MPIThe following is correspondence with the Acting Chief Legal Advisor of MPI Anthea Williams

I had been dealing with Mark Patchett  see my email to him here email to Mark Patchett I had requested the following official information from MPI

OIA request

  1. What due diligence has ever been conducted into the   existence of the  applicant   of the approved organisation
  2. How did MPI   justify the application   for approved status by a trust which did not exist
  3. What enquiries did the MPI make  with the persons named on the  application  to ensure that they  were aware of and consented to the  application being made in their names  and were willing to take on the law enforcement  responsibilities.
  4. Please provided the  documents on which    each of these persons  consented to being  trustees of  a law enforcement authority
  5. Why is it of no concern that the trust deed which MPI was provided with  in 2006 is not signed on   every page and is different to  the deed which I was provided  See the deeds here   MPI version and the    version I  was provided with . Under which law  can  MPI   condone the  supply of false documents .
  6. Under what legislation    can the MPI   condone the application of a fictional organisation  for  law enforcement authority
  7. Under which legislation or  any provision  can MPI  condone fraudulent applications

Response 

The response came from the Acting Chief Legal Advisor of MPI Anthea Williams  it included a  copy of the email email to Mark Patchett   and  these documents  ReleaseOIA14-381 Release and Documents to which I responded on 19 June 2015

Good afternoon Anthea.

I apologise for the  length  but I have put most of  the evidence together for you

I have taken the  letter you sent to me    by Jim Anderton   and shown  how he  like MPI was duped.  The events of he past years have shown  that   MPI was  totally misled and   I suspect  that there were those within MPI who  wanted to keep the lid on it

I hope that I have not yet again wasted my time . I believe that the evidence is compelling and conclusive

I will publish this on the transparency Web site sometime next week as I have learned that MPI just ignore me and at least this way it may be of use to someone.

I hope that you will look at this seriously you are a lawyer and your office does not allow you to conceal fraud.

I hope you are the one person who will bring this nightmare to an end.

If you do intend to look into it and do not wish to have this disclosed publicly because you intend to take action then I will withhold this from the public , If that is the case then I hope your intentions are sincere. MPI has destroyed my family and my life due to allowing this fraud to continue

If you do not act then I will have to consider a judicial review.

By way of OIA  please advise if  MPI are concerned with fraud of this magnitude  and if you will investigate

Regards

Grace Haden

I attached the following  documents    in evidence  response to MPI   documents for MPI part 1   documents for MPI part2

I have now received a response  OIA14-530 and  have again requested

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 10 July 2015 10:37 a.m.
To: ‘Anthea Williams’
Subject: Official information request MPI

 

Official information act request  to MPI

Good Morning Anthea

Thank you for your response

The information  which I  have provided you with    proved  that

  1. A fraudulent application was made to the minister of Agriculture  and MPI
  2. This fraudulent  document resulted in   a fictional organisation being given  approved status under  section 122 Of the animal welfare act
  3. The  fictional organisation carried out    law enforcement  duties for   some 10 years.
  4. Following an  audit  , the parameters of which  were set outside the application process, the  “ organisation”  sought revocation  of the  statutory powers.

My  Official  information  request is Please provide

  1. the evidence on which MPI relied  to   confirm  that the persons  who made the application for revocation were in fact the  same persons  who made the application  given that
    1. the  name of the applicant  was   given as animal welfare institute of New Zealand  a trading name for  which no  real or legal persons were  identified   and
    2. the name  of the  trust which sought to revoke the approved status  was a trust   which  bore the legal name  Neil Wells , Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts  and Tom Didovich as trustee in the animal welfare trust of New Zealand .
  1. a copy of the trust deed  which  you relied on so as to accept the  application of revocation  of the  approved  status.
  2. The  guidelines which MAF  had in  2000  for  contracting to a trust
  3. The guidelines  which MAF  had for  contracting to a trust at the time when the application for revocation  was made.
  4. The act and section  or  policies under which MPI can condone fraud

A fraud has been  committed and highlighted to  MPI   and its former persons MAF  many times yet  as the evidence  I have provided shows MPI  has redacted  vital evidence  and withheld documents which  would  be prima facie evidence that it  was  either a party to the offence or an accessory after the fact . By way of OIA please provide

  1. MPI’s policies on fraud and dates of implementation ( dating back to 2000)
  2. The  job description  for chief legal advisor of MPI

I wish to remind you   that  as legal counsel   your first and fore most   obligations are to

4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers

Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:

(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

(b)the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:

(c)the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:

(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

FYI.  I will be publishing this correspondence and my  previous correspondence to you on  www.anticorruption.co.nz

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

puppiesThe Waitomo news in its latest  edition 2015.04.30.WN has  another article with regrinds to the Te Kuiti  branch RNZSPCA , the   article as a one pager is here Abandoned puppies

It was apparently the local news paper which stumbled on the happenings in Te Kuiti with regards to the SPCA .

In their article they exclusively refer to the King Country SPCA, this is because they had been told in an earlier time that  the Branch had been renamed, this is but one of the deceptions being played out on the public of Te Kuiti  renamedby those behind  what I  believe is the theft of an incorporated society from the  people of Te Kuiti .

While  the truth only has one versionDeceptions are easy to spot, they normally have more than one version ,    Several months later  members of the incorporated society at the AGM   were   told that   two  Incorporated societies had merged  this structurefrom the chairman’s report  tabled at that meeting .

The meeting was held on the 30th March  and within a week the  chair person had resigned .

The reality is that the  Te Kuiti branch  has not changed its name,  such a move would require the members to put the motion and then pass it  according to their constitution at a proper meeting .

This appears to be  all  a part of a  take over  by the RNZSPCA . A dead give away in this instance was that within two days of the annual general  meeting Barabra Daw  of the  RNZSPCA,  which a different  incorporated society and Barbara who we believe  was not a member  of the Te Kuiti branch  and who has no apparent  authority to act for or on behalf of  the Te Kuiti branch  , had updated the   incorporated societies register  to register Carien Du TOIT as an officer / Trustee appointed on the 2nd April How this could happen is beyond any one .

Those at the AGM  will not  recall  a Carien Du TOIT  being present and she certainly was not appointed  to the committee and is not even listed  on the charities register which was updated by the chairman at the time .Charities Services _ Search the Register.

Carien Du Toit is not shown on the charities register as being a committee member for  any charity .We believe that  Carien lives at 222 Mark Avenue, Grenada Village, Wellington. At least it appears that she owns that property .

We would love to know the legal basis  for this name having been  entered on the register. This appears to be her face book page  ,It would appear that she is South African .

The other entry  By Barbara Daw of the Royal NZSPCA   was this one . changing the address to  that of  68 Taupiri Street, Te Kuiti, 3910

But in updating  the    former chair person was left  on the register , this lady resigned 20/05/2014   according to the charities register . This is the page as  it appears now NZ Companies Office – View Details

In the mean time and no surprises here   the Te Kuiti  RNZSPCA  web site   has dropped off the net as its  registration was not renewed http://www.tekuitispca.org.nz

Incorporated societies  function under their   constitution. It is  the members who have control of the    society  not   an outside body  or person .

The membership makes decisions   according to the rules .

A useful publication is Reforming The Incorporated Societies Act 1908

When people get greedy     animals suffer

Incorporated societies are not for profit , it appears to me  that    there is a deliberate big business being built here   and  when the word  business  creeps in  it has to be for profit  it certainly   is not about   volunteers or animals .

People will wake up when the  coercive law enforcement powers  are being enforced on them , because their pet lamb was constipated or  their cat threw up a fur ball .

Law  enforcement is far more lucrative than  asking for donations .

 

 

spca wairarapaWhat  is this with entire committees resigning? do they  just all coincidentally  do it  or is there something behind it all  ? Today  the Waiarapa Times -Age ran this story

SPCA Wairarapa committee resigns

apparently  they are just one week out form their  AGM .

Did they have a meeting ?  or has  some one just claimed they have resigned ? why did they all resign?   why couldn’t they wait till next week when they stand down for re election  any way ?

The following  are  the   charities committee according to the charities web site

Patricia Dutton 29/05/2007
Leon Peterson 29/05/2007
Maureen Wither 29/05/2007
Kelly Soper 01/06/2010
Lorraine Kelf 01/06/2010
Jennifer Milne 01/06/2010
Carolyn Pohl 01/06/2010
Rebecca Stevens 01/06/2010
Sharon Aston 01/06/2010
Craig Robinson 01/06/2010
Lorna Simpson 01/06/2010
Leslie Gibson 01/06/2010

Under which law  are they passing their   incorporated society on to  the The Manawatu Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated ?

They  CAN”T DO IT . The  society belongs to the members  not to the  organization they are members of.

and as for Rob Sewell  he does not even  appear  on the charities register at all so how can he be chairman?

As previously  explained  the national office  is not he head office or anything, it is simply an organisation of  which the respective SPCA  branches and members belong.

Memberships of the   SPCA’S which are being  ” interfered”  with  have to  know that they can change everything their constitution  by consensus as set out in their constitution  except the purpose of the organization . So any  SPCA branch or member can decide  not to be a branch or a member  and  rename themselves  appropriately.  By doing that they retain the districts assets  for   work in the district.

It is really no different   to a girl Guide  deciding to become  and air cadet , but  your membership have to decide n any changes according to the rules.

Those who are concerned about what is happening to the SPCA should  write to  the minister  Nathan guy and ask for a ministerial investigation .

 

propertyInteresting story in today’s Waitomo news  allow me to expand and clarify on matters

THE new committee of SPCA King Country has resigned.

There is no such thing as the King country SPCA , you  wont find it on the register of societies  and it is not an incorporated body  .

The committee was elected at the organisation’s March 30 annual meeting, but the Waitomo News has been unable to confirm the exact date members resigned, or more importantly, why.

A committee was  elected at the AGM of the Te Kuiti branch of the RNZSPCA ,  just on 2 weeks ago  !!!!  according to the  charity web site  the following persons were committee members

Chris Everett was chair person  and  according to the charities register he resigned 9 April  2015.   the only event I am aware of  is my email to him on 3 April    see it here email to chris everitt where I advised him of his legal obligations .

the remaining committee  is listed as

Pamela Morgan 26/03/2008
Christopher Mcewen-jones 24/05/2001
Michael Rogers 30/03/2015
Philipa Koch 30/03/2015
Shirley Meier 30/03/2015
Judith Houghton 30/03/2015

The question which has to be asked by the membership of the Te Kuiti  branch of RNZSPCA is when did the remaining committee members meet and when did they decide to resign and why. The minutes of their  meeting  and their resignations  should be available to the membership  together with an explanation as to why they resigned.

It could also be  that they did not resign , just like the lady at the AGM  who  drew attention to the fact that Neil Wells  chairman’s report    claimed that she had resigned when she  quite clearly had not .

Strangely enough  despite a new chair person having been appointed  and having updated the charities records  twice now , Neil Wells wells contact remains the contact person on the charities web site . Neil Wells was referred to at the AGM as   the ” Legal  expert in the room ”  this was also picked up and reported by the press .

domain name registrationInteresting also that  the Te Kuiti RNZSPA web site  is conveniently due to expire.

The King country SPCA  web site Kingcountry spcahttp://www.kingcountryspca.org.nz/   was modified on today’s  date  and has now  disappeared

Members have either refused to comment  or failed to respond to messages.

If you were to ask my professional opinion  in view of what I know  I would tell you that the whole thing is staged . I know when the whole  AWINZ thing  happened Neil Wells told the trustees  to stay quiet and not to  comment.  This is an essential part   because  things like Fraud   needs  secrecy to succeed .  If you were to ask me for my  professional opinion  I would say from the circumstances  that this has the makings of   a potential  fraud on the people of  Te Kuiti  and all those who stay quite  are accessories.

Former chairman Chris Everitt had no comment to make and directed enquiries to Royal New Zealand SPCA chief executive
Ric Odom.

Chris Everitt  was chair man for less than a month  . He had no right to refer  enquiries to  Ric Odom as the  incorporated society is an incorporated society  first and a RNZSPCA branch second . Members of the society, all those who have  worked for it and care about it  need to call a  new meeting – If you dont  it will be  snatched from you .  Speak up and save your local SPCA  I’m happy to help  give me a call  09 520 1815 .

Mr Odom and senior animal welfare inspector Sue Baudet confirmed on Monday the King Country committee has resigned.

Again it appears  odd that the committee advised the RNZSPCA CEO and inspector  and did not send out anything to the membership of the   Te kuiti branch.  It is my understanding that Members of the branch only learned of ht developments   via the media .

The proper procedure is for a new meeting  to be called and a new  committee   appointed or for the membership to decide on winding up as per  their constitution. Te kuiti Rnzspca

Mrs Baudet: “There is no longer a committee.
“We are currently going through a process with our national board and the most likely outcome will be the RNZSPCA National Office will step in and take responsibility for  the governance of the centre.

Where do they get their legal mandate for this .  The Te Kuiti RNZSPCA is  a  member of the RNZSPCA  ,  it is one of the branches which selects the governance of the national body.  The national body is a separate legal entity and cannot take over   a branch.  any changes have to be according to the  constitution of The Te Kuiti RNZSPCA  

“It may be that we appoint another SPCA  center to provide direct operational support. We are going through that process.”

The RNZSPCA is jumping the  gun  however if they are concerned about the function of the  SPCA  work in the area this can be  done  with the consent from  other committees in other areas who wish to dilute their resources and stretch their staff.

Mrs Baudet was unable to say exactly when the committee resigned, but it had happened “over the last few days”.

“I don’t know why they’ve resigned –you’ll have to ask them,” she said.

It appears rather suspicious to me, Mr Wells gets in there and  re arranges a very successful formula, incurs debts  on behalf of the society  and buys a building which  they did not need.  re brands , does not produce  accounts  and has me thrown out of a meeting so that I cannot inform the members of what is going on ..  Time for all members of  the Te Kuiti RNZSPCA  to have a closer look at what is happening.

She was also unable to confirm what happened to the annual accounts which were to have been presented at the AGM and
understands they are still with the auditor.

The accounts were not   audited, the  accountants who have done them for years at minimum charges  did not get the accounts until two weeks before the AGM.  Chris Everett picked  them up and  I believe has taken  them to  Amanda  at Murray Kid and Faulkner .

“Obviously we need to go in and do some due diligence, but we are not concerned  about the funds.”

No they are not concerned about the funds  they just want control of the Te Kuiti area, and any bequests which are made .

I believe  there is an intention to develop the    prosecution side  and I do believe that  the king country has a farmer or three and there must be some  animal out there who  has escaped the careful oversight of  an owner. these people are targets for prosecution and that is where Mr Wells comes in .. he wrote the bill for  legislation.

Ms Baudet says the resignation of an  SPCA committee is not unusual.“With small centres that rely on volunteers
and goodwill, very often it happens.

I believe it is not  unusual   and  some one should be looking ta why committees of SPCAs have such a high percentage of total resignation.  there is an element of being  helped in the back ground.  see..– 20 Jun 2014 – National body takes over at Taupo SPCA

“There is still a network of volunteers and the kittens (at the Te Kuiti office) are all being taken care of and there are lots out
being fostered, so don’t worry.The phones are still being answered so  operationally there are still people giving up
their time and doing their best.

This is part of the problem, people volunteer   and people bequest money.  this has become a money scramble as to who gets the bequests  and the money, it  certainly is not there to help the volunteers do what they are doing its about paying wages  of the people at the top.

In an emailed reply to this newspaper’s queries,Mr Odom said he understands that until the annual meeting, the Te Kuiti and Central King Country SPCAs were functioning more or less as they always have, though Te Kuiti had opened a
new centre (in Taupiri St).

The Central King country SPCA  I believe has never functioned from  Taupiri street. Taupiari street was  purchased  by Neil  Wells  October 2014 and recorded by the Waitomo news  in  this edition page 11.

Some things were said and some allegations were made,” he says.
“But as far as I am aware, things were done  according to the rules.

The rules   are here constitution of The Te Kuiti RNZSPCA   ,  they still show on the  society register as being unaltered. So how can the name  of a society be changed when it is not done by the rules ?   Goes to show that Ric Odom doesn’t really know what he is doing  because he has absolutely no right to  take over the assets and   interest of the Te Kuiti society .

“Serving on the committee of an incorporated society is a significant responsibility – and those responsibilities are getting more onerous, not less. “Like very many other community organisations, some local SPCAs are finding it increasingly difficult
to recruit and retain suitable people to act as committee members.

in my experience the difficulties arise when people try to change  what has successfully worked for years.  You only need  to see the changes in the Te Kuiti RNZSPCA ,since Sandra Squier  left, to see why it spiraled down hill. Strangely enough  she is now running a very successful organization  using the old platform .

Central King Country SPCA had been under the administration of the national body until December of last year when it was decided to “assimilate” it and the Te Kuiti SPCAs so that governance and  management could be exercised locally.

What !!!   The Central king country SPCA by all accounts  had no committee, it was the RNZSPCA which took it over ,  The first the Te Kuiti Rnzspca branch knew about the amalgamation   was when Neil Wells handed his report up  and asked for it to be accepted as read.

The  chairman’s report was withheld from the   press   and  its content  flew in the face of  what  Mr Wells had caused to be reported last year and   the chronology of events. see Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction

Mr Odom says: “This is not unusual and has been successfully done with a number of SPCAs which separately might sometimes find things difficult, but can achieve better outcomes when working together”.

For whom ?

“Both the original SPCAs remain separate incorporated societies, but in this case, the local committee decided to ‘trade as’ King Country SPCA as that better reflected their area and the joint approach that was adopted.

Love  the way they try to unspin the spin. The reality is that the local committee could not legally   trade in any name other than the name  in their constitution rules.

Often where fraud occurs little things change over a period of time , like moving sometime closer to the door   until it disappears.  By changing  one thing at a time  most people  do not  question  and often a cover story can be provided . Its when  stories change  that people should  take a very close long hard look .

The incorporated society only has one legal name   and the rules clearly state  The name shall be :THE TE KUITI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED

we have had about three explanations as to the name change none of them  hold water in the legal sense .

He says the future of both SPCAs is up to the RZNSPCA national board – acting on advice – and he did not want to pre-empt their decision.We are going through that process now and it  should not take too long,” he says.

The  future of the Te Kuiti RNZSPCA is up to its members  and no one else .  It has nothing to  do with the  RNZSPCA other than the function of animal welfare in the area.   I believe that   the  attention of the  resignation came about through  the dumping of animal,  this is exactly what an organization focused on prosecution would  want  .   Its like Taking  away the rubbish bins then  fine people for littering .. far more cost effective than providing a service.

“Meanwhile, my staff – and SPCA colleagues– will continue to support the local SPCAs and engage with the local members and supporters.

Why not start by providing them  good governance guidance   and a solicitor versed in  running of incorporated societies.

 My Note to any one interested in keeping the Te Kuiti RNZSPCA  alive

1.  call a meeting of all members

2. advertise it in the  public notices

3. The meeting then decides  what the furture  will be.  you can  elect a new committee, or decide to  wind up the incorporated society.

Remember the  RNZSPCA  have no rights  within your  membership  they are not members of you  you are members of them.

Happy to  help   keep your hard work , your funds and assets in your district .

Last week I was at the AGM of the Te Kuiti Branch of hte Rnzspca.  the out going president Neil Wells in his report  said

National AGM The AGM of the Royal New Zealand SPCA was held in Christchurch in May. Sandra and Neil attended. Clive Pole-Smith from Taranaki was elected President and a number of new board members were appointed. Of significance the board is striving to establish a national structure for the SPCA that will be “fit for purpose” in the 21st  century. There is no doubt that the current structure is not serving us well.

In the same report  Wells claimed that  Central King county SPCA which had been under administration  of the national support office for 6 years  had been assimilated into  the Te Kuiti branch .. a process which is claimed to be in line  with ” national protocols.

Indeed   quick search of   news items finds that  this same process has begun  else where  see  SPCA services unaffected by branch merger.

From the reaction  by Head office and the most abusive name calling   ( which was totally abusive  ) I detected  that  there as   involvement of Mr Well s in this process.

Mr Wells was involved in the setting up of this structure  and now   since he failed to get his own  private law enforcement authority in the fictional name of AWINZ to    survive  he has reenter the SPCA   and appears to be  advising the  new helm,  on  ” restructuring”.

I have in my previous posts  shown the  numerous  cross overs and link ups with  Mr Wells   AWINZ, the people who helped cover up the myth  and  the RNZSPCA.   I am now concerned that Branches and member societies are being misled  into amalgamation,  administration  and potentially  asset   stripping.

The structures of the  RNZSPCA and its member societies are set out below,I will step you through the process . It now appears that The RNZSPCA does not   wish to be   ruled by the members  but would  like to become a corporate and dictate from the top.

This can only have come  about through  loss of control   of hte RNZSPCA by its members.  I note that in the past few years there has been a totally new helm  and a   different   direction .

It would appear that the RNZSPCA is goign to  focus on Prosecution ad enforcement from their 2012 annual report

maria mcewen jonesThis year has seen the appointment of our first nationally appointed district inspector, Maria McEwan-Jones.
This initiative has been made possible by two centres pooling their resources to fund an inspector to cover
their combined districts.
Maria works for both SPCA Te Kuiti and SPCA Central King Country, and lives in Te Kuiti with her husband Chris and two children, Brett (17) and Persia (8). “My previous work history was as a teacher aide at one of the local primary schools. Although I loved my job I felt I needed a
career. I had contemplated teacher training, but after getting a taste of inspector work I knew this was where my heart lay.
Both my husband and I have a long association with SPCA Te Kuiti, with Chris being an auxiliary offi–cer.
At the end of 2011 – with encouragement from Chris andSandra, the SPCA Te Kuiti president – I decided to take the big step and complete the Certificate in Animal Welfare Investigations at Unitec. What a great course and what a year: blood, sweat and more than a few tears over the year but I did it and in August 2012 I obtained my warrant. My role in Taumarunui is strictly as an inspector and, although I do the inspector work in Te Kuiti, I also do extra duties as a volunteer as part of my commitment to the community that I live in. I have had a successful prosecution in Te Kuiti, and an investigation in Taumarunui that has resulted in a formal warning being given.
I am passionate about my job and about desexing and education and IÆplay a big role in these. I feel that over the last year I have grown in strength in many ways. I have learnt a lot about teamwork, communication and understanding the issues that our local community faces. I could not have achieved any of the paths I took without the support of my family and community.”

Neil Wells set up the  Unitec course and initially taught it.  I find it intriguing that  Alan Wilson  along with his predecessors  come from the MPI  moving straight form the  auditing of animal welfare role into  the situation of  becoming  the   representative of the  organization which they audited.

a bit of history  re the SPCA

On 7 June 1904 WANGANUI SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  was  formed   it was later incorporated under the incorporated societies act 1908.

It was followed by Canterbury  16/09/1907   , North Taranaki 23/12/1912, Waikato  1932, Whangarei 1933  and then THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  was incorporated in 1933.

Others followed  as register on the   incorporated societies register.

Many of the SPCAs  were given land by the local   farmers and the towns people came together and built a building for that purpose

In 1965   the Federation  was formed  and the various  SPCA’s  became members

Neil Wells had a long association with the SPCA as set out in His CV’s    which state Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: National President,National Director, Advisory Director (1975-1993) • Established the first National Office by bringing together 45 independent local SPCAs and establishing new organisations in districts not represented.

He went on to write the bill for the animal welfare act and advised on it,  powers under the act for inspectors were  given only to the RNZSPCA.

If you examine the  details of the  disappearance of the federation and the formation of the  RNZSPCA as umbrella group  you will see that  Neil Wells was involved in the restructure of the RNZSPCA  and the disposal of the federation .

The current structure was set up in the  mid 1990’s  when   the   various incorporated societies which performed SPCA tasks  voted to become  either a member society or a branch of the RNZSPCA which became the umbrella group  . They amended their constitution accordingly and registered the amended constitution with the registrar of incorporated  societies.

What many   societies fail to grasp is that they are a legal entity in their own right  first   and   a member or branch of the RNZSPCA  second.

the members have control of the organization and act according to the rules.  the only rules which have any validity are those which are  held by the registrar .. to access a copy you  can go to  http://www.societies.govt.nz/cms.  they also have lots of useful pointers which may assist

If you were   to visualize  it this would be a good representation

 

locals Local people get together and form a group . They decide on the name of the group, the purpose of the group and how it is to be run.  In this case they all decide that   they should  care for  animals .

They have a meeting

meetingAnd select a committee of persons to represent them , they may also select the chairman and the executive officers or the committee members decide on the leadership at the first meeting. How this is done is set out in the rules.
The chairman and the executive have the task of running the society and in a new society their first task it to register the society with the registrar. committee
The committee can only act according to the rules and if any changes are required to the rules  then all the members have to be called together and a minimum number have to be present to vote for or against the motion. Only if a motion is carried can the changes be made .

If a motion is carried the rules are amended and this only becomes legal when the amendment is filed with the registrar.
The members are therefore always in control of their society. And any assets belong to this incorporated society and not to anyone else.

Land purchased is held in the name of this incorporated society it belongs collectively to the members.

The only name in which the organisation can trade legally is the name which has been decided on by the members in its rules .

The executive can appoint a CEO to run the business of the society if it is contained in the rules. The executive is the governing body and employ the CEO hence the CEO cannot be on the executive as he /she cannot be her own boss( unless provided for in the rules and approved by the membership)
so in a nut shell  the structure  is

15 people or more   select    their leadership   who then run the organization, the members  pay fees and may volunteer time to support the organisation

In the case of the RNZSPCA  it is pretty much the  same  but instead of the membership being the general public it is made up of the  branches and the  member society   but the Rnzspca  also has  ordinary  members , corporate members life members and honorary members.  It is in my opinion the inclusion of these members  which   takes  away the  control of the  umbrella society from    the  branches and members .

logos

the various branches and member societies come together and   as per the  structure above  they too  select  representatives  so that each member and branch as a  voice on the   RNZSPCA and the executive is  chosen  by representatives of the branches and member societies

The RNZSPCA  annual General meeting  selects the  officers    from its members  and   they may appoint a CEO  to   run the national operation of the  RNZSPCA.

the constitution of the RNZSPCA  can be found here rnzspca constitution

It quite clearly states that its functions are to

(b)To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies,
(c) To promote Branches in  distincts where there Is no Branch or member Soc1ety in extstence,
(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or m the interests of animals
and their welfare

The RNZSPCA is there to ensure that the Business of protecting animals  is    taken care of   but  it does not have the constitutional capacity to take over a branch   here is why

Each  local branch or chapter is an incorporated society  first and branch or member second.

Take Mary Sgirl guideue  she is a person first and Girl guide second

She comes home one day and says  I dont want to belong to the Girl Guides any more I want to be a scout scout

she only  needs to give back what ever belongs to the girl Guides, if anything .  but her assets remain hers because they never belonged to the  girl guides in the first place .

So if a Branch or member society doesn’t want to  amalgamate  with other    societies, be forced into administration , be forced to incur debt,  they have the right to say” No!   We  want to make our own decision  discuss things  with our members and look at our options.”

The assets you hold and the   property you own belong to your community  , it may  well be that the SPCA structure no longer suits your area  and you may look at  other options where by you educate people  , re home animals  and  generally provide support to animals and their owners.

You   decide with regards to the RNZSPCA, the RNZSPCA cannot decide  what to do  with your  assets or fictions. You have a say in your society  you only have to comply with  anything you agreed to under your constitution and if it no longer suits you  you can revoke that part of the constitution that ties you to any one.

It can be business as usual , If you come across a  matter of animal abuse  it can be reported to the police or to the MPI .  The SPCA  only appears to incur costs  through it s enforcement function , the enforcement  function is   where Mr Wells will derive his income from   hence his appointment of a national inspector

It appears to me  that the   inspectorate   is behind the drive    of restructuring  as  it appears that   Inspectors are  on the executive of the RNZSPA and the tail may be wagging the dog.

I am happy to assist any  branch  or member society  for free  .

Grace Haden 095201815

ric-odom-on-one-newsFrom: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2015 3:14 p.m.
To: ‘info@rnzspca.org.nz’; ‘ric.odom@rnzspca.org.nz’
Cc: ‘info@spca.org.nz’; ‘boispca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘bullerspca@gmail.com’; ‘centre@spcacanterbury.org.nz’; ‘chbspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘ckcfetch@yahoo.co.nz’; ‘dannevirke.spca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘spca.feilding@inspire.net.nz’; ‘gisbornespca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘ilikedogs@farmside.co.nz’; ‘goreanddistrictsspca@live.com’; ‘greyspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘hastingsspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘info@napierspca.org.nz’; ‘hokispca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘hororspca@actrix.co.nz’; ‘kaitaiaspca@gmail.com’; ‘info@spcapalmerstonnorth.org.nz’; ‘office@marlboroughspca.co.nz’; ‘animals99@xtra.co.nz’; ‘sthcantyspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘info@rotoruaspca.org.nz’; ‘office@otago-spca.org.nz’; ‘opotikispca@gmail.com’; ‘np.spca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘northotagospca@live.com’; ‘info@nelsonspca.co.nz’; ‘info@nelsonspca.co.nz’; ‘motueka.spca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘keeley@xtra.co.nz’; ‘waihispca@hotmail.co.nz’; ‘waihekespca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘spcaturangi@gmail.com’; ‘spca@clear.net.nz’; ‘info@taurangaspca.co.nz’; ‘tetawa@paradise.net.nz’; ‘info@spcataupo.org.nz’; ‘sldrspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘swspca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘whangareispca@clear.net.nz’; ‘whakatane.spca@xtra.co.nz’; ‘kapiti@wellingtonspca.org.nz’; ‘info@wellingtonspca.org.nz’; ‘wanganui@spcanz.org.nz’; ‘spca@spcawairarapa.org.nz’; ‘admin@waikatospca.org.nz’
Subject: Defamation and allowing SPCAs to trade in false names= lack of credibility

Good afternoon Ric

A concerned member of the SPCA has brought to my attention an email which you sent at 9.46 from your I pad. This email was read to me and it is grossly defamatory of me

I have never met you , I have tried to speak with you but I have never been able to speak to you. You don’t know me yet you made some pretty scathing comments about me and I want to know who has been telling you things which you accept without question .

No one at the national office has known what I have wished to raise and I was told to communicate with you in writing as if they were expecting me to call and raise issues.

First of all by way of privacy act I would like from the RNZSPCA a copy of all communication to you and/or the RNZSPCA and from you and/or the RNZSPCA which relate to me , this includes a copy of the email which was sent last night and the other documents which I have been made aware of .

Secondly I would like you to send an email to all those who were addressed in your email last night (and copying me in) in which you provide a retraction or a response to the grossly defamatory statements which you made with regards to me .

By way of clarification I have phoned the national office several times and each time was prevented from speaking to yourself or Alan Wilson . I have never been rude or aggressive and I would like to know who made that allegation and what grounds you have for calling me by such names.

I have not been asked to make a complaint on each occasion, it was only yesterday when Melissa Giles answered the phone that I was told to send an email. I advised her then that I would do so but send it wider. I did so because I believed that an organisation with credibility and true concern of its member societies would wish to hear what I had to say. It appears that there have been matters in the back ground which have severely prejudiced you against me.

I note that as yet you have not responded direct to me. I guess you are still awaiting to be told what to do.

By way of Privacy act Please also advise when I have refused to make a complaint and who alleged that I refused to make a complaint .. and what was I supposed to be making a complaint about.. I was ringing to advise you of events and I wished to confirm the “ amalgamation “ which you appear to have addressed in your defamatory email.

It may have been better that since you agreed to this amalgamation in December that your members were advised of it other than by tabling a document which was not read out in the AGM.

Thank you for clarifying that the societies have not merged and that the Te Kuiti people are now stretching their resources to cover another area. You may wish to look at the whole naming thing as the money destined for the animals in Te Kuiti have now gone into a building which is intended for the whole area . You may also address the fictional name King country SPCA as it is neither one incorporated society or the other and is not a legal name and your constitutions give it no legal ability to trade.

AGMS are open to the public, the advertisement which was in the newspaper certainly made no reference to being members only and I believe there were others there who were also non members. You may also like to look at the advertisement it states Te Kuiti branch of the RNZSPCA(operating as SPCA King Country).

The issue with the name King country SPCA has been covered in the blogs. Please see Neil Wells sets up another fake animal welfare Organisation
Neil Wells Mistakes and/or creative accounting ?         The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.

It is a massive issue it’s like dealing with someone using a fake name.. how are you ever going to enforce a contract? I have gone to great lengths to point out that Mr Wells a barrister has an attraction to using names which belong to nothing. If you were to try applying for anything in a false name see what happens.. its called fraud. So please advise me and the people you have copied in who the king county SPC legally is because it is not the Te Kuiti Rnzspca nor the Central King country SPCA and there appear to be very deceptive practices going on with regard to just whose name it is.

It may also assist you to read Neil Wells distances himself from AWINZ in it you will find links to the submissions which Wells made to parliament on the amendments to the animal welfare bill he states Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.

This is what my concern is all about. I am a former police officer and as a private investigator was asked to locate the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, ( AWINZ which had the same law enforcement powers as the RNZSPCA . I discovered that AWINZ had no legal existence at all it was a fictional organisation . The application for approved status had been made by Neil Wells . he falsely claimed to be a trustee when no trust existed, he alleged that a trust deed existed when it is obvious that none could have existed and he made false claims as to the Organisation existing.

We proved that no organisation existed and Neil Wells needed to cover up that is when he sued me . He and his lawyers used every dirty lawyers trick to deny me justice, My defence of truth and honest opinion were struck out and then Wells lied to the court. I prepared a perjury file but he police did not see any point in prosecuting.

I have paid Wells well over $200,000, he has expressed his desire to bankrupt me since 2007 . see my open letter to him here . Wells and his associates have been instrumental in placing my company into liquidation, which was reversed when I proved that they simply took the action behind my back so as to deny me the right to defend it.

I find it quite disturbing that the same people involved in the fictional AWINZ are also involved in the RNZSPCA and I have a lot of sympathy for the people who come to me and tell me that they have been booted off committees and tell me of how things are really run. These people are invariably the salt of the earth persons who are the ones who work for nothing and keep the SPCA going

Ric Section 25 of the defamation act sets out my right to seek a retraction from you or an explanation .

I know that things are not well at head office I have been told you are financially in the doldrums. It appears to me that by asset stripping the smaller branches the corporate wages of those at the helm may be addressed but that does not help the animals or those working for nothing.

I know I am seen as a threat because I do speak up and the manner in which you have reacted only reassures me that Mr wells is right behind the instructions to you and I have to question who is really running the RNZSPCA.

For the member societies and the branches I will over the weekend be doing a post on their rights . they have to remember that they are an incorporated society first and a member and branch second.

The assets they have belong to them and their districts .

I will post this up on www.anticorruption.co.nz in the interest of transparency and will also consider legal action against you for the defamatory comments if you do not respond.

My experience with Wells and now you is that you claim to care about animals while kicking humans in the gut.

If you are placing societies in administration for being unconstitutional then you should be taking a long hard look at your own actions and be certain that you are acting within the law.

Truth matters Ric and defaming people because you want to discredit them is not how it works

I await your response .

Regards
Grace Haden

VeriSure
Because truth matters

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz

PS  in getting the photo  for this post I found Ric wearing  white ribbons. the photo comes from the white ribbon appeal web site . In view of  the   email he sent out  the  language used and the attack on me  I  have to   wonder if this isn’t a tad hypocritical 

property I was in Te Kuiti this week  for the AGM  of the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA.   I had a drive about town   and   had aspca King country

look in at the new  RNZSPCA building  which sported the sign SPCA King Country .  There were  a number of animal inside  but each time I went past the place was unattended, semed to me that the  poor kittens  were left to their own devices.  I found  the van up the main street ,  and as I took a photograph of it  the  local Inspector   arrived carrying  her shopping  .

I asked her  why the van said   Te Kuiti  Spca  an the building  King Country  and that is when I learned of the   so called Mergvaner  . I was told that the Te Kuiti Branch had taken over  the   Taumaranui   branch  and the two together had become  King Country SPCA.   Strange I thought   ..    all this seems to happen by magic  and  by no   visible or legal means.

Any way I went to the  meeting   at  7 pm that  evening and was met at the door by  Chris  Wells   she was not at all happy to see me  . I took my seat with the  dozen   persons who were there   and  the man at the front  Chris Everitt  introduced himself as the new chairman . It occurred  odd to me that he   was not shown on the charities web site as an officer  neither could I see him  selected as the committee in the previous  year.  It appeared from what was said and what Neil Wells  wrote in  the  annual report that Chris was hand picked by Neil Wells to be the chairman.. hardly democratic I thought.

Neil Wells had resigned two weeks  earlier  allegedly due to ill  Health  but didn’t   appeared to be  inflicted  with anything obvious.

I collected the papers which were up the front   they are  here AGM agenda and chair report .Chris mentioned that  there was   just a quorum  of 10 – this included the very  eager  inspector  Maria Mcewen-jones and her husband  Chris Mcewen-jones , a prison officer  who was also wearing an SPCA uniform. (Both appear on the charities register as officers of the Branch-  I actually thought that employees   didn’t count towards the vote .. but it appeared that  they didn’t   take notice of  such details )  the people who were there   I learned were largely   those who  supported Neil Wells   . I was to learn that one  lady had been   removed from the committee by alleging that she had resigned, she made it very clear that this was not the case.  An other present  was  was the former chair Woman  who had  dedicate many years to the cause  and now appeared to be getting the cold shoulder.I thought to myself no wonder people dont  volunteer if they get treated as badly as this lady  was. she rightfully questioned where the accounts were and brought up the fact that Neil Himself had tried to stop the   RNZSPCA annual meeting because there were no annual accounts.

The meeting  rolled quite quickly into the chairman’s report due to the fact that there were no annual accounts  We were told that the auditors had  not  returned them, yet I had heard that as little as two weeks ago , that the auditors were not  even sure if they had been engaged , and had not received accounts  .I have experienced this kind of thing many times,I have found  that what Neil Wells says  can actually vary significantly from   the   actual facts . I have also had first had experience with his accounting  and  can only say that  it is extremely dubious   see the evidence here

Neil Wells  who  sat at the front but to the side of the  person chairing the meeting, was referred to on several occasions  as the ” legal  expertise” in the room on which  we could rely ,  ( wells is a barrister ), I have heard this  in the past  Wells takes advantage of his  status  and then  leads people up the garden path..  this is a ploy I have witnessed many times.

Wells   picked up the   chairman’s report and  said that he  would  table it as read , it   bore his name  and was presented as his  .  I had had a   look at it  and   mentioned to the meeting that there were some serious  constitutional issues in the  report and the report should not be accepted as read   .  I was immediately asked to  leave, I tried to explain the  importance  of    not accepting      the report warned the meeting  that  there were consequences  to ratifying it . Through ratifying   what was contained in the report  Wells was  legitimizing  actions which may not be  legitimate   actions and  which should properly have been agenda issues and matters which required resolution of the   association  . e.g. the name change .

The atmosphere turned Hostile , the inspector Maria   was jumping up and down like a trained doberman protecting her master  , she couldn’t wait to  push me out of the room. I had to warn her off for assault .  I was leaving anyway , her husband the prison officer Chris McEwen-Jones ( mcewanjones@gmail.com)  was outside calling the Chris McEwen-Jonespolice .  Despite seeing me leave the building he was  telling the police to attend and   was passing a  description of me, I told him not to bother and that I would  wait to see the police which I  did.  They arrived  I  explained what had happened  and  they went  .. all sweet. ( Chris McEwen-Jones   features in the Waitomo news Boxers step up to inspire youth

Any way  there was a  reason I was thrown out   and that is because there is no way in the world  that Neil Wells would allow me to comment on his report .

I have noticed that the RNZSPCA have been placing   Branches  in administration for  not  fulfilling the requirements of the constitution  see – 20 Jun 2014 – National body takes over at Taupo SPCA  .  They do this by virtue of section  29  in the  societies constitution which states

29 The National Council shall be empowered to
{a) Suspend or remove from office as a body or individually the officers or members of any Branch Committee who refuse to comply wtth these Rules, Branch Rules or any Bylaws made hereunder, or whom the opinion of the National Council act in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the Branch or Royal Society and to appoint from the members of the Branch officers to fill the vacancies thereby created until the next Annual General Meeting of such Branch PROVIDED THAT any decision made hereto may be subject to review by the Royal Society in  General Meeting,
(b) Carry out all the functions and duties of a Branch in any d1stnct in which no properly constituted committee exists or delegate such functions and duties to any other Branch committee

it appears to me that this clause may well conflict with the requirements of the incorporated societies  act.  But  we will leave that for the registrar.    The legislation is superior to over the   RNZSPCA constitution not the  other way round.

Back to the  chairman’s report , the name change which was announced  in the  news papers has now  changed to a” brand name ”

structureFirst of all we have to question how 6 years  fits in with   clause 29  6 years is hardly the next  annual general meeting and it appears to me that there has not been a  Central king country SPCA  for 6 years , secondly the   only constitution which is filed  for the  Central king country SPCA  is dated 1988 and gives that power to the  dominion council  .

I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that the  RNZSPCA can run   its business in those areas  but  it cannot trump the   Incorporated societies  act .

It is also  not clear how the Te Kuiti Branch was not in line with  national protocols ( as claimed )   and  after reading the  story with regards to the Taupo Branch and the events of today   it appears to me that Neil Wells  has   the ability to pull strings with  the national   Office becasue if the Taupo office was put under administration then te Kuiti  must also be looking down the same barrel  .  Cant  make  fish of one and  fowl of the other . .. or can they ?

I have tried to phone Ric Odem and Allen Wilson  and as soon  as I mention my name I am told to put  my Queries in writing.   So I am  and  its going to go to the minister   and the registrar first. These are  not just    tin pot societies which  run courses for their members, these are national organizations which  derive  many dollars  in chariteis.  it appears to me that the  real people doign  the  work  get nothing nad the  guys  running the SPCA   chase the bequests.

The point is  that you cannot  assimilate two branches  in the manner described by Mr Wells, he is  barrister  he should know that .   The committees  of both the branches   would be stepping outside  their legal scope to do this without the consent  and knowledge of the members.  It still leaves us with  the fact that  again we have a totally wacko  chronology and    with something that looks   to me very much like a cover up.

Lets go through the dates again

9/7/2014    the web site   King country  spca.org.nz  was registered.   see the evidence here Whois Search king country SPCAKing country spca

 

renamed28 October 2014 animal welfare is what we do    “THE local SPCA has been rehomed and renamed, just like  many of the unwanted animals that come into its care.”…… “The organisation’s new name (previously Te Kuiti North King Country SPCA) reflects the huge area the SPCA now serves – from Te Kawa to Owhango, including Kawhia,  Otorohanga, Te Kuiti, Benneydale, Piopio and Taumarunui”

structureThe two months later the  two   incorporated societies  ” merge  without any  knowledge or consent of the members  and without the registrar of incorporated societies being advised. .. Neil You are a barrister   you know this isn’t legal  but then  Neither  was the fictional law enforcement authority AWINZ

 

To me the whole process  appears a bit  arse about face   more like  a  OOps Ive been caught  out how can I cover up   a bit like creating a  trust when you are caught out red handed running a law enforcement authority on your own( using council staff )  and need to explain   why  you misled MPI and the minister.

I have to wonder how  that  building is going to benefit the animals of Te Kuiti   I saw the cats at Atkinson vets  which Sandra and her trust are re homing, they have company  the ones  at the SPCA are locked up alone.

Neil and the RNZSPCA appear to be  joined at the hip    his local inspector  appears  extremely protective of him.  Together they will no doubt make a great prosecution team  and the people in the king country wont know  what hit them.  I met Sandra   when I called in  to New World on my way out of town  she was selling raffle tickets $2 at a  time   Neil and Maria  can do in  one prosecution  what Sandra spends all day collecting  ,  dont expect all prosecutions to be fair .

Neil Wells wrote the animal welfare legislation advised on it  and for those who are unfamiliar with it  the offences  are pretty much strict liability. that means  is that  opinion of the inspector   takes precidence over any  intent which you had or did not have.   In Waitakere  Neil Wells offered diversion   from prosecution by paying into a bank account  which only he had access to  and which was set up in a false name.  That of the fictional AWINZ .

One lady   had to pay several hundred dollars  when   her arthritic dog walked off and  was put  down  by   the  Council staff which Wells had working under him as the pretend AWINZ.   Her mother had just died in tragic circumstances and her brother committed suicide  , she could not bear going for the trifecta,  the dog should perhaps have been put  down  but   she had comfort from the dog  and  he from her.  She went in to recover the body  and  was hit with prosecution  which Neil kindly converted into a sizable fine.  No compassion here, Ive experienced how he treats Humand   I dont think he likes us.. we eat animals and I believe  he is vegan. Lets face it  donations are $2-3 at a time  but fines   can bring in serious $$ especially when your a barrister and can offer diversion .

The people  in The king Country have no idea how serious the situation can potentially be.  perhaps they need to read Neil Wells own submissions to parliament see  this post  Funny that he doesn’t mention now that he used to head AWINZ.

Strange also that one of the people he roped in to cover up for him Graeme Coutts  also  signed the incorporation papers of the RNZSPCA graeme couttsand occupies the office next door  on the same floor as the  SPCA   see  the deed he signed  with Wells here  .

Neils  comrade in Arms in the  AWINZ matter was Tom Didovich    , he  helped in the deception of AWINZ by giving authority to use  the council premises. when Tom  formed a relationship with one of the dog control officers and had to leave, Wells stepped in   as Manager of Waitakere city council   Tom Didovich  went to the RNZSPCA  as mentioned in the 2010  annual report of the RNZSPCA “Tom Didovich National Education and Branch Support Manager. (to April 2010)” Tom also became a trustee of  this same trust  with Coutts and ells.  all very  cozy

There are   lots more  cross overs  many of the inspectors were trained by Wells at Unitec  . I know of very good people  who  failed  because Wells did not want them to pass and I see those who worship the ground he walks on and will do anything  for him   passed, e.g.  maria who jumped up and down waving her  arms in my face to prevent me from  talking civilly to Neil .

Please dont treat people harshly   because they   left when Wells arrived he  has a tactic  of removing good people.  the ones that leave are the  ones you want . Neil like to  keep the sheep those  who  obey and dont  question.

By looking at the events of Tuesday night  Te Kuiti RNZSPCA  is  set to    bring about change in the king country.  may all those who  have animals  be ware.

 

Neil wells  1976Recently we ran a story about name changes  , involving   The Te Kuiti RNZSPCA ,  few people would see the significance of what  is going on  so  a  blog on the AGM of the  Te Kuiti Rnzspca     is called for.

To go back to the chain of evidence s to who is who and who is what   we have to go to the constitution.  the only legitimate constitution is that which is  registered  withe the registrar of incorporated societies.  this is a copy of it Te kuiti Rnzspca

Because searching the register is not    all that straightforward   we have taken the liberty of copying  off  the  relevant page  as a  PDF, all the links on the page work  so it is  a simple way to access the required  documents. NZ Companies Office – Te kuiti RNZSPCA.

The Te Kuiti RNZSPCA is a branch of the RNZSPCA  , the Constitution of the  RNZSPCA  branches   is this one RNZSPCA branch constitution

We are going to look at the  Te kuiti Rnzspca   to see  the significance of a name  change . Over the years I have learned that lawyers like living life in the frey area  so as to   avoid accountability  , I have also discovered that  Lawyers  want to know  exact details about you  , your real name date of birth, if you have  all your own teeth etc, but at the same time  they  work under  undefined trading names .  this is  so that  you can be under attack  and   they can come from a position of  anonymity, that is why the  use trusts  and   trading names, these names  can   be attributed    to or removed  on an as required basis.  Generic names are especially good.

The purpose is generally  to do with $$ .    There are many Bequests which are left  to the SPCA , I have heard that   the Auckland SPCA and the  RNZSPCA  often go to bat  as to who can have the money .

So if   Farmer Brown pops his clogs and leaves   his money to the SPCA , it  will most probably not go into  the coffers of the local SPCA  but will go the  the Auckland SPCA.

The RNZSPCA is the   Umbrella organization, it is the only one which has  the law enforcement powers   under the legislation which Mr Wells both wrote for and advised on.

Indicated by my research Neil Wells  was involved in the restructuring of the RNZSPCA   taking  it out of the control of the federation  and making the RNZSPCA  the    umbrella organization.Wells obtained his Law degree while  he was with the RNZSPCA , we have reason to believe that the RNZSPCA paid for the degree.  see his CV here  and see also  this version  both were prepared by the man himself.

Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: National President,National Director, Advisory Director (1975-1993)
• Established the first National Office by bringing together 45 independent local SPCAs andestablishing new organisations in districts not represented.

Each   Branch   of the RNZSPCA is  an organization in their own right, they are  Branches  but  are primarily Incorporated societies and a  legal entity in their own right. So first and foremost each branch has its own constitution, the only valid constitution is that which is filed with  the registrar.  Te kuiti Rnzspca

Due to his law degree and his involvement in the restructuring  , Neil wells more than  any one   know  how   the system actually works  but continually   operates in the grey areas  such as     setting up a law enforcement authority in a fictional name  which in  reality is a pseudonym  for himself.

I  love  Adobe  and I  use  the search feature  so opening up the  document  we   find  the  first reference to name   on the first page  where it   shows the   name change of the  TE KUITI SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED , to  the TE KUITI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED. this occurred on 30 August 2001 .

The name   is not only  registered as  the TE KUITI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED , it is also  re reinforced on the first page of the rules  signed by the then president  and filed with the registrar.

The powers of the branch are spelled out

  1. A Branch shall generally manage Its own affairs and shall be solely responsible for Its debts and liabilities
  2. Without prejudice to the general powers of the Branch, the Branch Committee shall be entrusted with and may exercise and perform all or any of the following powers and duties( note that it states   Committee )…………….(f)  To enter into all negotiations, contracts and agreements in the name and on behalf of the Branch as it may consider expedient for its purposes, provided that such negotiations contracts and agreements
    are not in conflict w1th its objects.

Therefore any act done    by the committee   or any person purporting to act for the committee is not   an act done for the Te Kuiti branch  of RNZSPCA, it  it was  entered into  under the name  King country SPCA. The web site  kingcountryspca.org.nz is not owned by  the RNZSPCA  it is shown owned by the fictional organisation  King Country SPCA .Whois Search king country SPCA.

The rules  can only be changed  according to the constitution  and that means that a name  change is also  a matter   which changes the rules  and ther fore  requires  due process

rules

 

 

Questions need to be raised at the AGM   with regards to the   expenditure   for  web sites  and  other actions  for the  King Country SPCA  and you would   expect to see the minutes produced   to support  the  purchase  of the building  and the  documents properly sealed  by the  Board.

Neil Wells   has an extensive  history   with the  RNZSPCA   old news paper  articles        provide an insight to the back ground  and the  manner in which he held on to leadership ,  don’t be at all  surprised tomorrow  if he   is nominated  and has  a large contingent of supporters   ready to put him back in the chairman’s seat.History repeats   with  Neil wells  so  do  read these articles and be prepared  for anything to happen tomorrow night

split in  RNZSPCAnews 16 dec 73

 

 

 

 

main pagetop fur flying

bottom

page 13

right side

 

15 3 79 new animal group

 

 

 

cook islands SPCA9 apr 89 a9 sst1

 

10 6 93 P201wells quits

 

In 2006 I questioned the existence of  The Animal welfare Institute of NZ,  ( AWINZ )  it was supposed to be a law enforcement authority  but  through registering and identically named trust we proved  that no  legal entity by  that name  existed other than  us (  the register will not allow for  two  identical names to be registered).

Neil Wells needed the name  as he had told the minister of Agriculture some 6 years earlier that he was in the process or registering  it.

false assurance by wells aside from the fact   that the trust deed  which Wells produced in 2006  only goes to paragraph 19 and doe snot have a section 20 (a), it is also odd that he did not send a copy to the minister  since only certified copies are sent  for registration .  We also ended up with Two copies of the deed in court  and   Maf  produced their copy  and on close examination  this was found to be different : the pages between the first page and he last page are different , and don’t have signatures on them.

In May 2006  some weeks after we had proved AWINZ did not exist  Wells called a meeting of   his fictional organization  so as to keep the pretence alive .

He convinced  Coutts and  Hoadley to   take legal action agaisnt me posing as AWINZ the   law enforcement authority. You have to  question how this could happen.  The only  ” entity” which was given law enforcement authority was the undefined name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .  This AWINZ did not have a  trust deed  nor did  it   have members  who could have made a  decision to apply for  approved status, and most importantly of all No  real or  Legal person was Given Law enforcement powers .  But Neil Wells claimed them  as his own and enforced  animal welfare  law  acting through the    fictional AWINZ.

Wells, Hoadley   Coutts and Didovich    formed a trust 5 months after court action began  and  alleged that this was the same trust which was allegedly formed  in  2000,  However the 2000 trust had never held assets and the trustees had never met   making it a sham trust… And   this is not a trust that  can then jump through a vacuum and  re appear again 6 years alter and take on  Law enforcement powers…  But such  is the mystery of trusts  that it can happen by Magic and   any lack of  legal basis.

This  other Sham trust    became a charity   and they used the money  which Wells had obtainment from a defunct charity in 2005  to   attack me in court see here.    This letter   from wells also proves  that there was no bank account prior to  2005  but according to its own deed the  alleged 2000 trust ceased to exist  1.3.2003  so the bank account was not theirs  see also  The Lord Dowding fund how to use charitable funds to conceal crime andWould the real Lord Dowding please stand up

AWINZ was brought to life through  classic Identity fraud. many groups of  persons using  the  name AWINZ all   separate groups  and  some existing only as a proposal , are rolled  together to create an apparition which through  time warps ,rivaled only by   star wars takes on the  illusion of  an entity.

The  Ministry of  Agriculture  audit  of the  AWINZ  which   Wells had  created  on the property of  Waitakere city council  expressed concerns including

  1. That it is difficult to differentiate between  council and  AWINZ
  2. that Wells was doing the books .  I had  already discovered that the AWINZ bank account into which the prosecutions and donations were paid  was  only operated By Wells  and no one   else had access. this has  been the trend all along Wells takes  over the books  and  he    is  what I call very creative with accounts.  an  example is

When we came to court and Wells wanted to extract as much money as he could from me he produced documents which I consider to bfalse lossese manufactured see wells affidavit 08 . Incredibly the invoices are ones which he himself had created and there was not one bit of independent evidence which supported his allegation . In taking the calculations he had presented I found that he was misrepresenting his claim to the court by some $10,000. click on the calculation for full image. I was to find that Wells mad many ” mistakes ” I have noted this trend in other lawyers and ” mistakes are what Lawyers make while lesser mortals are convicted for less. click to enlarge

Neil is also   the last remaining person  on the New Zealand  Fund for  humane research The truth about the New Zealand fund for Humane Research , the  former trustees believe that it was wound up when Sir Frank Rutter passed on  But Neil Wells  still uses it to  blur the lines  and  has collected money for it using Wyn Hoadley to sign  documents soliciting donations   which she apparently did not  question .

Over the years we have  raised issues with with the charities commission with regards   to   these accounts   see  Are Animal welfare matters more important than Human rights ? and OIA request to charities commission and Charities commission finally reveal AWINZ accounts

from the inception of  this  charity for this sham trust ( it never meets  its sole purpose is to  sue me and bankrupt me ) has used the  funds obtained from  beauty with compassion . Their first financial statements are here  and show that this   dodgy trust which was not party to the litigation paid out $12904   in legal fees agaisnt  me . In 2009  these were the accounts  and unknown and  unidentifiable person signed the  documents  as financial reviewer, their   qualifications  were not  disclosed( nor their existence )  these accounts falsely   alleged that   this trust was  the beneficiary of he court action  and that they had placed a  charging order over my property .  There has never been a charging order over my property  that I am aware of  and  they will not tell me  what  they refer to by this  . They show $60,150 paid out  to  legal fees connected with me.

In 2010, the charity paid out another  $21,484  in legal fees agaisnt me for litigation which commenced  before they were formed.  these accounts also showed that  this chanty was sill  holding  nearly $4,000  which had been collected from  the Waitakere rate payers  for   their local shelter see  Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?

2011  financials again falsely allege that I am a contingent asset when this trust has never been involved in proceedings with me .

AWINZ financials to 30 Jun 2012 again make this   same   false  claim , by making small changes  the Waitakere account becomes the   No 2 account    , there by losing the identity    of Waitakere and losing  the  purpose of those funds.  this is a bit  like what happened with $400,000   of the  funds once   belonging to the  Waikato RNZSPCA  see here the  link to  the animal scams page    no longer works  but the archived copy is locatable here

The accounts were late being filed in 2013   and   finally appeared   when they did  they were these Annual Report 2012-2013, the no 2 account  funds are moved into the main account   in a   very creative  piece of book keeping which  will leave many accountants scratching their heads.

Despite having paid out  over $200,000  and  not being  given a set of   accounts  I am asked to pay out more money and asked to pay them  to AWINZ .

I am then asked to pay this to Neil wells personally.  I demanded to know  where the  caveat  was  over  and why I didn’t know about it   and all went quite

I made a complaint to the charities commission Charities complaint Animal welfare institute of New Zealand false statements by promoter

but all that happened was that the AWINZ  charity filed  a new set of accounts Financial Statements and Notes 2012-2013 revised 9042014

what is significant in these is that  $24,540  appear out of nowhere with an explanation   that

The financial statements of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand have been revised.
This is due to an error made in not bringing into the 2012/2013 accounts a No.3 bank account which was opened on 5 June 2013.
Brookfields made a payment of $24,540 from their trust account directly into the No.3 account on 5 June 2013 instead of the 00 trading account.

Now I would  like some one to explain tome how Brookfields could  accidentally make a payment into an account  which  did not exist until the day of  the payment ?

Now we have this years statements AWINZ year ending 30 June 2014and what stands out is  the  fact that  again there is a massive GST return  in fact the total GST return is greater than the  actual out goings. the previous year  the GST refunds were half the actual outgoings  and if the GST was claimed on the court action then it should  also be  paid on the sums recovered.

The  reference to  charging orders has gone,   this would  indicate that this was  a great big fib in the  first place  and evidence of  false statements in accounts   . these accounts have not been signed off  and  are allegedly  resolved  two years  prior to being  created.

An awful lot of shuffling of accounts  appears to be  going on for  a trust which  does not meet  and   has no  real functions .  It would  be an  enlightening experience for  any one to compare these accounts to actual bank accounts.

I wonder how this years Te Kuiti  RNZSPCA’s annual    accounts will look  will that  too  suffer from creative accounting.  I hope that an accountant in town  will audit them for free.