ with waitakere dog and stock control with the previous manager.Tom Didovich who is involved in this up to his neck .
He was therefore now both parties to this MOU.
He used the staff under his control for AWINZ
They used the council infrastructure ( he therefore had no over heads ) see doc attached rental $1 per year
They reported an animal welfare offence to him as manager Animal welfare
He would pass this to himself as AWINZ
He would pass it to himself as Barrister
The money would come in and he banked this into an account only he had control of.
What is of further concern is that MAF appear to have gone all out to protect Mr Wells.
I have evidence that he has a long term relationship with David Bayvel ( the writer of the letter ) and Barry O’Neil who is the director referred to in the letter. Refer wells relationship with MAF where he acknowledges long term relationships 11 years ago with Peter O’Hara, John Hellstrom ,Barry O’ Neil and David Bayvel. Mr wells claims in a cv which can be located on line http://kaimanawa.homestead.com/ContactUs.html that he was
1984– 1995 Member, National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.
1989– 1998 Member, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
Wyn Hoadley was of course similarly involved and was chair of the NAEAC
I was further investigated by MAF biosecurity in 2006 on another matter where I was investigating a non-existent liquidator and director, the company involved had a transitional facilities licence. I happen to refer t the documents and was accused of passing myself off as a MAF officer.
A colleague who assisted me by taking over the name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, had his herd of Manchurian Seika Deer confiscated out of the blue- he never got them back they were taken without warrant by bio security .
The reason I am writing to you all is that this case will impact on the credibility of MAF and the related animal advisory boards unless someone is proactive enough to say enough is enough let’s have a good look at what is going on.
5 years of this I have had enough the report speaks for itself why was nothing done after this audit report was released… why is MAF continuing to protect Mr Wells.. its time to decide if you are facilitating fraud or acting in the best interest of the public.
AWINZ never existed.. it was only ever Mr Wells trading as AWINZ and because I pointed it out I have been crucified.
We desperately need an independent commission against corruption and this case proves it.
Those who are supposed to guard the standards don’t.
And those who Question corruption get silenced .. well not me that is.. I have lost so much I have nothing further to lose.
I doubt that any one of you will act so in the interest of transparency this will be posted on anticorruption.co.nz.
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
There is nothing “Civil” about proceedings in the Civil jurisdiction, by the time you the innocent party is spat out the other end 5 years have gone by, you are financially stripped and you will probably have lost your marriage.
You scratch your head when you look at the comparatively minimal costs which have been awarded to criminals and the costs you have incurred and you wonder why you chose to be honest and act with integrity because you were the only one in the court who did and this placed you at a distinct disadvantage.
You soon realise that in New Zealand penalties for questioning corruption are much higher than the penalties imposed on those who have committed fraud .
The civil court is a lesson in extreme bullying with the referee apparently on the side of the person who is the most convincing. To start off with Lawyers as officers of the court get a head start, they are believed no matter what they say even if it is unsupported by evidence because they are officers of the court and have a duty to the court.
It is a bit like rugby where the ref and the lines men don’t pull any one up for cheating and only score the game by the number of goals that were scored no matter how much cheating went on to get that goal. A goal is a goal no rules apply.
For a lay litigant it is like being placed on the same track as the lawyers except yours is the one with the hurdles. The whole point of the exercise is to force you into a situation that you engage a lawyer and when you do that you will soon find that you’re paying out sums which financially cripple you and which do not compare with the quality of service you are paying for . Often you are paying the master tradesman rates to have a newly qualified apprentice with no worldly experience to do the job. And when they make a total hash of it there is no redress under the fair trading act.. in any case you are so broke you won’t be able to file proceedings.
Who has $500 per week to spare let alone $500 per hour for lawyers it is simply obscene.
Lawyers also have different rates I was told by one that you get what you pay for , Lada Toyota, Aston martin . Guess its a bit like the your TV repair man saying to what degree do you want your TV fixed..Duh .
Rob Stock recently wrote an excellent story one you must read puts it all in perspective this is a must read “Civil justice in tatters”
Court is very much the realm of the rich and the corrupt because those with potential for being exposed as criminals see it as a way to silence their opponent. Lets face it those who have been successful criminals will have the cash to throw at a bit of litigation. While they are before the court No cop will touch it .. or any one else for that matter. This buys valuable cover up time.
The civil court is not about justice- its about bullying and deceit and the rules of war apply . Lawyers play dirty tactics which place you at a disadvantage , there is no point complaining to the judge, the reply is simply ” that is what lawyers do ” It is a culture ingrained into the system so much that it carries through into some of our judges.
In some cases even your own layer will play dirty too ,as prolonging your case increases your lawyers income.
If you have been taken to court or are contemplating court action you may wish to contact us for assistance.