AWINZ

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

DENY

ATTACK

REVERSE

VICTIM

AND OFFENDER

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?

Yeh !!!elephant in the room  we have  news papers  speaking out and supporting whistle blowing  see the dominion  article  here

I have  posted the following on the site  and   hold my breath if the  new paper will do anything with it  or  if it too will  demonstrate  that  they were but empty words .

my   comments which are awaiting   moderation are  as follows .

I am a licensed private Investigator. Some years ago a dog control officer came to me with concerns that she was required  to volunteer her council paid time to carry out animal welfare duties.

 Animal welfare is the responsibility of central government it is performed through the RNZSPCA.  At that time there was a second private law enforcement authority the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )

 AWINZ operated from the Waitakere city council   dog control premises, used the council staff, vehicles plant and resources.  I was asked to find out who or what AWINZ was and discovered that it  did not exist beyond the   dog control manager who  was a barrister and had both advised on and  written the bill for the legislation  which had facilitated a  fraudulent application by him  for   law enforcements.

He had made false claims to the minister bout AWINZ existence when in reality it was nothing more than a pseudonym for  himself. He  later went on to effectively   contract to himself as  manager  of dog control contracting  to the pseudonym.

 As a whistle-blower I have been done ” like a dogs dinner ” pardon the pun.

 It has been covered up at every level of government.

 It is proof that Councillors have no influence or say as to what goes on in council divisions and these divisions are able to take on a life of their own including the use of public resources for private pecuniary gain. That is  more than  likely why our rate are so high.

 Fines under the animal welfare act are up to $350,000   and section 171 of the act allows the money to be returned to the  approved  organization ( the law enforcement authority section 121 AW act )  .

 MAF had not checked the existence of AWINZ  and neither did the minister  therefore it is much easier to shoot the messenger

 The neglect of MAF and council has cost me well over $300,000 and 7 1/2 years of my life. They continue to  cover up , if they cover this up what  else are they hiding ? and how responsible are they really ?”

I am keeping my fingers crossed that  the  dominion may  do some whistle-blowing   on the whistle blowers  issue .  I do note that they have an other item ” Justice hacker sparks police probe”   so who knows  perhaps times are a changing.

ve a long history of shooting whistleblowers I have a ton of evidence but no one supports whistleblowers will you ?

 

Open letter to the  Solicitor General

I remember  doing criminology in my younger days    and the age old question was   what  makes a person become a criminal.

Well I have finally worked it  out.. you become a criminal because  of your status in society, who you know  and what strings you can pull can make the difference to being charged or not.  If you are not  charged  then you wont become a criminal . If you destroy evidence then you will also get away with your crimes as will   the simple trick of getting in first and  taking the  whistle blower to court on  fake claims.

There are many  would be criminals out there  who are fortunate enough to have the right connections or know the right  methodology to  keep themselves out of the spot light, they live on to  rip others off while the unsuspecting  appease the statistics to show that  they system is working.

Again the  matter of the  unfortunate school teacher Tracy Gwendoline Hibberd has made headlines  see here  , I have referred to her previously  in this post .

She   obviously does not know people in influence as she has  ended up in jail for  having  been placed in possession of a  forged  document  which is not even a degree.

YET  there are two  far worse   cases running free   they are as  follows.

Neil Wells  the former head of the RNZSPCA  is not even in the firing line for  having  written legislation for his own business plan then advising on this very legislation  as independent  adviser to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest    and then  making an application  under the legislation which he had written  for approved status   using a pseudonym   and making  false claims to MAF and the minister that and organisation existed  when in reality it was just himself.

HE OBTAINED LAW COERCIVE  ENFORCEMENT POWERS FOR A FICTIONAL ORGANISATION  WHICH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN HIMSELF

Wells ran  this law enforcement   authority which lacked any   formal structure and was just  a pseudonym for himself , from  Waitakere city council premises ,where he was   dog control manager  had had set the staff up to  volunteer their time to himself  and they were required  to prioritize their  council paid time to   his fictitious organization  while using the councils resources and infrastructure .  Wells  personally ran a bank account in the name of the  fictitious organization  AWINZ ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand)  so when a doc control officer   found an animal   suffering  they would report it to their boss  Neil wells , He would  hand the complaint on to the head of the fictional AWINZ.. Neil wells ..  He would pass it on the the Barrister..Neil wells  and  by  virtue of the legislation  which Neil Wells had heavily contributed to  , the proceeds of prosecution would be returned to  the fictional AWINZ   by virtue of section 171   for which Neil Wells  was  the  only account signatory  . – effectively he single handedly ran a private RNZSPCA  which was all income and no outgoings.

HE USED PUBLIC ASSETS FOR PRIVATE PECUNIARY GAIN

HE MISLED MAF AS TO THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF AWINZ

The  united nations convention agaisnt corruption calls  this action  public office for private pecuniary gain.  It is frowned upon and is even  illegal  in  99% of the world  but in Good old corruption free NZ  it is   condoned. I know it is condoned  because I have spent 7 years banging my head agaisnt every  government department, there is not a Councillor  , a minister  or  head of department   who has not  hears about  this from me. not one  has acted  proactively

Another   person who is not a criminal  is Terry Hay, BECAUSE I BELIEVE  ON  WHAT I HAVE HEARD THAT HE MANAGED TO BUY HIS WAY  OUT OF THE CHARGES WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COURT. 

Terry Hay is a partner of  David Nathan  of  Auckland chamber of commerce  fame.

Terry Hay   was charged with  a number of charges of fraud   by the ministry of  economic developments  national enforcement unit   the charges are here

He had created a fictional  liquidator and director to  avoid paying lawyers bill .  His associate Lyn Pryor was convicted    and  received a slap across the and with a wet dish rag  the news items are    Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Hay  absconded and lived in Honolulu  he then attempted to bribe his way back in to the country the NEU refused and told him to   front the judge , the NEU was wound up  the charges were dropped and  Hay is back in the country .

I have made an official information act request  which is   being conveniently ignored

so in summary

It is not  a criminal act to  make an application for law enforcement powers using a  non existent organization . therefore telling lies to the minister  and   to  MAF  is OK   and to  tell lies to the court to cover this  up is OK ( I have prepared a perjury file  but  no one is willing to prosecute .. I am a former police prosecutor  I know   that the  claims   were supported )

It is  apparently  not a criminal act to  create a fictional  liquidator or director  or to use a false address  for a shareholder , therefore  telling lies to   the ministry of economic developments is OK .. having plenty of money  and good connections   allows you to get away with the crime without having to face court.

BUT   it is apparently a crime  for an early child hood teacher  to have  a false degree which was issued from a private teaching establishment.

Dyslexia fraud defence

Why  is there such disparity in prosecutions  isn’t a crime a crime.. shouldn’t all  three  be free  or all three  be in jail ?

And if   any one is concerned about  a  a  Kindy teacher not having a qualification  perhaps  some one should  ask Judge Wade to show  his law degree. ( I have it on good authority  that  he has  not sat  one.)

 

I am a licenced Private Investigator and former police officer. I was approached in early 2006 by a Waitakere city council dog and stock control officer who was concerned that she had to volunteer her council paid time to an organisation called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ).

There was only one person visible in the running of AWINZ in March 2006 and this was Neil Wells the council dog control manager. I proved conclusively that there was no legal person named AWINZ and asked questions by way of OIA and LGOIMA of both Waitakere city council and MAF.

AWINZ was one of two approved organisation in New Zealand, (section 121 Animal welfare act) which gave it   coercive law enforcement powers, the other is the RNZSPCA. The statutory powers are search, seizure of animals and the ability to prosecute. The offences under the Animal welfare act are strict liability offences and the fines by virtue of section 171 are payable to the approved organisation taking the prosecution. Fines can be up to $350,000 for corporates.

I uncovered two forms of corruption which I have found impossible to report.

  1. State capture: defined as the efforts of persons/firms to shape the institutional environment in which they operate.[i]
  2. Public office for private pecuniary gain

I have collated many volumes of documents and have prepared an extensive chronology from which the following picture emerges.  This chronology is available on line[ii]. In summary

State capture

In 1992 the National Government consulted on new animal Welfare legislation resolving that there was a need for a new act. Neil Wells, barrister specialising in animal welfare and former RNZSPCA chief is aware of this intention and trials a private enterprise to be incorporated into the new legislation which he volunteers to write.

In 1994 Mr Wells approaches Waitakere city council to work with the dog control division and test the synergies of combining animal welfare with dog control. Wells has a working relationship with David Bayvel and  Barry O’Neil   from MAF through  animal welfare advisory committees and is  given  consent  for  a 6 month pilot programme in  anticipation of the new legislation, this   pilot programme was to last for  nearly  five years.

To facilitate the programme the dog control officers are trained by Wells, paid for out of the public purse through the Council dog control division By Tom Didovich the council manager. Wells sees the success of the pilot and plans to take this concept nationwide. He develops a business plan for   territorial animal welfare services and approaches nearly every council in the country to engage his services of training and facilitation of the concept.

The No 1 Animal Welfare Bill is written By Neil Wells to facilitate his private business venture; however there are objections to territorial authorities becoming involved in animal welfare and this is deemed ultra vires.

A second bill is introduced and the two bills are read together, Neil Wells is employed by the select committee as “independent advisor “No documents have been found which record his conflict of interest. During this time he works on plans to circumvent the intention of the legislation so that his business plan can be facilitated, he does this through the concept of a trust.

The Waitakere city council dog division pays for the trust to be set up, potential trustees are recruited and a draft deed which includes the council is prepared. MAF is consulted as to the requirements for approved organisations before the bill is even passed and Wells calls on the ministers and MAF on and off the record in an attempt to fast track approval.

In a parallel move Wells works with Unitec and becomes an employee lecturing in animal welfare subjects prerequisite to appointment as Inspectors under the new legislation.  Unitec becomes accredited and by default wins the contract, Neil Wells is paid for facilitating these lectures.

As soon as the bill passed its last reading, but before the act became Law, Wells makes an application for approved status for AWINZ stating that it existed as a charitable trust established by deed and is in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act, he attaches an unsigned trust deed for a group of people who he had recruited 1998 at the councils expense. Evidence proves that the application was manifestly false and no trust deed existed at the time and   no trust deed was ever registered under the charitable trust act. The financial reports and other vital   statements in the application were also untrue.

Registration under the charitable trust act has the effect of shifting liability from individual trustees to the body corporate. Wells was aware of this and also the process of registering a trust as he had registered two other trusts in 1999. With no named persons having signed the application there were effectively no persons who had applied to become” approved”.

During the application process Wells was asked a number of times to produce a deed he avoided this by misleading he minister and gave repeated assurances that the trust was being incorporated even claiming that the papers had been sent for registration despite this neither MAF nor the minister saw a trust deed until 2006 when I raised questions with regards to AWINZ existence.  A trust deed dated 1.3.2000 was to emerge in 2006, but the evidence was that these persons were not involved in the application or the running of the approved organisation; they did not even meet according to the trust deeds provisions. It further transpired that MAF had a different copy to the deed than I had been supplied with.

While MAF expects the arrangements for AWINZ to be with Waitakere city council, the reality is that the council is left out of the loop, Wells avoids the council solicitor and obtains legal opinions, into which he appears to have had significant personal input, from Kennington swan. These legal opinions trump those of the crown law office which have been made available to Wells. MAF opposes the application stating to the minister that they cannot recommend that he approves something which is not legitimate.

While MAF had been extremely helpful for Wells they now take the view that AWINZ should not be approved, again Wells meets with high ranking officials and with the minister.  The secretary of the labour party Bob Harvey I consulted and    despite opposition from both MAF and treasury the papers are sent to caucus and are eventually approved by the minister.

Wells signs two MOU’s One with Tom Didovich who thought the application process represented both Waitakere council and North Shore council, and the other with MAF. (Didovich later emerges as a “trustee” in an attempt to cover up the lack of  the existence of a trust.

Public office for private pecuniary gain

In 2005 Didovich leaves council and Wells takes over his position now becoming both parties to the MOU which had been signed to provide the council staff free of charge to   AWINZ.

Wells is now in a situation where he is the manager of the council dog control, contracting to AWINZ of which he is the only representative.  The council staff  vehicles and resources are his private disposal , MAF record in a 2008 audit “it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC “additionally Wells rebrands the council and AWINZ so that their logos are in principle identical.

In his application to MAF, Wells had stated that AWINZ were intent on taking over the council facilities, in essence he had done so, he was in paid employment and as much as 40% of the work was animal welfare which was prioritised over the council work, the income through prosecutions went back to AWINZ and the only person to operate the bank account for AWINZ was Neil Wells. AWINZ was a parasite off council.

Questions to Council, Minister and MAF

It transpires that over the years when I have raised questions with the minister, council and MAF that Mr Wells has had input into replying to these questions. There is much evidence that he was advised By MAF each time I made an official information act request and had control over the information released to me.

A graphic example is in the questions which were raised in parliament; these questions were answered in a similar manner as the evidence which Wells gave before the court. Subsequently obtained evidence proves that the minister was misled in the written reply.[iii]

The very same MAF officials who were involved in assisting Wells were responsible for the release of information, they were also involved in an investigation against me   which  saw me warned for allegedly  passing myself of as a MAF officer so that my credibility was at risk, as it transpired the persons involved in that matter have now been convicted for fraud and despite no evidence  I was warned yet MAF could not investigate a fictional organisation with law enforcement powers, this illustrates to me the total incompetence of MAF.

It has been nearly 7 years since I asked Questions with regards to AWINZ. MAF has been extremely negligent in their dealing with this matter, full investigation into the legal existence of AWINZ would have resolved the matter years ago. A few enquiries with the so called trustees would have flushed out the truth.  This is worse than a person using someone else’s Identity. This is a private law enforcement authority which did not have legal existence. A fiction was given coercive law enforcement powers.

The price I have had to pay for questioning corruption is far too high.  I urgently seek assistance in a ministerial enquiry into why MAF and the council failed to conduct proper investigation or even liaise with each other as to the facts.

This has cost me well in excess of $300,000, had material impact on my business and proves that here in the Perceived least corrupt country in the world we maintain our status by allowing whistle-blowers to be abused.    Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability.    I am looking for accountability. The price of questioning corruption in New Zealand is far too high.

 

Grace Haden



[i] http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/7/745/papers/Hellman.pdf

[ii] http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf

[iii] http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/11/01/ministers-misinformed-by-maf/

After a very lone battle  on my own for the past 6 years  the  society for promotion of community standards has  come to my aid .

I received a call from them   recently, they  had spoken to Neil wells and after speaking  with him believed that I was the bad  guy.

However  they took time to listen  and saw that  I was not seeking to be vexatious  but was  questioning very real corruption and was  able to supply  them not only with answers  to their  questions  but also hard evidence which supported my claims.

As a result of their  independent investigation they have posted  four items on their blog

AWINZ – registered charity – loses “approved organisation” status. Trust Deed subject of fraud allegations

AWINZ – a registered “animal welfare” charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

AWINZ – The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand – an unincorporated trust under investigation

Inquiry into The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) – unincorporated charitable trust & registered charity

I had all but  give up hope that any one in new Zealand cared about  corruption .  Thank you to the team at Society for Promotion of Community Standards inc  for your  independent investigation .

http://www.spcs.org.nz/

Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2012 1:15 p.m.
To: ‘m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz'; c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz'; j.key@ministers.govt.nz; ‘c.tremain@ministers.govt.nz'; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz
Cc: ‘metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘david.clendon@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘eugenie.sage@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘jan.logie@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘julieanne.genter@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘steffan.browning@parliament.govt.nz'; mojo.mathers@parliament.govt.nz; david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz; ‘maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘sua.william.sio@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz'; annette.king@parliament.govt.nz; damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz; ‘ruth.dyson@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz'; info@winstonpeters.com
Subject: Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers

Open letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs  ,minister of Justice, internal affairs, local government, primary industries  and the attorney general

Thank you  to both   attorney general and the  ministers for  justice for your responses over the past few months,  Your replies have been posted on my blog http://www.anticorruption.co.nz   in the interest of transparency.

I keep writing in the hope that one day one minister may  say   Hang on this is  not the way it should be .” we need to be more proactive against corruption and  support whistleblowers “   But I know that I am again wasting my time   because no one is  interested in corruption prevention  because we are so well protected  against corruption by ignorance.

I wish to make it clear that I am not asking for anyone  to intervene in my matter being the   alleged defamation  which is a separate issue from the issue  where  I have  for the past 7 years tried  but failed to  report serious public corruption.

My defamation case would however be a  good case study  of the difficulties  that whistle blowers face in New Zealand and the inability to report corruption  when the  corrupt  get in first and use the courts in abuse of process through civil proceedings. This has  historically happened in courts overseas  and we do not have immunity.

We learn from  things that have happened   and  this  case which I have been involved in is a great example of  how  gross corruption occurs in new zeal and can continue to occur,  it if facilitated by  incompetence, ignorance and complacency .  If you do not choose to learn from the examples  then the door  is open for more corruption to  flourish along the same lines.

In using  the  court to conceal  corruption  makes  the corruption   acceptable.  Our court  system   does not have any safeguards in it  which prevent it being used to conceal corruption  and every time you use the word corruption the court comes down harder on you   and the authorities back off more.

I repeatedly hear that we do not  have a corruption  problem in New Zealand  because the statistics say so ,  again  there is  huge ignorance   in the fact that this is only a perception index  and when we   actively  seek to silence and ignore whistle-blowers  and stand by while that have their  lives destroyed    we are giving a loud and  clear message to the next person.  Keep Quite or you will be next.

And so  Corruption  flourishes in silence.  Any one hearing  of my 7  year battle  the  manner my family has been destroyed and the repeated attempts and bankrupting and liquidating me  , won’t take long take much convincing that they need to walk away and say none of my business.

So corruption flourishes   and  everyone is too scared to say “ but isn’t that corrupt “ .. bit like the emperor’s new clothes.

The reason I wrote to the  minister of justice and the attorney General is that  the courts  need to be educated with regards to  corruption .

How can anyone stand by and defend a  “ justice system”  in which  a whistle-blower is  taken to the cleaners   in a case where the plaintiffs

  1.  did not produce   one  shred of evidence to support the statement of claim
  2. did not produce a single  document alleging the  defamatory comments showing  them in context or by whom they were made and who to .
  3. were able to manipulate proceedings so as to denied the defence of truth and honest opinion  or any consideration of truth and honest opinion to the defendants.
  4. Were able to skip the  a formal proof hearing and go straight to quantum –  effectively sentencing  the defendants without  first obtaining a verdict.
  5. Block all avenues for appeal  because the high court judges looked at the  large decision of the district court judge and assumed  that all matters had been well considered.

When I took the matter back to court with proof that the  judgment was obtained by deception and lies to  the court, I found that there was nothing that stopped the enforcement of the judgement  and the process of bankrupting and liquidating me  was faster than   and  steps available for resolution

The process of overturning a Judgement obtained by fraud is a lengthy one, the  path to bankruptcy  and liquidation is swift and  the judges  just focus on the fact that at that time the judgement stands.

I have only just been  given a hearing date for the LCRO  which is nearly a year and a half after I  reported the matter to them .

The Auckland  Law Society  was most ineffective in dealing with the matter  and  accepted documents  which  were produced specifically for them   so as to address the  gaps in the case.

I have tried everything over the years and found that I have been shoved from one department to the next  only to  be shoved back again   No one  wants to deal  with the actual issue  which is  that  the minister of agriculture gave law enforcement authority to a fictitious organisation   which was then able to operate  from a local authority so as to  allow the author and advisor of the  legislation which facilitated   the law enforcement powers , to  make a pecuniary gain  which was solely within his control.

Internationally these forms of corruption are acknowledged as   State capture and  Public office for private pecuniary gain. In New Zealand we call it LEGAL  and   government departments and ministers alike stand by  and allow  whistle-blowers to be  annihilated   there by condoning the corruption   and telling the  Whistleblower “ it’s your problem  we don’t want to know. “

Had I been able to go to the register of  incorporated societies and found that AWINZ ( animal welfare institute of New Zealand )   was  registered  there would not have been a problem.

But I asked why it was not registered  when  there was correspondence  to the minister of agriculture which  said that it was   and the minister acted upon that information as being true when it was not.

So telling lies to the minister  and to  the ministry of agriculture is OK   .. totally condoned.. that  has been proved over and over again.

But pointing  it out  is  a sin  and for that you have to be bankrupted.

To top it off   The barrister at the centre of this  can then   set up  a charity and use charitable funds to sue the whistle blower.   Using the funds which  he raised while using the council logo on his  donation requests.

If we could all bed the rules  like he   has been allowed to do  no one would ever be  found guilty of anything, because retrospective creation of documents and  organisations is apparently also condoned.

A law degree does not make someone  honest and when someone can rely  on his or her status as an officer of the court   to circumvent  justice  then we have to take a closer look at  the type of justice we offer.

I can only assume form your replies that  you are condoning what has happened  and that what you are saying is that any citizen  who dares to question corruption does so at their own risk.

I can see now  why it is the ministry of foreign affairs and trade  that deals with corruption,   it has to be in the interest of business in New Zealand that we pretend that we  are corruption free. I regret pointing out corruption    I have more than paid the price for it .

As a former Police sergeant I was naïve  enough  to think that   by raising the fact with the  council that there was  an  organisation  leaching off its  resources that   it would have investigated  rather than cover up  which it did .. but it all makes  sense  when this person   taking this action is a long-time associate of the then  mayor  and  that this same  city was riddled with similar scams

So with corruption that big  I guess it is   much better to  keep the lid on it and  protect  this false image which we have worked so hard for.

I was also  apparently naive  when  I thought that MAF  would take its responsibility seriously of supervising a law  enforcement authority  under its   control , and  it has to be significant that in the   10  years that this law enforcement authority   called  the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  had its coercive law enforcement  powers of search and seizure and the ability to retain  fines of up to $350,000  , no one know who it was  , who controlled it     and  no one had even checked to see if it existed,  which it did not.

The person who wrote the legislation was able to  tell them whatever they wanted to hear  and  they simply accepted   what he said, so much so that when he told them to withhold vital documents from me  they obliged. It makes you  wonder    if the tail is in reality  wagging the dog.

This is now into its 7th year .   No one  has ever independently investigated the matter    until recently when   The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. [SPCS] undertook a detailed investigation into the use of charitable funds  for   private benefit by a trust which was created as a cover up for the fictional law enforcement organisation.

There are many lessons to be learnt  from this  matter,  it appears that Mr Wells can break every law in the country because he is a barrister   and I am the one  who gets done for pointing out that  he is doing so. Being a barrister  gives him protection  being a  private Investigator  gives me none.

This  would have been a perfect public fraud, no one knows how much  has been  defrauded from the public  but because I cannot find some magic figure   the SFO and police all say  it’s not worth dealing with

What I have proved  is that  most have not got the slightest idea of how to deal with trusts  and those who wish to mislead   can do  anything by pretending that they  have a trust.

The public  rely on The various government departments to  act in the best interest of the public  but with ignorance, complacency and trust in the wrong people this cannot be achieved.

In the end   it doesn’t matter we will just aske everyone to dig deeper in their pockets

My question to each one you the ministers is   what  is your   ministry doing about  corruption and  anti-corruption  measures.. will you continue to turn a blind eye?

 

Regards

Grace Haden

The following is an email exchange I have had  with  the ministry of primary  industries  who have proved to be as incompetent as MAF

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 25 June 2012 4:09 p.m.
To: mark.fisher@MPI.govt.nz
Subject: AWINZ

Good afternoon Mark

I have received the trust deeds  which you  sent through.  Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner   I was  fighting off  liquidation.

On Thursday night   Wells and co, came up with a further demand of $48,000  served on  me  at 4 pm  demanded payment  by 10 am the next day.

I would   by way of OIA   like to have all documents   notes  or jottings which in any way considered  how   the application    made on 22  November 1999 could have been made by the trust  whose documents you  supplied me with.  The deed dated 1 march 2000.

Chronology is a funny thing  and  normally   a trust needs to be formed  before it  can make an application.  In an unincorporated trust   people cannot act  for the other trustees unless there is specific consent    because  each trustee  has liability in their  personal capacity.

And so  without consent  from the   three alleged  future trustees  how could Neil wells have made an application  ?  he did not do it in their names, he  did it in a name  which the   as yet not established trust was   going to adopt… as an aside  How did he know what the trusts name was going to be  when this is generally decided by the trustees…?

Could you please by way of OIA  provide copies of any or all legislation which was  considered that would enable  a trust which does not yet exist to make an application  when the   alleged trustees have  not met recently  and the structure of the trust had changed since their  one and only meeting.

Could you also please by way of OIA  provide  documents which show  that   a legal opinion was   ever sought on this aspect.. I realise that you cannot provide me with the legal advice  if you    did get some.

I also note that the  copy  of  the trust deed you sent me is different  to the deed I was sent in  June 2006 by the lawyers  for wells  cuts and Hoadley  .

I  note that the bottom of the pages of the deed  you sent me  have not been signed ,apart from page  1  and the  last two .

It would appear that you have been given a bundle of trust  documents   and then  a few pages of  signatures  ..  could you please   provide any   documents which show that  a   legal opinion  was sought on the    fact that the  signed  copy of the deed which I have  and the  copy of the deed  which you have  are in fact  different and the implications of the  difference.

Just having a quick look.. there are numbers missing from   the  signed copy  which are on the copy  you  supplied   also     just  looking through it quickly I note that  14.1.(e)    exists in your copy and not in mine. And there is also   an extra  item under   14.1.  provided always…..

Clause 14 is    important in particular in that    clause 16 makes special mention that there can be no alteration to be  made to  clause 14  without the approval of the IRD.  Yet here  I have a signed copy   which    is different to the unsigned copy you have.

What do I have to do   what lengths do I have to go to  to prove that Mr Wells has been less than honest with you?  

I would very much appreciate it if  you were to  speak to a trust lawyer about these documents  and the issues I have raised   also the implications that the trust did not meet   when the deed states that    they shall meet no less than 4 times per year .. mind you that is  again an aside    because I cannot see any legal    way in which AWINZ the approved organisation could have been  a trust.

Further    in view of the  AWINZ meeting notes       could you ask  the solicitor you consult    as to appointment of trustees  of   charitable trusts which are not registered,  they should point you to   section 4  charitable trust act 1957  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0018/latest/DLM309915.html

It is simply wrong that people  can tell lies to the ministry and the minister  and  that I get to pay such a huge price for it. This was  after all a law enforcement authority     it is worse than John Davies  but  it is apparently condoned.

MAF has been very negligent in dealing  with a trust  they actually had no idea what they were doing  and allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes at my expense.

I appreciate your assistance Mark   I am sorry but I will not  give up until MAF  has  fully investigated the lies  they have been told By wells.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

*******************************************

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 1:23 p.m.
To: Mark Fisher
Subject: AWINZ

Good afternoon Mark

I have not heard back from you since I wrote the email below.

I was wondering if you were actioning anything on it  or if  this has  once again been filed  .

I  do believe that MAF have been grossly negligent  with this matter.   As follows.

They accepted an application   before the  act became law.

  1. The application was not made by the applicant, the applicant did not exist.
  2. The document  was not signed.
  3. It was supported by a blank trust deed.
  4. No one ever asked for evidence from Wells  as to how he represented the applicant and how he was able to speak on its behalf.
  5. None of the alleged trustees were ever contacted and their signatures were not obtained.
  6. Wells   was accepted on his word  and nothing was verified from the councils  which he claimed  he would be contracting to
  7. He gives assurances with regards to   incorporation which transpire to be false.
  8. No one checks.
  9. He gets to write his own caucus papers
  10. He singlehandedly runs a law enforcement authority  and no one   checks this out.
  11. He supplied  a trust deed   other than the alleged signed trust deed.
  12. No one  questions  how a trust can be formed  three months after it  allegedly applies  for law enforcement authority.

Mark this is total negligence on the part of MAF    the application should have been thrown back on day one.

Had Maf dealt with it properly  I would never have been able to ask the question  as to AWINZ existence  and I would now not be forced into selling my house to come up with $200,000 because  I asked the question and was  sued.

Could you please let me know  am I getting the cold shoulder  again or does someone actually care?

********************************************************

From: Mark Fisher [mailto:Mark.Fisher@mpi.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012 3:16 p.m.
To: Grace
Subject: RE: AWINZ

Grace

Thank you for the email. I will not respond to the points you have raised other than to inform you that the allegations against MAF are absolutely refuted.

A response to your earlier request has been drafted and is in the post.

Mark

***************************************

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012 6:07 p.m.
To: ‘Mark Fisher'; ‘andrew.coleman@mpi.govt.nz'; ‘roger.smith@mpi.govt.nz’
Cc: d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; info@winstonpeters.com; ‘pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz'; j.key@ministers.govt.nz; ‘ti@transparency.org’
Subject: MAFgave law enforcement authority to a non existent organization now they cover up.

Thank you   for your reply Mark  I have copied in your  superiors  as they all need to know the  significance of this  incompetence  and now through your  statement  that you refute  the  allegations.. continued  incompetence.

When something is refuted  it is normally done  with evidence  to be fair I have provided the evidence   to support my statements .

If you refute any of the statements  please do  so providing evidence.

Under the official information act   please provide all documentation which you rely on  to prove that  the statement and the reasoning I have applied is  wrong.

I  claim that MAF were negligent  because  normal business practices would advocate due diligence  and there appears that no basic due diligence has been  conducted with regards to the points I have raised

They ( MAF ) accepted an application   before the  act became law.

    1.  The application  was made 22 November 1999  The act became law on 1 January 2000.
    2. 22 November 1999 predates 1 January 2000  

i.      Mr Wells in his evidence  to the court  on page 7 states  “The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .”

ii.      Paragraph 3 of the  MAF letter   to the Minister of Agriculture  clearly states that the date of the application was 22  November 1999

QED

  1. The applicationwas not made by the applicant, the applicant did not exist.
    1. If you consider the  applicant to be the trust   this was established allegedly on  1.march 2000  this is conclusive proof that  the application was not made by them as they had not formed a trust deed  on 22 November 1999 they  formed a trust   allegedly on 1.3.2000
    2. Since this trust was not registered the real name of the trust was   (Name of trustees ) as trustees in the Animal welfare  Institute of New Zealand
    3. We know   that the Animal Welfare Institute  of new Zealand had no legal existence in its own right  i.e. it was not a legal person  capable of  suing or being sued in its own name    prior to 27 April 2006  because  we registered the legal name  and  we could not have done so  if   a body by that name existed.
    4. If no one existed by that name  then   the name  used  was not of the applicant  as the applicant    according to the criteria  it must be possible to verify the legal status of  the  applicant.     The applicant therefore did not exist  

QED

  1. The document  was not signed.
    1. The application  had a cover sheet on it  signed by Neil Wells
    2. The application itself   page 10  was not signed  this copy was  given to me  by MAF as  the  copy of the original application  if you do have a signed document I would very much like to see it as I have been asking for it for years.

i.      The fact that it is not signed is indicated by the large vacant spot  where the signature normally goes.

QED

  1. It was supported by a blank trust deed.
    1. No trust deed   existed at that time, the  trust deed which was provided  was unsigned  and therefore not a trust deed.
    2. MAF acknowledged receipt of that document and referred to looking at  the terms of the deed in this correspondence paragraph 3

QED

  1. No one ever asked for evidence from Wells  as to how he represented the applicant and how he was able to speak on its behalf.
    1. I have searched your files  done   copious OIA requests  no  documents have been  located  or supplied.

i.      If documents exist  I would  like copies of these now    and I will  be seeking an explanation as to why I have previously  been advised   that they do not  exist .

  1. None of the alleged trustees were ever contacted and their signatures were not obtained.
    1. I have searched your files  done   copious OIA requests  no  documents have been  located  or supplied.

i.      If documents exist  I would  like copies of these now    and I will  be seeking an explanation as to why I have previously  been advised   that they do not  exist .

Wells   was accepted on his word  and nothing was verified from the councils  which he claimed  he would be contracting to

    1. a.      “MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work). “

i.            Documents were supplied  by Tom Didovich  the manager  dog and stock control purporting to be acting on behalf of both Waitakere council and North Shore council granting consent on behalf of Councils

  1.  Wells tells MAF  “ AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is In being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.”
  2. Wells tells minister  ““A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”

i.            There is no clause 20 (a) in any of the many version of the deed

ii.             Originals are not sent , Wells knows this

iii.            We now have two copies of the original deed .. so why was the other copy not sent?

  1. Wells is able to  reprimand MAF  and    completes  his own caucus papers
  2. Wells tells MAF to withhold information from me

QED

  1. He gives assurances with regards to   incorporation which transpire to be false.
    1.  Wells tells MAF  “ AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is In being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.”
    2. Wells tells minister  ““A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”

i.            There is no clause 20 (a) in any of the many version of the deed

ii.             Originals are not sent , Wells knows this

iii.            We now have two copies of the original deed .. so why was the other copy not sent?

QED

No one checks.

    1. If someone had checked  then
      1. The application  22 November  would have been rejected   before any time or effort had been spent on it. It would have been rejected because

i.      The applicant did not exist

ii.      It was made before  the act became law

iii.      It was unsigned

iv.      The trust deed was not valid

  1. Had this step  been done properly  I  would not have been able to have asked in 2006  Why does this law enforcement agency not exist ?

i.      I would then not have  been sued

ii.      I would then not have had to endure the  loss of income and the expense which I have been put to

iii.       My marriage may have survived

iv.      My family would  still be together

v.      I would not have  had to have forked out  $125,000  and be facing  further demands for  $73,000 more

QED

  1. He gets to write his own caucus papers
    1. He completes  his own caucus papers  I know  this because this document says so

QED

He singlehandedly runs a law enforcement authority  and no one   checks this out.

  1. No one else is ever seen to be involved   prior to  March 2006  .
    1. A massive cover up commenced in   May 2006     and MAF never questioned   the   fact that the   Governance documents  were missing when they did the audit. Yet Mr wells had governance  documents for the law society.  No one cares that  on right clicking  the law society document  the   properties show that it was created in 2011.

QED

  1. He supplied  a trust deed   other than the alleged signed trust deed.
    1. Trust deed supplied to me by lawyer in June 2006
    2. Trust deed  supplied to me by MAF as being the deed which  they have  on file

i.            Difference is that  a  has all pages signed.   B  only has  first page signed and last pages signed.

ii.            The pages in between are  not  signed  at all and have been inserted afterwards. These are not part of the deed as they have not been agreed to by the trustees.

iii.            The deed is a red herring any way  but MAf wouldn’t be able to work that out.

QED

No one  questions  how a trust can be formed  three months after it  allegedly applies  for law enforcement authority.

  1. As covered  above
    • MAF has been totally incompetent in dealing with tis application   it allowed itself to   digress into argument about   law  and they failed to  check the basics.

QED

I  have documents  which  state that this would be a huge embarrassment to MAF, but so  sometimes when you stuff up   you can say sorry we stuffed up.

You are supposed to be the organisation that cares about animals  but the cruelty that you have inflicted on me through your negligence is huge.

I look forward to  primary industries proving that  they  have integrity.

 

Regards

Grace Haden