I am trying to locate Doctor Ernest Narodetsky ,according to internet searches he has worked at
- Centremark Medical Centre, Shop 10/52 Price Street,Nerang, QLD 4211,
- Coomera Village Medical Centre, Unit 8/658 Reserve RoadUPPER COOMERA QLD 4209,
- Christine Ave Medical Centre Bermuda Street Robina 4226,
- Plaza Medical Cntr232 Napper Rd
It would appear that he is now retired as he does not appear on the medical practitioners register .
The reason I would like to locate him is to ascertain if he actually swore this affidavit affidavit of Dr Narodetsky and if he did why did he say those things which are simply not true.
I rang the doctor in early 2011 and told him that I had been a client of Evgeny Orlov and that High court judges had been asking questions about his qualifications . I simply asked which university the law degrees were obtained from and I most certainly did not say that I was ringing with the permission of Evgeny Orlov . In fact I realize now that I never established if Evgeny Orlov and Eugene Narodetsky are one and the same person.
I find it strange that the doctor should sign an affidavit which has his name incorrectly spelt on it and I very mush suspect something very untoward with regards to this document and therefore need to speak to him to clarify matters and possibly call him as a witness.
If any one is familiar with the doctors signature or can compare it to any on file I would be very grateful .
We made you aware of their presence and you had a right to edit the articles you chose not to.
Over a year later when the LCRO set a date for the invoice complaint which I had lodged with the law society back in Feb 2011 and which they finally determined in my favour in November 2013 , you decided to take court action alleging defamation when in reality there is nothing but truth in the posts.
Over the past few weeks I have taken every post relating to you and your associates down in an attempt to seek resolution , I asked that we could resolve the matter between us as three sets of court proceedings is a bit over the top .I acted in good faith and you did nothing except try to extend the deadline for no good reason .
Yesterday I wrote to you and sent the text below the fact that you have not shown concern about the content indicates to me that you are fully aware of the activities of the companies which you facilitate the existence of through the equity group consisting of Equity law barristers, Equity trust International and Equity trust international tax agents and also probably the various trust companies TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED, CLUB PROPERTY LIMITED oops I mean the new one which was set up when the other was struck off CLUB PROPERTY LIMITED.
Your business partner , director of Equity trust International, Greg Stewart who is the solicitor taking all the action on your behalf has also given me an offer Stewart offer, I find it quite intriguing that he should demand
“Please also note that any settlement would also involve a full description of all the parties youhave written to about the Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, government organisations ,government agencies, international press, etc. so that the Plaintiffs are fully aware of the complaints, emails and campaigns you have engaged in.” and above all that he includes himself and his wife and employee in the so called settlement offer. Isnt that a conflict of interest ??
Any way I wrote the following and I would like a response from you as to your knowledge of the activities of your proxy directors, So far you have side stepped this so I have to wonder if you know the fraudulent signatures which I have found involved with your personal fax certainly make me wonder .
We have also updated transparency with the latest post Transparency International Finally uses the C word , since much of the content relates to businesses which cross over into yours you may wish to read it, as always I invite corrections . I will deal with the fraudulent signatures tomorrow by sending them to the proper authorities.
I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY RIGHT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH
I received a newsletter from Transparency International today it carried this item
New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation
New Zealand shell companies may have played a part in the biggest money-laundering operation in Eastern Europe. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed an enormous US$20 billion ($24.4 billion) transfer of dirty Russian funds, dubbed ‘the Laundromat’. Read the story by Richard Meadows in stuff.co.nz.
I had no involvement in that story It was the first time I have seen it. It states “Chester (NZ)’s sole director is Leah Toureleo, who worked for the infamous Vanuatu-based GT Group. “ I had never heard of Richard Meadows till today
Now I know that Leah Toureleo 57 companies is a proxy director for your companies she took over the companies Vijay was proxy director of, Marjory Stewart is director of another one.
Equity trust manages those companies and ultimately Liliya is the shareholder.
So what will I be able to say and not be able to say given that transparency New Zealand focuses on the use of NZ shelf companies being used internationally.
Fact is fact is fact
I will not be prevented from expressing and showing fact and I want my right to comment on such matters protected.
If you do not wish to be associated with the proxy directors who are involved in international money laundering and ultimately the Russian Mafia then you have a choice, I don’t have that choice
You can distance yourself from such persons as Inta Bilder 830 companies , Erik Vanagles 341companies and Leah Toureleo but because of the work I do they keep turning up in my in box. Manti EFFROSYNI 114 companies
Unfortunately most of your second and third tier companies and beyond are operated in renowned areas for money laundering by persons who have been shown to have been involved in money laundering. It is unfortunate but it is true .
Please Don’t silence me about such corruption distance yourself from it and there won’t be an issue . I am not the only one to notice these things
Go to open corporates and check out your proxy directors and overseas business partners. Don’t fear me fear the repercussions of dealing with the likes of those people . I am not endangering you you are placing yourself and your family in a dicey situation by not checking out who your proxies and partners are.
If you are serious about protecting your family you will buy my research or engage me to do due diligence on the persons you are connected with instead of gaging me. Gaging me will not make the problem go away. There people are world renowned and as I have pointed out in my affidavit to the court I have said nothing that the world press as not already said. It is well researched.
Don’t shoot the messenger , I hope that you are aware of the background of the companies which you took over from the taylor group and the company net
to you it may be a way of making money but people are losing their lives through the companies which you facilitate please be aware of that , it surely must be a conflict with your religious beliefs and I can only assume that you don’t know of their involvements.
The evidence is all in my affidavit just click on the hyperlinks , it is not just one reporter there are screeds of them
And by the way I did not go to Papakura High and I am not uneducated and you have gone out of your way to hurt me for speaking the truth on very serious matters.
If this is what you are attempting to conceal with the gaging order then I will not have a bar of it.
I am prepared to sign the agreement I sent this morning but no more than that , I will not be complicit to concealing corruption and if you are facilitating it through recklessly engaging dodgy directors then you run the risk of being shown not to exercise due diligence.
It is entirely your choice please read the articles and open the links. Get Julia to print them off for you .
Thank You Curtis Gregorash
This morning when I woke up I had never heard your name, I read my Herald and you have restored my faith in humanity.
In my experience we are riddled with corruption .It is concealed by those who work for it, intentionally, through ignorance and others for self preservation.
At last there is some one who not only has the values to resign but also the guts to speak out .We need more like you Curtis , there is actually strength in numbers and wouldn’t that just make such a difference on the integrity of New Zealand.
Corruption is like cancer. You can deny you have it but in the end the symptoms will be too bad and it will either become obvious or you simply pop your clogs.
I Stood as an Independent Candidate for Epsom to highlight the corruption issue. I think I have contributed to the exposure of it but only in a minor way as what I have had to say has as usual been well concealed, yes the media play their part in the concealment too .
I happen to think that if the improper swearing in of police officers is a significant issue then a fraudulent application for Law enforcement powers and as a result having this granted to a fictitious organization would also be of significance. The Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )enforced the animal welfare act for some 10 years despite having any identifiable legal persons revealed behind this trading name. Ultimately four people, who together have no evidence of having run the ” organisation ” and who MPI have no record of being the applicant , sought to have the law enforcement status revoked
Both National and Labour are involved in this corruption, and it is not as if it has not been raised with Government departments the office of the auditor general, Ombudsmen , SFO, MPI , Solicitor General , office of the prime minister etc did not know, they all knew and all played their part.
We have preciously highlighted the reason for that , it is because they all support Transparency International New Zealand . And What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ? apparently not much , they know how to deny that corruption exists just look who supports them in their quest to portray that New Zealand is the least corrupt country . In the end Transparency New Zealand is a business and needs to be paid . Rule 1. never bite the hand that feeds.
Come to think of it Transparency International New Zealand has been surprisingly quite during the election campaign .
Then the other item which was of news this week was that There are reports that Chinese communist party anti-corruption officials are looking to investigate suspects in New Zealand.
Mr Peter Goodfellow got involved in the matter as mentioned in the article but we have found connections with him and Oravida see Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?
Then there is the issue of the Crarfar farms and he manner in which New Zealand farm land is being bought up in a most non transparent way and here again we have a connection with Oravida through their former director who resigned from Orvida one day and set up with those involved in making an application for the farms the next day and then doing so deceptively in my opinion through a British Virgin Islands Company Is there an obligation to comply with directions of the Overseas investment office ?
New Zealand is all about big business we are happy to facilitate anything from International money laundering to selling off our land to unknown persons all the while we have this pretense of being squeaky clean
Three years later and another election later nothing much has changed in the mean time brand NZ has been damaged by having our companies registered here through our slack company registration processes being used in international money laundering and fraud.
We dont learn from our mistakes , we allow the real criminals to use our justice system to conceal corruption and beat up whistle blowers.
The Government and its employees all stand on the side line and are complicit. I takes a very special person to make a stand . I have heard far too may say, “I am just a few years off retirement I dont want to rock the boat. ‘ Those who remember the old TV program Gliding On.. Well Its alive and well .
I am preparing my submissions for the commission against corruption petition which was presented in June , let us hope that people vote wisely and that we will see the C word ( corruption ) Used a lot more and also see actions to combat it.
Not too long ago we posted an article with regards to Milk New Zealand Holding , this is the company which is purportedly owned by Shangai Pengxin
The office of overseas investment OIO Assessment at page four stated
The Applicant is Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (“the Applicant”), a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an
overseas person under the Act.
The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.
It transpired that the applicant did not comply with this direction instead another company named Milk New Zealand Holding was registered as a New Zealand company with a share holder initially unidentified but later revealed to be Milk New Zealand Investment a company registered in the British Virgin islands .
I requested information from the companies office through FYI and a response has been received .
MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT LIMITED is indeed registered in the British Virgin islands , but the companies register there does not disclose who the share holders are .
The British Virgin Islands company was registered on 24 May 2012 , the company which registers off shore incorporation has provided a certificate of incumbency which presumably is only accurate as at the date it was issued.
Additionally the final paragraph it states that the register may be kept elsewhere and their records may not be up to date .. so fat lot of use that certificate is .
But going back to the instructions of the OIO it states The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.
The agreement therefore between the applicant and the government has not been complied with and the Purchaser has no obligations to fulfill the conditions as the purchaser is not the applicant , it is a grand son who has the same name .
It is the company in between the applicant and purchaser which is of concern as this is the weakest and a very non transparent link in the chain .
I wonder if any one will do anything about it ? I have sent the open letter below to the ministers .
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:01 a.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘email@example.com'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Open letter to the Ministers of finance, land information and economic development and OIA request
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the purchaser of the Crafar farms was not the company which applied to and was approved by the OIO
The directions of the OIO appear to have been ignored , these were that “The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.”
The resulting group of companies went on to purchase more farms and a deception/error occurred which caused the OIO to state at point 16 of the application for the purchase of the Synlait farms
“In 2012, Milk NZ was granted consent to acquire 16 dairy farms known as the Crafar Farms (“Crafar Farms”). Consent was granted subject to extensive conditions, including annual reporting. The Overseas Investment Office has recently received Milk NZ’s first annual report and is satisfied that Milk NZ is not in breach of any conditions of consent.”
But the report which was produced was not from the applicant in the Crafar application but from a company which has the same name and purports to descend from the applicant.
The statement on the OIO web site states “Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk NZ), the company that purchased the 16 former Crafar Farms last year, has submitted its first annual report to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).” This statement is true however it was not the company which was approved to purchase the farms , it was in effect a name sake with questionable genealogy.
The annual report furnished further complicates matter s by referring to the purchaser of the farms as being Pengxin New Zealand Farm Group, which is a subsidiary of Milk new Zealand Holding (NZ) as opposed to a direct subsidiary of Milk New Zealand Holding, (HK) the applicant . As a fraud investigator I am aware that through the use of names assumptions can be made which divert those who accept the assumption away from the truth.
In between the company ,which was the applicant Milk NZ holding ( HK) and milk New Zealand Holding ( NZ) is a non-transparent and unscreened ,unapproved entity called Milk New Zealand investments .This has a certificate of incumbency dated 5 december 2013, which by its own disclaimer may or may not be accurate.
Milk New Zealand holding the applicant is not the purchaser or the direct owner of the purchaser and this may bring about issues of its own as the purchaser is not a party to any of the conditions agreed to with the OIO .
There appears to be a disconnect between the OIO and the MED . No one has verified that the applicant has been properly registered as directed as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993.
It would appear that the provisions of the act specified under the heading Overseas companies has not been complied with .
As per section 15 of the companies act, each company is a separate legal entity , therefore the applicant considered by the OIO and the purchaser are two separate legal persons.
By way of OIA please provide copies of any documents in which any of the ministers or ministries have considered the fact that the applicant in the Crafar farms deal was not the purchaser . And please provide copies of any consents which have allowed the purchaser to be different from the applicant .
I ask this under urgency due to the Lochinvar station being negotiated and if falsehoods exist then this should be addressed prior to the sale going through.
What would happen if the silent majority was not silent ?
Imagine if every one who is eligible to vote voted .
The undecided would become the deciders and we may all be better off because of them .
Instead of not voting if all non voters voted for nothing but ” other minority parties ” which received .48% of the vote in the last elections their vote take woudl be increased to 34.63% which would be 3.47% more than National got in the last elections .
Now wouldn’t that be a left field game changer ?
These minority parties would be in a position to form a government with any one . They could actually form a Government with every one except national and Labour .
They could throw out consultants, advisers and just runt eh country on good old common sense .
It would be any ones guess who would be prime minister but I certainly do hope that the first thing this parliament would address is corruption .
I have no doubts that those in the Grey are those who can help us beat the 1% .. are you in ????
What is the point of having laws if there is no accountability to it?
We have screeds of legislation which applies to lawyers but just about every time a complaint made to the law society comes back with the words that the lawyer concerned does not meet the threshold for that rule or offence or it is written off in some other lame manner without real consideration of the rule has been breached or not .
We appear to have allowed a Grey area creep into law a decision which says technically they have broken the rules or ignored them but we dont think that it has done serious damage. Should we perhaps re write our laws so that the law can be broken by 5% , 10% or even totally ignored or sat theft is not a theft is the sum is less than , or too bad he stole your TV but because it was old it doesn’t matter. Or simply apply the law selectively to people who you think has good reputation which will be tarnished by a conviction regardless of the facts.
I think I may have hit the problem on the head there as our legal system is built on the 12 the century legal concept in Britain.There were four inns of court Grays Inn, Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle temple , the links will take you on a fascinating voyage of discovery .
It is perhaps not very surprising that the words Bar, standing and Inns are all associated with the law .That is why only those standing can be at the bar, I can only guess that the others were under the table or dead in a corner .
Through the involvement of the Knights Templar and the inns, religion was a tool used control those both in the Inns and those on whom the law was practiced. The Fear that some harm would befall them would get any one to confess except those who secretly knew that you could tell lies and get away with it.
But fast forward to 2014, knights in shining amour are out, religion has been shown not to deliver the thunder bolts and lighting to those who do not speak the truth or act honourably . So what do we do we say to the lawyers go and form an organization and control yourselves. New Zealand Law Society
As a safe guard we set up the LCRO to which you can appeal if you dont like what the law society does but we make certain that the people on the LCRO are appointed in consultation with the law society and also funded by them.
Because of the lack of funds the LCRO is desperately under resourced and there appears to be a wait of some 2 years before the matter is determined by the LCRO , evidence of this is shown in the dates of the determinations .
To expedite matters and to make it appear that most of the lawyers are good guys the law society ” writes the complaint off ” in their early resolution process, this has the effect that people just done bother making complaints as it is simply a waste of their time. Their actions with lawyers are more akin to that of a mother of a very spoiled only child , rather than a mother of 10 who in years gone by would have given the culprit a good reason to remember why he has to stick to the rules.
I have only ever had one successful complaint to the law society and that took 3 years to complete . I was to get $30,000 after false invoices had been issued .
As a former police officer I find it appalling that a person with the full weight and responsibility of upholding the law and being an officer of the court can commit acts which when I was a police officer were crimes .I have seen people locked up for stealing a packet of tobacco yet here I have been deprived of a massive sum through false accounting and the offender is now suing me for bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy and liquidation are two processes used to ” take some one out ” which liquidation of a company is the equivalent of killing off an opponent, bankruptcy is as close as you can legally get to bopping off a person who gets in your way and if they resit they will son find that another $3,000 is added to the bill.
This week a Lawyer was jailed for stealing from clients this brings about the question, what is the threshold for theft? In my day a theft was a theft but it appears that now thefts are acceptable up to a certain limit.
I have also become aware that the law society has a process which takes time and does not allow for intervention . Since filing my complaint with regards to my former lawyer in February 2011, he has taken me to court no less than five times and my matter has still not been resolved.
He is currently trying to bankrupt me over $3,000 and sue me for $500,000 . All these court processes have strict time frames and is taking my time. It has occurred to me that if he bankrupts me for $3,000 all my issues will go away and when your broke there is no point in coming after you for more dosh cause your bankrupt.. It must be the best place to be. Perhaps my former lawyer is trying to make me an example after all he is in the business of setting up trusts so that people can hide their money overseas . I know I wont get a cent from him as he , despite his business connections does not hold assets in his own name.
A very good example of how the process is abused is that my former lawyer who was struck off as a lawyer but has had a reprieve and can practice again if the was to get a practicing certificate , is apparently running his practice through a Proxy, a very junior junior who is working under the supervision of a lawyer in Alexandra and claiming to be a branch of that law firm and having incorporated both law firms names into the trading name for the branch.
The very junior lawyer operates from the premises of the former law firm and any one not knowing would think that it is business as usual at the former law firm . I rather suspect that she is being given Practice experience by suing me, all it can do is cost me money because if I hired a lawyer and was going to get a cost payment in favour of me, my former lawyer would simply skip the country .
Now I consider taking court action without any evidence as an abuse of process , it is akin to beating some one up with a piece of 4 x2 and saying sorry wrong person , didn’t mean to hurt you .
But the law society will no doubt look at this and say no harm done and leave the door wide open to the next lawyer to make the same mistake.
In the mean time the person who has had the court action filed agaisnt them has how many sleepless nights?
This ” mistake ‘ is actually a breach of the rules and the law society has a duty to keep lawyers accountable to the rules , but the reality is that it works well for lawyers not to be hard on this kind of thing as it gives them something to put pressure on people with .
This is not the only mistake there have been many .
It is for such incidents , that I believe that the law society should not be the both the body which disciplines lawyers and holds them accountable . I have drawn up a petition to segregate the functions of the law society being 65 Regulatory functions and 66 Representative functions. And to ask the government to set up one organization which is dependent of Lawyers and only has the regulatory functions so as to hold lawyers truly accountable to the law.
A matter follows from complaint to law society , to LCRO to tribunal and even after that there is appeal
I am 4 years in on my matter and we have not hit the LCRO yet , the LCRO will need at least 6 months to make a decision then there can be an appeal to the tribunal . Bankruptcy is just a few months so it is a lot easier for the lawyer to beat up his complainant than it is for the complainant to get justice .
We need a process which work as fast as a bankruptcy application does, a process during which administrators can intervene and assess all court action between the parties and ensure that only matters are filed which have followed the rules, proper negotiation and for which there is evidence.
No more soft touch for lawyers. They need to be held accountable to the law to a Higher degree than the people who they proceed against . You can help by singing the petition
The petition is down loadable here Petition for an independent lawyers authority
Several days ago the press reported that Rawshark the alleged hacker is retiring . at the time his Twitter account @Whaledump was suspended and he tweeted through an alternative account that
The account posted that “every device used in this operation will have been destroyed and disposed of along with all the decryption keys” by the time the tweet was read.
Who ever Rawshark is must be aware of stories like mine, what happens to a whistle blower in New Zealand.
Heaven forbid that ordinary people should listen to a whistle blower, that would shatter the illusion, the perception that new Zealand is the least corrupt country. so this is how we deal with whistle blowers in New Zealand
1. Discredit them. take the focus from the actual incident and place it on another event which will be contorted to make the whistle blower appear as though they are driven by revenge. This is part of the concept of DARVO
In my case I had worked on a trust with Mr Wells, The Auckland air cadet trust. I had been the treasurer for 19 Squadron and knew how hard the kids worked for their money , most of it was to keep the motor glider GOD in the air.
When I took over the accounts for the AACT , they were a mess , the trust was losing $1500 per month , I straightened up the books asked hard questions and for my efforts was kicked off the trust by Neil Wells who was chair man and without warning stood before the other trustees and read from some notes telling them that I was bringing the trust into disrepute and needed to be removed. . I could not understand what was going on I felt totally Bullied and demanded evidence . The evidence never came and the notes which Wells had read from disappeared. The rules of the trust were re negotiated so that Wells had the numbers to remove me as trustee . As a result of this I sent aFax to him at his work telling him that I believed him to be the greatest bully I had ever encountered. ( for the record the kids no longer fly, the building they got had a massive cost and a 10 year lease.. how stupid is that ? I suspect the trust was supposed to go under that is why he had to get rid of me I ruined that plan )
As a result of this Fax I received a phone call From Lyn Macdonald the bird lady, she was at the time a council dog control oficer and was concered that she was required to volunteer her council paid time to an organisation which Mr Wells appeared to run called the Animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand AWINZ
She put me in touch with Robert Frittmann whose cat had been unlawfully euthanized on the authority of AWINZ. Robert, a security officer at the time, had tried but failed find the “organisation” and failed to get accountability.see the news item Couple demand compensation for dead cat.
It was a council officer who came under the auspices of AWINZ who had used the animal welfare act to illegally remove the cat. Tom Didovich the council Manager at the time wrote to Mr Frittmann
Like Robert ,I could not find who or What AWINZ was so together with Robert and one other person we set up a trust called the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand so as to confirm that an organisation existed as a legal person or not.
We were successful in registering our name proving that no organization by the name Of teh Animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed in New Zealand
Had AWINZ existed the matter would have finished there. I would have told the parties who and what the organisation was, instead I found that it did not exist in any legal or identifiable form. In stead we asked Questions of Both the council and MAF as to why an unidentifiable non existent organization was enforcing animal welfare law and why they were contacting to an apparently fictional Organization .
MAF had believed that AWINZ had existed as a legal person and had infact been assured of its existence, nut no one had checked. So Six years after this unknown and legally non existent person took on law enforcement authority Told Mr Wells was told to register AWINZ . But of course he couldn’t do this because we had the name . So he recruited some support and tried to pressure us into submission , just like he had removed me off the trust.
And so I came under 8 years of attack , the aim was to do as much financial damage as possible and in so doing they also destroyed my marriage and my family. We are just collateral damage to keep this secret under cover.
I find it interesting that twice now there has been intervention because police officers were not correctly sworn but one of two private Law enforcement authorities was a total fiction and we address that by throwing up walls and blinkers and pretending that it never happened. So much so that I cannot get the press to publish anything.
I often get calls from Would be whistle blowers this week from a person who was concerned with the council again contracting to unidentifiable persons this time Dialect Communications who received $8,000 in rate payers money . I have also raised the issue of 3/4 Million Len Brown received from the New Auckland council trust. No doubt his term of office will be over before the police finish their investigations .
The court also likes to back up lawyers on claims of fictional organisations and in my latest judgment from the court the Judge . Patricia Cunningham , goes out of her way to attack me instead of addressing the issue . Needles to say since I was not a party to those proceedings the party involved, Our now renamed Animal owner support trust has filed an appeal.
So folks that is how we keep our least corrupt status by destroying any one who has the audacity to say.. “but surely that wrong” that is how we are the least corrupt.. we simply bully people into silence speak up and lose your home and Family… Pretty good for the least corrupt country isn’t it ? So lets all dash out and vote for the parties which support corruption , National and Act . ( I have a silent hope for LabourAndrew little presented my petition for a commission against corruption .)
Last Week Penny Bright and I did a joint presentation on corruption to the good people of Helensville .
Vinnie arranged for it to be recorded through Barak Ford, I didn’t even know that it was going to be posted but am pleased it was hope you find time to watch it .
the video was Hugely popular look what happened the account has been blocked . So I have posted this instead it should serve as a warning to us all
Where has freedom of speech and right to share information gone?
It is funny that you don’t notice things until they go wrong. I have had cause to look closer at the statutory body the New Zealand law Society since being involved with a complaint regarding my former lawyer
The New Zealand law Society is set up by statute and is tasked with two functions
The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—
(a) to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:
(b) to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:
(c) to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:
(d) to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:
(e) to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.
At the same time “The representative functions of the New Zealand Law Society are to represent its members and to serve their interests.”
That to me as illustrated in my experience is where the conflict arises.
Going back in history Law fuel records that
A Background By way of background, we observe there was clearly tension between xxxxxxx and Harrison J. It is plain from the record that Harrison J had concerns about xxxxxxx approach and competency.”
In fact in 2010 the herald reported that Drug rape accused told to replace lawyer in this article it states that the judge told Nieuwenhuiysen to “get somebody who is competent”.
Don’t get me wrong Shaurya Malaviya who was the lawyer before the court on that occasion was not to blame he was a very junior lawyer used By xxxxxxv in the same manner as the young Korean girl working from his office is now being used.
Kids straight out of law school are pushed straight off in to the deep end. Shaurya dealt with my matters relating to a defamation claim brought By Neil Wells who had made a false application to the minister and by deceit obtained law enforcement powers under legislation which he had drafted and advised on .
Attack is the best form of defence and I was attacked because I pointed out that the trust which allegedly made the application did not exit.
My former lawyer took the matter through to Judicial review and appeal. he failed in both. He also dealt with my matrimonial property division of the resulting marriage breakdown due to the stress and costs of the proceedings agaisnt me .
In all I paid the law firm s just short of $100,000. I got total incompetence which included items being written into my deed of settlement after I had signed it.
The Law Society held that this was not an issue as I had subsequently consented to it.. The truth is that I only found at the time of settlement and it was basically a matter of extortion, give in or we won’t settle. Being penniless and having all my assets tied up in the settlement proposal forced me to agree… so it transpires if you consent under duress there is no offence.
What the law society did uphold was the false invoicing, however they did not investigate with view of criminal charges for false accounting but they did get an assessment done by an independent assessor. I was happy to accept the result that I was to get some $30,000 back which was pretty much what the false invoicing proved. the line they tread is about giving the complainant something while protecting their members.
Three years had elapsed since I had made my complaint and in the intervening time I had been taken to the cleaners by Mr Wells and had my company placed into liquidation on false affidavits . I was financially stripped which is a tactic they use to stop you from fighting back .
Mr Wells got something like $30,000 just in interest from me but the sum ordered by the law society to be repaid by my former lawyer was just the net amount different rules for different people no matter what you lose.
my former lawyer refuses to pay .He has told me that he will never pay me , I believe him . Had he been a lawyer overseas he probably would have been charged with false accounting but the law society having both role of nurturer and disciplinarian takes the middle road and gets him to refund it.
All is well as long as he is a lawyer but it appears that despite being able to practice again he has not taken any steps to do so, it is far to convenient to act through a proxy .. no responsibility or accountability .
I believe that if we had a statutory body which dealt only with lawyers disciplinary matters and not “to serve their interests” then the role of caretaker and disciplinarian would be separate and not conflicted
I see too many decisions come back stating that the threshold has not been reached.. which threshold is that ? isn’t it a question of whether or not the member has broken the rule or complied with it, isn’t that the threshold ? .
The rules are the minimum standard, not a suggested code , lawyers need to keep to the rules , some will need a warning others a slap on the wrist and yet others the full force of the law . We cannot protect favorites and we cannot persecute those who challenge us, discipline has to be equal and fair.
so I am going to do something I have had the wording approved for my Petition . it reads
Grace Haden and Respectfully requests:
”That the House legislate to resolve the conflict of interest which exists in the New Zealand Law Society having both the regulatory functions and the representative functions for lawyers, by setting up a separate independent regulatory authority whose sole purpose is to ensure lawyers accountability to the rule of law. . “
this is the petition will you help ?
Hands up all those who have more than $500 per week to spare ? .. didn’t see many hands go up , last year it was reported that the average household income was $85,000 , the median being $68,600 that works out at $40.87 per hour and 32.98 per hour per house hold .
Now lets look at lawyers hourly rates starting at $225 to upward of $500 per hour . are you seeing what I am seeing. Disproportionate.. to say the least.
If some one charges manifestly higher wages than the average person can earn does this or does this not conjure up an expectation of competence , experience. … No wrong …. the price you pay your lawyer has nothing to do with his ability to perform it has however got everything to do with his desire to get rich.
The law is far from simple and straight forward it is unnecessarily complicated so that the average person cannot represent themselves in court . This is hugely beneficial to the rich who like to use the scorched earth approach to financially strip their opponents. They can afford the lawyers who have the right connections because that is all it takes in the New Zealand Legal system.. contacts.
Whether you win or lose has nothing to do with truth, facts and evidence, it is about your lawyers ability to play the rules, cheat and mislead the court. If you have an honest lawyer you are sunk before you even kick off.
I have long believed that an act which is a criminal act can be legal if it is done through a lawyer and with the aid of the court. In this way our courts are used to pervert the course of justice.
While the rules of practice are allegedly there to protect you the reality, as I have experienced it is that they do little to offer you any protection .
I questioned corruption a fictional organisation had obtained law enforcement powers , so the “least Corrupt country ” has to cover this up
I am taken to court for defamation, denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and ordered to pay more than any criminal would be subjected to , nearly $100,000
I hire a lawyer but have to let him go when my bank accounts are frozen due to pressure being put on my marriage .
I meet a human rights lawyer in court he says he can help he is a Jew a Buddhist and I am sure any religion that you can mention, its all about establishing affinity
He tells me that he is a victim of the system too and then he rips me off . he gives me invoices which do not have invoice numbers on them and when I insist on time sheets I get time sheet invoices which are clearly made up and duplicate each other.
I take the matter up with the law society and four years later I have not had one cent back and instead I have been sued four times by this lawyer
Why should a person making a genuine complaint about their lawyer after not being properly represented by them, having been given false invoices then have to endure four more bouts of court action.
Each time the judge looks over their glasses and says.. you really should have legal support.
Well your honour the last time I did I was represented by an incompetent lawyer, so incompetent that the law society struck him off for being incompetent( amongst other things ) he also ensured that I am in my present financial demise and again I am being beaten up by using the court.
This lawyer who I believe is working through a proxy lawyer supplied by his business partner is playing every dirty trick in the book. they say that they will accept service by email then claim they cant open the documents. I go to serve the documents personally and get a trespass notice for my efforts.
These guys are involved in activities which others wold be locked up for in My day as a cop issuing false invoices and taking legal action on false documents were criminal offences. Instead they take me to bankruptcy court while trying to fleece me for $500,000 because I traced a company involved in international money laundering back to his wife. strangely enough He is complaining of my freedom of speech yet that is an issue which he promoted when he called a Judge names
Going to court on Thursday morning will keep you posted .. NZ where criminals rule .( that is my honest opinion .. and the criminals are invariably those with law degrees and members of select clubs )
We have our chance to make a change but most people simply don’t want to know until it happens to them.