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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a bit of history  re the SPCA

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

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

Others followed  as register on the   incorporated societies register.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

They have a meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

the constitution of the RNZSPCA  can be found here rnzspca constitution

It quite clearly states that its functions are to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace Haden 095201815

ric-odom-on-one-newsFrom: Grace Haden []
Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2015 3:14 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Defamation and allowing SPCAs to trade in false names= lack of credibility

Good afternoon Ric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The assets they have belong to them and their districts .

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

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

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

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

I await your response .

Grace Haden

Because truth matters

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets go through the dates again

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED , it is also  re reinforced on the first page of the rules  signed by the then president  and filed with the registrar.

The powers of the branch are spelled out

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

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

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




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

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

split in  RNZSPCAnews 16 dec 73





main pagetop fur flying


page 13

right side


15 3 79 new animal group




cook islands SPCA9 apr 89 a9 sst1


10 6 93 P201wells quits


King country spcaIn 2006 I blew the whistle on a fake  animal welfare organization.  The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand  (AWINZ) was an approved organisation  meaning that it had law enforcement  powers under the animal welfare act.  What was unique about it was that  this   one of only two  Private law enforcement authorities  and this one did not exist.

In 2013  Mr  Neil Edward Wells  who has spent the last 10years making my life hell and  seeking to bankrupt me at every opportunity , made a submission to the select committee  which I found   very odd.  You see he had  written the No 1 Bill for the animal welfare act , been independent adviser to the select committee , and when  the bill became law he made an application for law enforcement powers  using  false details  .. in other words his application was fraudulent.

In 2007  he  expressed his intention to bankrupt me and he has had me in  court more times than I can mention, including being on the Periphery  when   my company was put  into liquidation  on a false affidavit.

In 2007 when his cover up  began he  wrote to MAF and said bankruptcy ref

bankruptcy email

If he had applied for a benefit   it could well  have been jail  time, as  many lesser mortals  have  discovered  but he wasn’t asking for money from the government  he was   asking for coercive law enforcement powers  and got it  through deceiving the minister. He did not steal  from the  government  , he  just  discovered what I believe would have been the perfect fraud .. a licence to print money  off the public, all  $$ and no responsibility

This is not just my honest opinion   it is   based on real and verifiable evidence  from  the governments own files.  But it  appears its easier to   attack me than to   deal with reality and  if you bankrupt some one   it is as  good as killing them.. Liquidating a company is like  killing it.

But who says History does not  repeat ?

Wells Moved to Te Kuiti, he  ran his company animal law matters, which provides legal services – he is a barrister .

In 2013 he made submissions to the select committee on the animal welfare bill. It is rather unusual that a man with his involvement in running as alleged CEO of the fictional AWINZ, that he does not list his experience of running an approved organisation in his submissions.

In his main submissions  he addresses the power which approved organizations have

3.1 Enforcement and prosecuting authorities
There are three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations.

he then  states further

There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of animal welfare law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.
Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability

He then misleads the   select committee  by  falsely  claiming that “the pilot programme in Waitakere city went on for more than 10 years.”     The pilot programme  which exited prior to the  the fictional law enforcement authority AWINZ  terminated 14 December 1999   .The  pilot program was supposed to  run for  several months  but Wells kept it alive as long as he could and   in the end it  ran for nearly 5 years.

On 22 November 1999  Mr Wells made an application for  the approved status , He made a number of false statements  which are significant and amount to fraud.

when I questioned the  lack of  existence of a real entity in 2006  I was  rapidly sued, denied a defence of truth and honest opinion  and Mr Wells  was believed. A file was prepared for perjury  but the  police did not prosecute.   I suspect that this is because of the number of high level associates that Mr Wells has.

In 2010  when  the Auckland councils amalgamated  , Wells and to co conspirators  gave up the law enforcement authority  which was not  theirs in the first place , but it ticked the boxes and things appeared  right.

Wells moved to Te Kuiti  and   last year   made a move for the helm of the  RNZSPCA in Te Kuiti 2014.06.17.WN

Along with the chair person resigning  nearly half the executive left as indicated by the charities commission details

Changes occur and Wells  moves the RNZSPCA branch from the vets  where they have had a home for many years   to a building  68 Taupari street Te kuiti  using the money  intended for the animals on a building.

By 7 October 2014 a new logo had emerged see page 5 2014.10.07.WN

on the 23rd October Wells and the inspector  who is one of the  few people left in the executive ( according to the charities site ) appear int eh local paper  and falsely  claim

THE local SPCA has been rehomed and renamed, just like many of the unwanted animals that come into its care.

The Te Kuiti Rnzspca  has not been renamed  Proof of this is that it still exists on the  companies office  register as The Te Kuiti branch of the RNZSPCA       NZ Companies Office – View Details   to reinforce the  new name the article  on page 11 of the Waitomo  News  2014.10.23.WN    states

The organisation’s new name (previously Te Kuiti North King Country SPCA) reflects the huge area the SPCA now serves – from Te Kawa to Owhango, including Kawhia, Otorohanga, Te Kuiti, Benneydale, Piopio and Taumarunui.

and  continues But while the name and location have changed, one thing  remains constant.  SPCA King Country is totally dependent on the supportof the community.

What isn’t obvious to most is that a new  web site is also being set up, 

The web site was registered on 9 July 2014  to  King country SPCA   , this is    several months before the name was made public.  I wonder when the name change went through a notification process to the societies members ?  But in any case the information in the news in my  opinion  is totally bogus  and seeks to set up a parallel organization rather than a genuine name change put through  bu the membership .

It has been my experience in observing Mr Wells over the years that this is very much a trend.  he is a barrister but sets up    un named ,undefined entities.    he rebranded the entire council premises  at Waitakere  this  way by   doing things one step at a time and claiming lots of ” mistakes “

I personally feared that the  intention of Mr Wells was to set up his own  private law enforcement authority again.  The King Country SPCA  has no legal existence  and     it is not a member of he  RNZSPCA , therfore any one  who has been prosecuted by the king coutnry SPCA  has an immediate   defence  , as    a non entity cannot employ an inspector. I   wonder how this prosecution went    page 4 2014.11.04.WN,  I would  love to see the  documentation that was  issued .

I would also like to hear from any one in Te Kuiti  who has minutes or accounts  for the  Te Kuiti RNZSPCA .   I am happy to work  with  you  to save your incorporated society.

Grace Haden  095201815

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

In 2011 commerce Minister Simon Power wants the taxman to help crack down on NZ registered companies implicated overseas in smuggling, money laundering and tax fraud.

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.


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 .)



shhhHot topic of the week    .. secret trusts.


One such trust   is the New Auckland council  Trust   the other   the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand  ( AWINZ )


These both have a lot in common .. they are totally invisible . All it takes  for one to exist  is for someone to  say it exists …no evidence required and that’s it  trust exists. It also  helps to have a lawyer  confirm  it  as we all know that  a law degree makes  any  one honest.


the Lack of evidence  is a difficult concept  for a Private Investigator   such as  myself to grasp  as we look  for evidence  and  these secret trusts provide no evidence at all , they are nothing but hot  air .


If some one  said they received a donation from  molly the cat   we   would  say  sure   pull the other one   but if they say  got the money   from a  trust  we all   say    that’s OK  wont pry any further  . the reality is that the cat is  more real   than the trust    but what they both have in common is  the need for a human interface to be able to make transactions.


Molly the cat cant buy her own cat food   and an trust cant   function without humans. Molly has the advantage of being able to get out and catch her own food  but a trust  cant even exist until it is created by  people.  The reality is  that these secret trusts are noting more than an invisibility cloak .


I  relate back to a  story which goes back to the time of Plato  , it about a shepherd who  after adverse  weather conditions  finds that  the land has collapsed in one of the fields where he grazed his  flock and there is now  a cave. He enters it  and sees the skeleton of  a man beside  a  skeleton of a horse.  He notices that the man has a ring on his finger.  Figuring that the man has no further use of it  the shepherd helps himself to the deceased’s ring and  slips it on his finger .


He returns  to his shepherdly duties  and that evening as usual joins the other shepherds around the fire.   He  notices that they are talking about  him as though he was not there  . He soon discovers that the ring  gives him the power of invisibility .   To cut a long story short ( and depending on the version of the story )    the shepherd   uses the powers of the ring  to  seduce the queen  and kill the  King  there by   getting great powers.


the moral of the story is .. who when given the power of invisibility  will not use it for a corrupt purpose ?


I guess  that question remains     so give   people the power of invisibility   e.g. a secret trust   and  what can you expect.


AWINZ was so secret  that even Maf ( Now MPI )   who gave it  coercive law enforcement powers  didn’t even know   who  it was.  The trustees who were supposed to be  the law enforcement authority    didn’t   know either  and   not one of them had signed a document  stating that they were a trustee of a secret trust which was seeking law enforcement powers.   Through the magic of these secret trust  this trust  formed 1.3.2000  was able to make an application on 22 November 1999 .


But for  7 1/2 years  on the say so of a lawyer ( for that is all it takes ) AWINZ has been able  to  carry out  feats which  would be impossible and illogical for   any legal person  to perform. Because when you are invisible   you can move through time frames  forward and back ward and materialize as what ever you need to be at any given time. We accept such bullshit in our courts  and that is why  we have no corruption in New Zealand. Evidence is immaterial  all you need  is a lawyer with a good reputation  and an invisible trust and this will outweigh  thousands of pages of government  business records.


And so we come to the New Auckland council  Trust, you will not find  it on any register,  no one has seen a trust deed, we do not know who the trustees are , who the beneficiaries are   or what the purpose of  the trust is, its purpose may as well  state  to pervert the course of justice,  but   we will never  know  and if the document  has to be produced  we  simply draft a new one and  back date it  to what ever date required.


All we know  is that the New Auckland council  Trust appears on  Len Browns election return and according to  news paper reports in 2010 it also appeared on his return in 2010 and that it has  money  lots of  it  as its given away 3/4/ million  dollars to Len alone.


Such  secret trusts are a great vehicle  for  tax evasion and money laundering  but that is  another story.


To find all the council  candidate   returns   use this link    this is the link to Len Brown’s return 


I was at the meeting yesterday and heard that  Len Brown had had  input  into  the   Ernst and young   “independent review commissioned by the Auckland Council   “ Brown was able to set the parameters of the investigation  and also had a chance to see  what was going to be in the report   before it was released.  In the meeting   it came through that there  were portions withheld  due to the treat of  legal action .


If only  every criminal  or person   involved in   any employment  matter had such luxury    then we would seldom have convictions.


Now  a few observations about the report.


Ernst and young are not  investigators  and are not legally able to investigate  into the actions or background of a person without breaching the  Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010.


They are auditors.They can go  through all the information given to them  by  Auckland council  but they have no legal ability to go to the various hotels and inquire as to Mr Browns actions  in his own time, they can however make inquiries  with regards to  particular positions  in council .


I also notice that Ernst and Young  ( a global company )  does not  divulge which   of   its many thousands of  employees were involved in the  investigation.   We do know that Ernst and young work closely with the Mayor  having only just completed a  review for  him on public private relationships.Public-private partnerships an option for Auckland


Now  when it comes to public private relationships, which the mayor favours,  who would   be the ones closes to the trough, could it be  those in the committee for Auckland   who according to a recent LGOIMA    represent a significant number of  the contractors to the council.  Amongst the  list of members there is  Simon O’Connor Managing Partner Ernst & Young.


One of the concerns I have   is that when a company derives  an income  from the  person  they have to investigate, then there is a vested interest to preserve the future relationship   and  they will not be  impartial in  a report  and as such are not a good choice for an independent review  as a bad  ” independent review ” would  affect  their  future  cash flow.


I also note  that the EY report   is not signed , signatures seal documents, once upon a time a company  seal was used   now  we simply do nothing.  lawyers like  it that way  does  away with liability   and you can always claim that this is the version that was not supposed to be released as it was not signed off.


Without a signature any   unsigned  document is but a  piece of paper, unless there is a chain of evidence  which  connects it to the creator.  I will accept in this instance that the council  accept tha this is the report that they   have paid $100,000  for.


I am astounded that a 19 page report  of which 6 are appendixes , one is a self promoting cover  and one page  is a pre amble    should cost   $100,000 , that is  almost 10,000  per page .


A proper impartial investigation  would have looked at    the  mayor conduct in terms of the United nations convention against corruption  which we as a nation  have signed  but not ratified.


The fact that Len Brown has failed to declare  that he is a  the beneficiary of a trust  in his Declaration of Interest Summary   it  is significant.  No one gets 3/4 Million from a trust  just for the hell of it.


It comes as no surprise to me  that  Len Brown  categorically refused to Investigate  the fictional AWINZ  he  knew that an investigation and exposure of AWINZ would ultimately  lead to   the uncovering of his own  secret trust  the new Auckland  Council trust . The parallel is too close     and corruption is therefore condoned.


I can only  conclude that in my opinion Len has   sold his  soul,  he is not  independent   and neither was the   EY report .


I was pleased to see that we have Councillors who are prepared to live up to the name  of the  governing body  and  call the shots  but  we have not  got enough of  those with a spine, there are the fence sitters    who may also  have   ethical issues   on a smaller scale  to  Mr Brown.


The past council concealed and condone  corruption , its good to see the stand this early into the term,  I can only hope that we can clean up the act  because there is a lot to clean up.  with  Doug MC Kay ( who I believe is a committee for Auckland plant  ) going and  Wendy Brandon  .. ( labour  wench supporting the corrupt use of council  resources by her fellow Labout members  ) gone  perhaps there is a chance  to move forward and have a city which considers people  and living  conditions  before it  dishes funds out to big corporates.


Its time for  dismissals with confidentiality clauses   to cease,  I  do not believe that I have had an accurate account of  why 55 million dollars  was spent on extra employee expenses in the 2012, I suspect  that  part of this sum  probably $15,000  ( that  is  what I  have heard the  going pay off is ) went to the  security officer  who knows very well that he will have to pay  back his windfall  if he utters one word of what he saw.  .. cant believe that council records cant find him,  the  CCTV cameras in  libraries  reveal  visits  from   months back.


when we buy silence   we    subscribe to corruption .. its time for change.


I fully support  the  few  Councillors  who   stood up agaisnt corruption yesterday


to the others..  its time to look at who you are serving.

santaIn this years corruption perception index New Zealand  again   sits at the top   but we have a dirty  little secret  we get there by stealth ( Not disclosing one’s true ideology, affiliations, or positions ) . we do not prosecute things which need to be prosecuted and we turn a blind eye to many things.   our lack of corruption is a  real as Santa  and in turn   as real as the   trusts  which generously gave

People such as Graham Mc Cready Agent for NZPPS Ltd is  bringing about  fantastic change by making those  who should be accountable to the law  accountable.


In New Zealand we have too many old boys looking after  each other, each has a dirty little secret  which the other knows..  I wont tell on you if you don’t tell on me.. wink  wink nudge nudge .. except for  Len brown  now has his dirty little secret  well and truly blown

So New Zealand  has no corruption  because   every one is  too busy  winking at each other  ignoring  corruption, after all  we all do it don’t we .. wink wink   so we redefine corruption   we  don’t acknowledge it  and as  any accountant  will tell you that you cannot  quantify something which you don’t identify.  see problems gone  already.

While our legislation does not appear to have a definition for corruption    the word corrupt is defined  by Google  as ” “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. ” Our law strangely enough    does deal with  corruption and provides protection  except that we  don’t  enforce these laws , that is until Graham came along and  helped  John Banks on  his way .

So Far Len Brown has  escaped John s  demise but   is he  any better  or  is it  by virtue of the fact that Len is of the  brotherhood of lawyers  which  has  helped him  .

So far     Len Browns actions  have not  been   labeled ” corrupt”  but  he is   going to be censured by the Councillors  a slap across the palm with a wet dish rag will really get the message across  but  why is every one avoiding the real issue ??     This morning I made a complaint to the  electoral officer for Auckland council by my reasoning   there  have to be necks that roll  as what Mr Brown is trying to pull  looks to me like a swifty .

The  funding which Brown received in the past years   was the  very subject in 2010  Auckland mayor’s trust hides names of campaign donors  the news item states “( Len Brown)  declared donations totalling $581,900.95, of which $499,000 was to the previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust. That meant he did not have to tell the Auckland Council electoral officer the names of most individuals and companies that contributed to his campaign because the trust was listed on his return as the main contributor.”

This year he received $273,375 according to my calculator that is nearly  3/4 of a million  in anonymous donations dressed up and disguised as a trust .

Hang on  lets hack track a bit here  ..  all it takes is   is a name on a piece of paper  to suggest that the money came from a trust  and    that is all that is required ? what about real evidence .. sorry I have a hang up on Evidence  I am after all an investigator  I like to see the evidence.. believe nothing  check everything…

John Banks   used the same trick ” The largest named individual donation was $20,000 from “The Main Trust”. It is not on the societies and trusts register at the Companies Office. ”

This is exactly the issue   which I have been fighting  with AWINZ for 8 years .. when is a trust a trust    and how do we know a trust exists  when it  is not registered any  where?

I forced the AWINZ  trust  which alleged to be a law enforcement authority out in to the open  and as a result the  story of AWINZ  became  a total farce –  a farce which the lawyers and courts are happy to stand by   , we actually  support fiction in our courts and in our administration of  the law and justice and a trust is a trust if  some one says so.. Duh    roll on Santa   your real !

So back to the   trusts   of  Len Brown and John Banks .. how do we know that they are trusts?  How do we know there is a deed ?   how would any one know to make a donation to them is they are secret  ?

The legal status of such trust is that  they only exist through their  trustees.    The trustees are the legal persons   who   act together  to fulfill the  wishes of  the settlor ( the person setting up the trust )    there are requirements  that have to exist to make a trust valid and without them a trust could be a sham .

When these deeds don’t get produced  , how do  we know  the  trusts are valid and  the person  getting the  dosh is the intended beneficiary?  How do we know  that these trusts are  not just a  “Harry Potter  magic cloak”   and simply hide the identity of the   person passing money  on  to   a candidate in elections so as to  circumvent the intent of the legislation ( lawyers are good at this ) .

section 103 D of the  Local Electoral Act 2001  requires that a contributor be identified – does that mean that a contributor  can use  a pseudonym  to circumvent the law ?  Identify does that not also include to establish the existence of  ?so even if it is a trust  the trustees   who run the trust  will have this obligation placed on their shoulders    and it is the trustees responsibility to  identify the contributor .  but    we don’t know who the trustees are because we could be dealing with   a fiction  but we are not certain .. but thats Ok  cause hes the mayor  he has an LLB and  he must be honest ( too bad he deceived his wife )

there is  actually an offence   for not complying with section 103d  but  who can enforce this is the  donor is hiding behind a false name.. and one   would have to ask.. why  can’t you be open about   the donation ? is it a bribe or something??

There is also a provision which specifically deals with the manner in which   anonymous  donations are dealt with  and  103F  places obligations on the transmitter of the funds.   so if this transmitter  is a fictional creature a trust which is not  locatable or identifiable  does that mean that this obligation is  not enforced ?

Once again the   legislation has an intention of accountability  and   there is a penalty on the transmitter if they  conceal the identity of the donor  103 G     so why does a fictional creature provide an opportunity  to  avoid accountability ?  surely there must be an address for the New Auckland council trust, surely it must have had a bank account and some real living person must have  undertaken the transactions. .. or have computers   developed a life of their own  and knew exactly who to give the money to.

Then there is section 103 H   which places the  obligation on the  administrator of the  candidates  affairs..  (  the  person doing this for  Len  would have been busy .. couldn’t resist )  Now If I was a betting person I would  put money on the fact that   the new Auckland council trust is run by the  committee for  Auckland  who do so well out of council and nearly every member holds a contract.. ell worth  belonging to such a  powerful group.. all funded by the rate payers.

Once again there is an offence 103 I   for  the   administrator  of candidates affair for  failing to disclose   who the contributor  is    but   again this is not a section  which has ever been enforced .

Then there is good all 103 J    which    states that Anonymous donation may not exceed $1,500  and  the  excess needs to be handed over within 20 days . So  in the end   I think that if  Len can’t   identify the persons who  gave him the money in the past two  elections   he   is just going to have to give it  to the  general fund but since he is out of time  he needs to be prosecuted.
A A candidate who contravenes section 103J(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.finally we get to  103l  Records of electoral donations1) A candidate must keep proper records of all donations received by him or her.

(2) A candidate who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.

So what is proper about putting a fictional body into the  return?so Sorry Len  its time to face the music  perhaps  this time    some  on will  make the proper investigations  and   you will be prosecuted   by the Police   and the   private prosecution service  can take a break .
lets see if the electoral officer  can investigate   and pass it on to the police  or will this be condoned?

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 12:14 p.m.
To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’;; ‘David Neutze’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’

Subject: Request for investigation into the conduct of David Neutze.

 attachments   brookfields submissons 

response to submissions in opposition brookfields final

Good  morning   Howard

 I  see that your specialty is  trusts  as such I am directing this to you and as Chairman – Brookfields’ Board for investigation

  I have copied in  senior partners for the interest of transparency  and out of their concern of the ethics of  their law firm .

 It would appear that David Neutze  does not  know   the first thing about trusts   and  has taken 7 ½ years of legal action   for and on behalf of a fiction   so that  a very public   fraud can be concealed.

 I note just recently  that David  did not  notice that an email  sent in  2012  was over a year old  and not sent last month , I also believe that he  signs many documents without reading them or  properly comprehending he significance of their content.

 He has signed the papers involved in this  litigation and allowed    the matter to progress , he stood by while his legal executive at the time, Vivienne Parre used intimidation tactics  to coerce a solution . Then David signed the statement of claim  and avoided discovery  knowing  that there was no evidence to support his claims.  He  relied on a trust deed   which  had long expired to   claim legal standing for three people  who were not together named on that deed in the  first place.    Identity fraud 101 and total  neglect of  professional duty .

 I believed it to be  against the rules for lawyers to use their office   for fraudulent purposes and would have thought  that  if evidence came their way to  place doubt on  their clients standing  that the  lawyer  should act in the interest of justice  due to his role as an officer of the court . But David Neutze ploughs on   the won’t let  a truck load of evidence  against his clients stand in the way always looking for some clever  loophole in the rules  to use to his advantage .

 He  even makes submissions to the court  which were  unsupported by affidavit  and seek to explain his bad accounting as attached above .

 He has effectively used the court to pervert the course of justice , this is a total abuse of the  process of the court and now he is using  the scorched earth policy to   put me out of business   effectively killing the company so that it  cannot fight back and he is doing this under the Brookfields banner.

 I  have taken the liberty of providing you with the  evidence   which I have put the court  a number of times  and which  Neutze is attempting   ignore   You don’t have to be a lawyer to work out  that the trust is a sham   all you need is  basic logic  abilities and the ability to read.

 I have   put live links in for your assistance  this is a summary of the  evidence.( there is a whole lot more  )  by way of background  I have put together s short video  which   shows the corruption  which this is being used to conceal The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

1.       Paragraph 15 the respondents  essentially challenge evidence in the substantive decision , they refer  to the audit reportas  though it can be relied upon in  isolation for proof,  the evidence has  at all times been clear that audit reporthas to be read in conjunction  with other documents   e.g

a.       Meetings of the trust – The audit report  shows that there were 4 meetings  between  1.3.2000  and August 2008 Page 508 audit report when the audit was conducted

                                                                                                           i.      The documents sent to the law society by Mr. Wells are minutes of three meetings one of which referred to a fourth meeting. The dates of these meetings were 10 May 2006, 14 July 2006, 14 August .2006. The minutes of 10 May 2006 referred to the earlier meeting in June 2004. This accounts for all four meetings and gives us insight into the “trust”   between 1.3.2000 and   august 2008.

                                                                                                          ii.      The audit reportrecorded that only one meeting minute was signed Page 508audit report and noted that at that meeting a quorum was not present.  The minutes minutes  10/5/2006Page 230 record that the previous minutes were signed, None of the  minutes which  we   had copies for were signed , this indicates using nothing but logic that the earlier meeting was not attended by a quorum and was   in June 2004.minutes  10/5/2006

                                                                                                        iii.      We know therefore that there were no meetings prior to June 2004 .The trust deed  1.3.2000  states that the trust shall meet no less than 4 times per year Page 113 and those trustees are appointed for 3 years Page 110 trust deed  1.3.2000  after which time they are eligible for re appointment subject to conditions.  The deed was signed trust deed  1.3.2000  1.3.2000 Page 107 which means that using basic Math’s the trustees needed to be reappointed by 1.3.2003 for the trust to continue to exist.

                                                                                                        iv.      Tom Didovich in his affidavitDidovich affidavitpage 316  states that he drove to each trustee to obtain their signatures which he then witnessed, therefore the trustees never met at the  time  of signing the deed and as the  first recorded   meeting was in June 2004 Page 230   minutes  10/5/2006which was outside the three year appointment time frame and therefore  there were no trustees. QED

b.       Bank accounts – The evidence regarding the bank accounts  did not come entirely from  the audit report although reference to it being set up in 2005   was made on page 509 this is confirmed by  Mr. Wells own Affidavit paragraph 37 page 325 and the letter  in which he solicited the  funds from  the lord Dowding  fund page 220. Further my  investigations with the bank in 2007  showed that there was no trust deed associated  with the account , the  minutes  10/5/2006page231 required the “ committee” to  complete the national bank form  using nothing but logic  it follows that if no meetings with a quorum present between 2000 and 2006 there could not have been a resolution to open  bank accounts .   QED

c.        Appointment of agents –  there  were no meeting prior to   June 2004 minutes  10/5/2006 & audit report and the 2004 meeting did not have a quorumaudit report therefore the trust could not have appointed someone to act for them as such an act would have required a valid resolution according to the deed QED

d.       Application  for approved status – The  audit reports parameters where  such that   the application process was outside its scopeaudit report  and the fact  that the trust  did not  make the application is derived from the common sense logical business practice which requires applicants to exist  before they make an application  the trust was formed 1.3.2000 trust deed  1.3.2000   the application application 22.11.1999  was made 22 November 1999, the trust  did not  exist on  that date  and could not have made the application  .  QED

e.       Trading in the movie industry – the original trust    never met , never appointed any one   to represent them , ceased to exist   1.3.2003, did not have bank accounts  could therefore not have employed any one, the minutes Page 231 minutes  10/5/2006 shows that a movie was  currently being worked on, how could this occur  through the trust without meetings  or resolutions. The trust therefore  did not    work in the movie industry the trust ceased to exist  2003 without having conducted business or holding assets.  .  QED 

f.         Contracts – trusts need to meet to discuss and resolve to enter into agreements , contracts need to be signed by two persons, quite clearly  the trust did not meet prior to  1.3.2003   and  the trust  ceased to exist    the only document which was ever signed was the trust deed  1.3.2000 . Therefore the trust did not  enter into any contracts  QED  

It  therefore follows that a trust  which never  met , never  decided on any thing ,  ever held  trust assets  and  had no  reappointment of trustees  could not have jumped a vacuum  and   materialised into  reality  some 6 years later through nothing more than an unsigned bit of paper.   If this is allowable  for trust  it sets a very dangerous precedent

I have proved this by obtaining the  evidence  which was deliberately withheld  by  Brookfields clients. In particular former Barrister Neil Wells  

Despite this  Mr Neutze is continuing to liquidate my company.. this is  the fourth attempt I think   despite a full offer of payment being made in the event of Justice Brewer  coming  back with a decision a against  me.

 Mr Neutze  rightfully points out  that Verisure is not a party to  the appeal  this is because after paying out $ 200,000  to Brookfields  we don’t have the financial capacity to    pay lawyers.

 Last year  the  company was liquidated on a false affidavit, the document  server still can’t be found  but despite this Mr Neutze continues to use the same  unreliable  document service  company  Translegal , this to me  shows    that Mr  Neutze approves of their  service.

 As a former police  prosecutor I  was under the misconception that the court should only  be used for a legitimate process not  for  the bad guys to use it  to beat the good guys to pulp . If lawyers acted according to the rules and to their   act this would not be possible.

 I note today that   Judith Collins is tackling the  delay in judgements, these delays have been used by Brookfields to  push up   interest  costs  and  to enforce liquidation  while they are aware that their client is using the court to pervert the course of justice .

 I will be sending a copy of this  email to Judith Collins  so that she can be aware of    the manner in which lawyers undermine the justice system.

 I have  attempted to keep you the  directors informed  and you have  stood by and  allowed it to continue I am asking you again to investigate and  also o putting Brookfields on notice that  when I win.. and I will win   I will be  suing for damages  through the  professional neglect  of your  lawyers and the  massive damage that you have done to me , my family  and my company.

 I  expect to be ignored by you gain as  has been the trend  so I will be publishing this   letter on  so that there is a public record of   this  complaint


Grace Haden



     Because truth matters