Archive for January 2012
In the King Country opposite the Te Kuiti airport at 1308 state highway 3 lives a barrister who knows a great deal about animal law matters.
He appropriately calls his business Animal law matters and will no doubt be opening for business in the king county area soon.
The reason Mr Neil Wells of Animal law matters is so well versed on animal law is because he played a very large role in the current animal welfare act. He wrote the no 1 bill and was independent adviser to the select committee.
Mr Wells a former RNZSPCA president left the SPCA in the late 1970′s in circumstances detailed in the press , his current wife and then Christine was with him at the time .read article dec78,
In 1979 there was a split of the SPCA following the decision to have the societies paid officers supervise work by the animal action group which Mr Wells Headed.. split in SPCA . Mr Wells at the time was also the president of the Royal federation of new Zealand societies for the protection of cruelty to animals. this federation was to eventually fold on 7 December 2000.
In 1989 Neil Wells was the director of world society for protection of animals see 9 apr 89 wspc
It is believed that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree and in 1993 he was a legal consultant to the RNZSPCA when he quit over an issue with the Kaimanawa wild horses .
Mr Wells had been a close friend of Bob Harvey and together had worked in advertising and saw the Kirk government into power in 1974. . In 1994 this relationship was to reformed when Mr Wells became an animal welfare consultant to Waitakere city council ne wells 27 july 1994.
He worked with the manager dog and stock control at the council Tom Didovich who is now a piano player in Henderson .
In January 1996 Neil Wells shared his business plan for a Teritorial authority Animal welfare services with Tom as can be seen the trading name was a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time and the charge out rates clearly show that this was a money making venture.This was to form the basis of the new legislation and the concept for Mr Wells perfect fraud.
With the good people of Waitakere paying for their dog control officers to be trained by Mr Wells to be animal welfare officers , Mr Wells sets up a pilot program which is entirely his own initiative. The complication is that there was no legislation in place so he volunteers to write it. see article how to write legislation for your own business plan .
Not only did Mr Wells write the No 1 bill he was also independent advisor to the select committee, with no record of his declaration of conflict of interest to found.
What was significant about the legislation which came out , was that it provided for approved organizations , the criteria are set out in section 122 and MAF had their own selection criteria for approved organisations on top of this as well .This enables the setting up of organizations other then the SPCA to be animal welfare law enforcement authorities.
Stringent selection processes were required as the approved organization was able to make money from fines due to section 171 of the act which returns all proceeds of prosecution back to the approved organization wiht fines up to $250,000 this is what was going to make Mr Wells Rich . IT was a license to print money.
As soon as the act became law Mr Wells made an application to the minister for approved organization status using a pseudonym Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .( AWINZ) he claimed the organization existed when in reality it did not and had never existed except in his mind. He even convinced the RNZSPCA that He and Tom Didovich had set up a trust RNZSPCA meeting with didovich and wells. while he and Didovich were misleading the RNZSPCA Graeme Coutts who also became a trustee for AWINZ witnessing vital documents for the RNZSPCA documents which saw the federation cast aside and a whole new regime instigated. all no doubt preempting a law change .
Stranger still that Coutts, Wells and the RNZSPCA at the time all shared the same building the Coutts relationship with the RNZSPCA was so close that when they shifted he moved with them .
Mr Wells is well known and trusted by MAF and despite being asked a number of times to produce a trust deed, Mr Wells avoids this but gives MAF and the minister assurances that the trust exists and will be registered. However no one else is ever seen to be involved with the approved organsiation. Open letter to MAF
The ” organization ” was to run from Waitakere city council premises for $1 per year using the council staff resources and infrastructure all “ volunteered to the Fictional AWINZ which was even to use the council logos as its own .In all it was so seamless that no one knew if AWINZ was part of local government , part of government or a private enterprise. It was a private enterprise a trading name for Neil Wells who acted in circumstances which internationally recognized as corruption being State capture and the use of public office for private gain.
When a diligent MAF officer seeks to oppose the application Mr Wells writes to his mates in MAF 18 aug 2000 and generally tells him what he wants, then after a brief meeting with his mate Bob Harvey the then president of the labour party the AWINZ application goes to the newly elected labour party minister and is approved.
AWINZ a non existent organization became a private law enforcement authority .. and no one at Waitakere city council or in Maf ever had communications or sought confirmation from any of the other alleged trustees … but it gets better…
In 2005 Tom Didovich who had written to the minister on behalf of not one but two councils Didovich for waitakere and Didovich for north shore had to leave Waitakere dog control due to a personal relationship issue , Neil Wells applied for and got the job.
The game plan was simple and I have documentary evidence for every step
- Neil Wells manager dog and stock control and CEO of the mythical AWINZ ( which is actually no more than a trading name for himself) uses the Waitakere and north shore dog and stock control officers to prioritize animal welfare work over council work.
- when an animal welfare incident is reported to Mr wells council manager by the dog control officer he passed it to
- Mr Wells CEO of AWINZ who approved it for prosecution and passed this to AWINZ barrister Mr wells who offered Diversion .
- the funds are paid into bank account to which only Mr Wells had access, the account was in the name of AWINZ when no such organization existed.The national bank where the account was held had no trust deeds associated with the account
In 2006 was approached by a dog control officer who thought things were quite wrong, with two others we proved that the animal welfare institute of New Zealand had no legal existence by incorporating a identically named trust incorporated trust on 27 April 2006.
Once Mr Wells became aware of this he had a need to create an organization and got his mate Wyn Hoadley , former mayor of North shore and fellow animal welfare worker to become a trustee. At a meeting on 10 may 2006 Wyn Hoadley was appointed trustee pursuant to a section which was not present in the deed and a deed which was missing on that occasion , there is no written record of her becoming a trustee apart from a manufactured document.
To prove the existence of an organization a trust deed materialized in June 2006, this deed was dated 1.3.2000, the trustees had never met or adhered to the deed of trust, the deedby its own terms had expired.
Even more incredibly the minutes which showed ms Hoadleys appointment was missing in 2008 when AWINZ was audited by MAF but some how a fresh copy re appeared for the law society in 2011 ,( open the document and right click on it and select properties you can see when this document was created.)
The three alleged trustees, without any evidence of being trustees filed a Statement of Claim , the objective was to force us to give up the name and the web site which drew attention to the short comings of AWINZ. Mr Wells threw in defamation as a good measure, we have yet to see any evidence of the allegation he made ( no evidence was ever produced ) and interestingly enough what was attributed to me was proved to be true by the audit report which Mr Wells then fought long and hard for to have withheld.
In the mean time AWINZ commenced fund raising using the logo which was emblazoned on the council premises suitably adapted to create confusion
donation request the funds raised were banked in to the bank account which Mr wells was the sole signatory of .
In December 2006 a new trust deed was signed this one included the litigants and Tom Didovich the former manager who had had a finger in the pie. The purpose was to obtain charitable status which was attained so that the charitable funds of this new trust could be used to pay for the litigation, see How to get your litigation funded through the public purse . while public funds were used to pursue them Mr Wells is now claiming the money as his own through a statutory demand served on my company. ( isn't that money laundering???)
As a side line Mr Wells used the mythical AWINZ to monitor animals in the movies such as Lord of the rings and saw to it that a false end title was attributed to the movie documents are as follows AHA 6 dec 2000 lotr others who tried to speak up were silenced . His wife Christine has been performing these duties through the charity.. what a great way to avoid tax !
In the mean time I have had a six year battle through court, I have been denied my defense of truth and honest opinion because Mr Wells saw to it that my defense was struck out all because I could not find $20,000 in two weeks.
Mr Wells is good, he never lets lack of evidence stand in his way in fact he won the case against me through manipulating the court ,telling lies and not producing any evidence, the most spectacular bit is that he even managed to avoid the trial all together and we jumped straight to sentencing without me ever having been found guilty of defamation. In the end we had about 5 separate AWINZ groups being represented to the court as if they were the one and the same and a legal entity. Only one was the approved organization and it was never definded who comprised that.
Wells committed what I believe was perjury and I have the evidence to prove it but he persuade the court that the new evidence I had was not relevant and denied me the right to appeal. It transpires the law is not about evidence and truth at all as a former Police prosecutor I still cannot believe that the civil jurisdiction can operate without facts.
In October I filed new evidence before the court , being the audit and the documents which Wells sent to the law society attempting to prove that Hoadley was a trustee . What is significant is that Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts claimed that the legal entity AWINZ which I was part of had passed themselves off as them and had breached the fair trading act , with our organization coming into leal existence on 27 th April 2006 how can three people who rely on retrospectively created documents claim passing off and breach of fair trade when they claim that they became an organization three weeks later ?
It was the costs for these claims which struck out my defense of truth and honest opinion. Defamation has NEVER been proved and everything attributed to being statements by me have been proved True. Truth is never defamatory.
Wells has now had the judgements sealed and has gone straight for the jugular serving a statutory demand on my business and I expect that bankruptcy proceedings will be served any day. Even in serving the statutory demand he could not get his facts straight.. if near enough is good enough for a lawyer then Mr Wells and Mr Neutze of brookfields are your men. Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields
So if you think animal law matters you need to read my other blogs you will find the searching the key words Neil Wells, AWINZ . I am of the belief that this was to have been the perfect fraud using council premises to run a private law enforcement authority, mr wells was on a winner he could not lose until I asked a few questions and unsuspectingly became a whistleblower.
I expect the new evidence to change things this year, whistle blowers should never be punished like I have been , My crime was to say excuse me but why does this law enforcement authority not exist.
Beware farmers and pet owners of the King country Mr Wells is out to make money should you be prosecuted by him please contact me and I will happily assist you and guide you through the tactics which I have experienced at his hand.
Grace Haden Verisure Investigations Ltd