at last the day came and It was presented in Parliament by Andrew Little , see here I was placed before the law and order committee and I was invited to produce evidence.law and order committee correspondence
So the logical thing to do is to provide evidence which showed that corruption exists in New Zealand and that there is no way of questioning it. So I produced my evidence which covered a number of topics each of which disclosed corruption and fraud and each a matter which had not been dealt with read my full submission here Evidence in support of the Petition of Grace Haden and others 5 11
On 26 November I received a response , you may note that I did not name any one in my submissions, I merely attached official documents as evidence . the response states ” We note that the evidence you have provided contains allegation of fraud against named individuals. After detailed consideration, we have resolved to not accept your evidence and to expun:ge it from our records under Standing Order 236(b) due to the risk of harm
that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.” see full letter here response rejecting evidence
I SENT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL
From: Grace Haden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2014 3:48 p.m. To: ‘email@example.com’ Cc: ‘Andrew Little’ Subject: Response to Law and order committee. 2011/117 Petition of Grace Haden and 121 others
Mike Sabin and the select committee
I am in receipt of your letter dated 26 November 2014 in which you state that my evidence is rejected
1. “due to the risk of harm that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.”
And you also allege that
2. “Your evidence makes it clear that the issues you have raised have already been thoroughly investigated, and we are satisfied that institutions such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Ombudsman are the proper agencies to carry out detailed investigations into allegations of the nature that you raise”
It would appear that we have a catch 22 situation here as it appears that I cannot mention un resolved fraud and corruption as evidence as to why we need a commission against corruption to investigate just such issues.
I have not mentioned any one I have however attached documents which were largely obtained from Government and local government files and responses to OIA’s .
As an experienced fraud Investigator I find it frustrating that there has never been an independent investigation of these matters
With regards to the AWINZ matter, a fictional law enforcement authority. This has never been investigated , the civil jurisdiction of the court was used to conceal the corruption though a defamation claim in which I was denied the right to a defence of truth and honest opinion . Additionally it never had a formal proof hearing and went straight to a quantum hearing where perjury was relied upon .
I made a complaint to the police for the perjury but they declined this complaint.
The complaint with regards the false application has never been investigated by any one.
The police hand it to the SFO
The SFO have never investigated they handed it back to the police
The Police decided that it had already been dealt with by the court when it had not he only thing which had been before the court was a defamation claim a claim based on the fact that I said AWINZ did not exist, I have tuck loads of evidence and it does not exist, MPI cannot produce evidence of who the real or legal persons were involved in the law enforcement authority
The ombudsmen only assisted in obtaining documents and it took then two and a half years to re lease documents which would have assisted in my appeals
This is a matter of serious corruption which has never been independently investigated by any of the alleged anti-corruption agencies , hence it had to feature in my evidence.
Had I raised the issue with MAF and the ombudsmen, and perhaps later with the SFO and they had investigated, then I would not be petitioning for a commission against corruption as it does not take the brains of Britain to see that this is pure blatant fraud.
Could you please advise
1. what the future of the petition is has it been thrown out due to lack of evidence ?
2. can I amend my evidence in any way ,
3. does the government not care about the fact that law enforcement authority was given to a fictional organisation.
4. Can you request an independent review of this matter ?
This is a matter of gross public concern and very topical , I have not disclosed my evidence as requested but if my petition is thrown out then I do feel that the public have to know why. I support transparency
I request that you please reconsider your response as I do not believe that it is possible to request a commission against corruption without showing that current agencies have failed.
The response was simple straight forward response
The report to Parliament is located here Full report text [PDF 54k] it tells you exactly nothing
The Law and Order Committee has considered Petition 2011/117 of Grace Haden and 121 others, requesting that the House legislate to set up an Independent Commission against Corruption tasked with the prevention, education, detection, and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.
We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House and recommend that the House take note of our report.
So what is there to note in a report which has no content?
It appears to me that this was a very swift and underhanded way of getting rid of a petition for accountability.
there are ways of dealing with evidence which does not sit comfortably and this is set out in standing orders Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, New Zealand, 2014 [PDF 1196k]
There are procedures set out for dealing with situations such as this and these are set out in sections 232 on
To me this strikes at the very heart of corruption , in my evidence I have two copies of a a letter one which was obtained from Maf which contained redaction’s the other unedited.
Considering that the Minister gave law enforcement powers to a fictional organization and this statement was redacted , I think it is very material on the level of corruption in New Zealand. Suttons letter
I believe that the opinion given by Crown Counsel is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that Iam advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.- Hon Jim Sutton
the fictional ” organization ” Animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand was given law enforcement powers,
the minister mistakenly thought it was an incorporated society and amended this when he was told it was a trust , However no signed trust deed for the applicant existed and this has been a serious case of identity fraud swept under the carpet and denied.
AWINZ administered the law for some 9 years using council staff and resources to procure a private income it lost its law enforcement powers when a group of people posing as the ” organisation ” relinquished the approved status .
No loss of reputation to those who are on the inside those who have mates in parliament but those who raised questions in total innocence have been totally annihilated. But then to be a pleb or some one important there is a difference.
Looks like those in parliament are still doing their work.
Today is Anti corruption day ,we know that because the email just arrived in our in box this is the on line version
the associated web site is http://www.anticorruptionday.org the day is 9 December 2014 so that we look at it again it was yesterday because we are a day ahead.
What is of special significance is that Yesterday Grace Haden and Transparency New Zealand limited appeared in the Auckland High court on a defamation claim for having published the identity of the persons who were the ultimate owners of a chain of companies . The identities were not a secret and they were obtained through tracing companies through the companies register as I will show below.
So on the one hand we have transparency International demanding openness and on the other we have persons who connect the dots through the public registers sued for defamation by showing that a company such as Falcona systems limited which was connected to 150 million dollars worth of fraud and for showing that one person is ultimately responsible for the ownership of some 1500 companies
We simply traced Falcona systems limited share holder INTERHOLD LIMITED to its shareholder GENHOLD LIMITED to its shareholder TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED to its shareholder who we cant mention because that would according to that person and their lawyers be defamation.
Ironically the lawyers who are taking this action are being less than transparent themselves and have gone out of their way to seek to gag us .
The information is however available on the internet and you have to know how to find it, let us help you .
The directors form for Trust NZ Holdings shows Stephen James Green as the director the company on behalf of the shareholder . This form was completed by equity trust a trading name for one of several possible companies being TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED or EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED both exist at the same address and Stephen Green is director of both
a “Who is” check on this registrant can be found here
It claims that the company is supported by a team of lawyers and has a certified accountant.. (doesn’t say that he she is a chartered accountant though ) and claims to be a member of the Asia Offshore Association however a search of the membership list with that association fails to locate Equity trust International on it .
It is of particular significance that The legal action which is being leveled against Transparency and Grace is being taken through Stewart and associates equity law ,what is alleged to be a “branch” of a law firm which has allegedly ” merged ” with Equity law barristers
If you do a search in the law society roll you will note that there are two firms shown
Stewart and associates Lawyers limited is a company see the company records here
Equity law barristers Limited is a company see the company records here the history of shareholdings and directorship are worth looking at and comparing these two companies to Equity trust International limited
138 Weymouth Road, Manurewa, Auckland, 2102 , New Zealand
Unit 5, 27 Fache Street, Clyde, Clyde, 9330 , New Zealand
the latter of course being the lawyer of Stewart and associates Lawyers limited who brought the defamation proceedings and associated action
The plot then thickens with the shareholders residence Flat 8a, 4 Short Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand just having been sold to a company LSE Limited owned and directed by George Bogiatto
The significance in these names is that they all appear together on the intituling of court proceedings being leveled against us in an attempt to provide what Transparency International and the UN say should be disclosed.
The real issue which I see for New Zealand is that transparency is being blocked through lawyers using the the courts to thoroughly beat people up for disclosing that which is on public record any way and a people have a right to know . Equity trust International limited has registered many companies some of which have found themselves noted by the press for a raft of reasons.
Then they have the audacity to take this action through a very non transparent medium and hide behind psuedonyms and false identities .
If you look at Stewart and associates Lawyers web site http://www.stewartlaw.co.nz you will note that their logo is
so not too unexpectedly we find that the letter head and signature block used by Ms Leenoh is
and we are asked to believe that it is branch of of Stewart and associates, well if it is then it is also a branch of Equity Law barristers Limited a former law firm,since that is the address the so called ” branch ” is operating from and whose telephone numbers and Po box are used see this for the address
Ms Leenoh comes with her own issues , the name she obtained her degree in is Lee she claims to have a conjoint degree from the university of Auckland and a search on Leenoh reveals no graduates by that name But a search on Joo Yeon Lee reveals that there are several persons by this name and a LLb and B com for one.
We support the call for transparency in transaction both companies and in the law register .
We have a right to at all times know who we are dealing with in a manner which takes speculation out of the picture.
The court is not a place for deception and any one engaging in deceptive practices should be held accountable to the law and the person who exposes the deceptive practices should not have to expect to end up in court.
Michael Downey will not be sharing a drink with any one tonight. He will be on his way to prepaid accommodation at one of her Majesties establishments.
Michael Downey apparently has some 30 previous convictions but despite this was employed By translegal Services NZ limited to serve documents .
As it tuned out he took a short cut and did not serve them he filed false affidavits then filed more false affidavits to cover up.
he was caught out because of this blog.
Tony Parker, now of parts unknown and also employed/contracted to by Translegal services new Zealand Limited failed to serve documents which placed Verisure into Liquidation. The non service was not so much an issue because if the documents had been returned to the court unreserved nothing would have happened.
Instead a false affidavit was filed .. perjury in other words. But Mr Parker was no where to be found. The Director at Translegal did not have a contact address and simply didn’t know where he was despite having contracted this essential part of a legal proceeding to him for years.
Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand and Translegal services NZ Limited another lesson in document service attracted the attention of a north land lady who recognized the symptoms and realizing she was not alone contacted us.
this led to Michael Downey a known criminal to being charged and convicted.Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.
Today was sentencing day and we are very happy to report that the court considered this act of filing false affidavits serious enough to send some one to jail
Too often people who come to court and claim they have not been served are treated as liars.
We have proved that Document servers come from all walks of life , they are apparently not screened by some companies and there are few checks and balances to ensure that accurate affidavits are placed before the court.
We believe that when criminals are engaged to take the first step in court proceedings then the entire proceedings are suspect as the very foundations are unsafe.
other related posts
Last year I raised the issue of 3/4 million in donations to Len Browns election campaign from the New Auckland council trust . A year on we are still no wiser.
What has transpired is that the New Auckland council trust mentioned in his election return has a Post off address Being Po box 20084 Glen Eden . Rob Stock of the Sunday star times in his excellent story ascertained that Greg Presland was involved in the “trust”
Now I have to enter a word of caution here we say trust because that is what we are being told it is, there is and has never been any evidence that the New Auckland council Trust is actually a trust or just a string of words which sound convincing.
By Putting Greg Presland into the Mix whole new possibilities arise and I very much see the parallels with the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )the fictional organization which was a law enforcement authority which existed on Waitakere city councils premises and used the council staff and infrastructure to give an appearance of reality.
The AWINZ blue print is so ingenious that it could not have been original and being fully aware of the manner in which it worked I see many parallels and I firmly believe that AWINZ and the New Auckland council trusts, in the fictional world are very much related as those who created one inspired the other.
What I see here is massive and it can happen in New Zealand because no one checks and because we pretend to be corruption free , corruption has a free range .
Lets look at two “trusts ”
First of all AWINZ. AWINZ made an application for law enforcement powers through Neil Wells, the man who had written the legislation for the animal welfare act ad had advised on it as Independent adviser to the select committee. see the application here
Note that the talk in the application is about business units and note in particular the attached trust deed .. it is unsigned. Yet On the cover sheet Neil Wells signs as trustee.
In 2006 I questioned this and rapidly go my arse sued and paid more than any criminal has ever had to fork out , the lawyer who came to my help and put me further in the red is another story .
The trust deed which was produced to prove that the trust existed was dated 1.3.2000 No one ( in authority ) had ever seen this deed prior to its production through very bad photo copies in June 2006 . We later found that there was a second copy which was dated the same but was different, that copy had been supplied to Maf at about the same time .
to a thinking person the questions would arise.
- Why are there two different deeds.
- why was the trust deed supplied originally not signed.
- If the deed was later signed 1.3.2000 how could an application have been made 22.11.1999
- How could Mr Wells have signed as trustee of a trust in 1999 when the trust did not exist.
As a former police officer I woudl have thought that the application was fraudulent, but apparently I am wrong.
Another odd connection was that the people who came forward to legitimise what i believed to be sham trust, but was actually a fiction , was a former Mayor Wyn Hoadley and a Jp Graeme Coutts . Strangely enough where ever you go on this murkiness there are mayors, former Mayors and Jps and I have to wonder .. what are the chances of that ?
Mr Wells and Mayor Bob Harvey worked in advertising together I know this because Mr Wells said so on his CV which I retrieved from the internet at the time Neil_Wells_CV_December_2003 1971–1974 MacHarman Associates Ltd, accredited advertising agency: Media Manager 1971, General Manager 1972.
Bob Harvey was the founder of that agency and worked there form 1962 until 1992 see source
When Bob Harvey was elected Mayor in 1992 he therefore brought with him many business connections and I believe that this led him to setting up Enterprise Waitakere in a most unusual manner .
When it was registered as a charitable trust only a trust deed was supplied with one trustees signature on it , that of former Waitakere Mayor Tony Covic. The JP who signed it off was the sitting Mayor Bob Harvey.
No one checked that this was a copy of the trust deed and in my humble opinion it was not because no other trustees signatures are shown on it , the purpose of the trust was stated
A. The Council is establishing this trust to facilitate business investment, employment and economic development for the benefit of the inhabitants of Waitakere City on the terms and conditions set out in this Deed and concurrently with the execution of this
Deed the council has pal.d to the Trustees the sum of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) by way of gift to be held
on the trusts set out in this Deed.
B. The Trustees have agreed to hold the sum mentioned above and any other property which they may acquire or
which the Council or any other person may assign transfer deliver or otherwise set over or appoint to the Trustees for the purposes and on the trusts set out in this Deed.
what is significant about this trust is that the person who was later put in charge of it was none other than Greg Presland
And this trust ceased to exist 1 November 2010 when the supercity commenced.
I have sent a LGOIMA request to see where this money has gone , it would be a serious matter in my opinion if this money went to support a mayor of choice by those who ran many interesting schemes in Waitakere .. but more on that later
The involvement is very Labour orientated and when a common denominator is found we need to examine that further.
to be continued.
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 xxxxxxxxx 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 xxxxxxxxx .
Ifind 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 .
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 .)