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.
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.
In 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.
Cc: ‘email@example.com’; firstname.lastname@example.org; ‘David Neutze’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Subject: Request for investigation into the conduct of David Neutze.
attachments brookfields submissons
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 www.anticorruption.co.nz so that there is a public record of this complaint
Because truth matters
Yeh !!! 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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.)
Good morning. This is addressed to the TCDC councillors and the various persons associated with Wyn Hoadley a copy of this is on http://www.anticorruption.co.nz
We all need to know the people we work with , some of them have a perceived ethical standing and often you need to look beyond this perception to see the real person , that way you know who you are truly dealing with.
For the past 7 years Wyn Hoadley has been suing me to conceal very serious corruption which involves a person writing and advising on legislation for his own business plan, then implementing this plan, using a false name, in a council where he as manager of dog and stock control used the council resources facilities staff and infrastructure to derive a personal income. ( the united nations define this as a form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain ) . In New Zealand it is apparently condones.. that is why your rates are high.. jobs for the boys !
I as a private investigator ( former police prosecuting Sergeant ) asked a simple question from MAF - why does this private law enforcement authority not exist ?
and of Waitakere city council I asked -why the council dog and stock control manager was contracting animal welfare services to himself and prioritising this over council work, he even changed the logos so that his private enterprise and the council operation appeared to be one.
Wyn Hoadley stepped in and not just condoned this corruption she helped conceal it. In 2011 I asked her a number of questions I have raised these again you may be some what surprised with what has come out in the meantime.
This is the truth. I stand by everything I have said I have evidence to support it all this is extreme corruption being condoned by a lawyer , barrister , former Mayor and a TCDC district Councillor and a trustee of other trusts. Please judge her competence on the evidence. ( evidence is hyperlinked and will open in your browser.)
Questions for Wyn Hoadley
For the past 7 years you and your associates have been pursuing me through the court .
I have tried to speak with you on a number of occasions as I believe that discussion is a great basis for resolution , You have never made yourself available and have preferred to continue to take action against me under the guise of AWINZ.
Last year you claimed $16,800 from me without ever advising me that you felt that this sum was payable to you personally , you became a substituted creditor and rather conveniently my company was liquidated when your process server swore a false affidavit.
I have laid a complaint with the police but your process server conveniently cannot be located or properly identified.
I was fortunate enough that the courts recognised it as the wrought that it was and resurrected my company. See the court decision here Court Order Terminating Liquidation
Wyn I cannot understand how someone can be involved in litigation like this for 7 years and remain ignorant of the facts. I have placed many documents before you which have come from MAF direct. It is of concern to me that you as Chairperson of AWINZ have never questioned the evidence which proves that the court action which you took against me in July 2006 was false.
2011 I sent an open letter to you , In it asked you questions, you never responded. I will go through them again and show the answers thought the OIA and law society to some of those questions those which remain unanswered I still seek answers for.
Wyn I look forward to this matter being dealt with, condoning corruption is not a good look and especially not for an elected member of council . I am putting these questions ( some now with answers ) back to you and again ask for resolution it may be an option that your mayor could mediate in a resolution this has gone on for far too long.
Wyn I look forward to answers I am taking the liberty of copying in your fellow councillors and will be publishing this on my anticorruption web site.
- My 2011 question was “What exactly did you join on the 10th May 2006, was there a proper meeting with minutes were other people there or did the date somehow evolve due to Mr Wells completing a form with the charities commission.”
In mid-2012 Neil Wells responds to the law society and in an attempt to justify his story of existence of AWINZ he supplies minutes which according to a MAF audit report were missing in 2008 , Neil is not very computer savvy because his minutes show that they were in fact created in May 2011. Any way that aside the minutes are supposed to be evidence of you appointment as trustee . This might be sufficient evidence for someone not versed with the law but experienced investigators such as myself ask questions being
- Why are the minutes not signed? Could it be that between creating the minutes retrospectively 5 years later and sending it to the law society there simply was no time?
- Why were the minutes lost in the first place when hard copies are supposed to be kept? You according to the concocted records were chairperson for the entire period referred to.
- If the minutes were lost in 2008 due to a computer crash how come we have a copy now? Is this how you run all the trusts you chair?
- The trust deed which was missing in 2000 three weeks after it was allegedly signed was missing in 2006 when you without any visible means became a trustee , How could you become a trustee without any formal acknowledgment to the obligations of the trust and How could you consent to the terms of the trust when you didn’t know what the terms were, (on account of the deed being missing)?
- Is it not true that in reality you did not become a trustee on 10 May 2006 and at the very most you formed an informal arrangement with Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells under a trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
- My 2011 question was How come you have never been able to provide any documents that prove that you were a trustee, If you didn’t sign any papers how did you know you were to become a trustee to a trust, how did you get an obligation to the deed.
This question remains unanswered only you can answer this , This was not just some family trust this allegedly was one of only two private law enforcement authorities in New Zealand.
- My 2011 question was Mr Coutts told me that the trust, he belonged to which by its own documentation ( 7 (a)) ceased to exist on 1.3.2003, never met , so how did you become a trustee of this defunct trust?
This question is for you as a barrister, I hope that you know about the legal functioning of trusts since you have been on so many.
It would be a real shame if you a barrister and trustee did not know the formalities which go with the running of trusts.
For clarification I am referring to your time as alleged trustee of a trust called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ ) which had no provable existence between 10 May 2006 and when you signed the new deed to cover up the sham on 5 December 2006 – this deed was a requirement for the IRD as without it you could not register for charitable status Wells in his affidavit refers to this (paragraph 38 and 39 ).
- My 2011 question was how were you appointed given the fact that the trust never met?
Neil wells predicted your appointment as chairperson of the AWINZ trust in April 2006 , the trustees presumably should have had some say in this and since the trust had not met and according to the minutes had not met since 2004 we have to raise a question as to how this trust was really being run .. I forgot I did raise that question that is why you sued me. I had said that it appeared that the trust which Wells claimed to be the law enforcement authority appeared to be a sham. I was right it was a sham but you helped cover up the Sham so that he could take defamation claims against me. it needed a new trust deed to do this you facilitated it without question!.
- My 2011 question was If this this (2000 AWINZ ) trust still existed, how did this trust which was allegedly formed on 1.3.2000 have any obligations to the approved status given that none of the trustees other than Wells had signed any documents for the application for approved status. And that there are no documents any where which bind those trustees to the responsibility of running a law enforcement agency.
There are several issues with AWINZ first that it was a trust the second and the most important one was that it was a law enforcement authority.
We still have not had this question answered – how can trustees of a trust apply for law enforcement powers when the deed has not been signed and the trustees had not met?
The other question affects the legal status of trusts as to being incorporated or unincorporated.
An unincorporated trust gets it existence through the combined trustees who need to be named. ( as was done in your statement of claim on 18 July 2006 except that you had no proof at all that the tree of you together were a trust or had at any time ever traded under that name. )
An incorporated trust is a legal person in its own right and capable of suing and being sued in its own name and applying for things in the name of the trust rather than in the name of the combined trustees . You continued to pass off AWINZ to the court as though it was an incorporated trust when Quite Clearly it never was incorporated.. that is why you took me and the registered trust to court in the first place remember.
The application for approved status was not made by a legal person in their own name it was made by Neil Wells claiming that it was a trust when he knew that no trust existed.
None of the trustees of the 2000 deed have ever made an application or been party to an application for approved status. They have not even been involved in the running of the approved organisation so much so that the minutes of 10 may 2006 had to explain to them what an approved organisation was. “What is an approved organisation: It is an organisation approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Animal Welfare Act. AWINZ and SPCA are the only two approved organisations”
So Who or What was AWINZ the approved organisation .. ? How did you get to be chairperson of an approved organisation other than just by claiming to be? Wyn in your experience with local government and law do such things happen by Osmosis? You used to be a Mayor and you have never questioned how an organisation comes to run from council premises. You have never questioned the fact that Neil Wells was acting in a situation of gross conflict of interest in contracting to himself in this MOU .
- My 2011 question was In May 2006 you assumed the name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand then took legal action against myself and the legally incorporated AWINZ which pre-existed your implied involvement by three weeks - for passing off and breach of fair trade. As a barrister could you please let me know how someone who assumes a name later can sue a prior existing legal entity for passing off.
Still waiting for an answer for this perhaps it needs to be put more graphically
- 27 April 2006 AWINZ is registered ( this is the AWINZ I was trustee of )
- 10 May 2006 relying only the evidence of this re-created minute and at a time the deed was missing ( according to the minute ) you claim to be a trustee of a trust which did not and could not have law enforcement authority
- Letters to the law society from you and your associates show that you instructed Brookfields
- 26 June 2006 your lawyer David Neutze signed a letter, he did not disclose that you had instructed him, he then supplied me with an outdated trust deed .
- You then filed a statement of claim on 18 July 2006
- You have never provided any evidence until 2011 that you were not trading as AWINZ before 27 April 2006 and therefore you have absolutely no case for passing off and breach of fair trade because you could not have traded before 27 April 2006 as you have no legally acceptable evidence of being involved in any manner or means with AWINZ prior to 5 December 2006 when you signed are hashed trust deed .
- My 2011 question was How we could have been breaching the fair trading act when you had not traded using the name AWINZ prior to our existence.
This question remains un answered and the evidence above shows that you had absolutely no grounds for a claim of passing off and breach of fair trade. How can you as a barrister possibly consent to a claim being filed in court making those allegations they are blatantly false.
- My 2011 question was How could you sue us without checking the validity of your claim?
As this signature shows you have passed yourself off as Chairperson throughout 2006 this one is from a fundraising letter this at a time when you have no formal standing as a chair person .
Wyn it scares me to death that a former Mayor, current councillor and barrister has no notion of the formalities that come with holding office in what you allege to be a law enforcement authority.
You know I have raised these points I have personally handed you the evidence.. have you in 7 years never read anything to do with the court action ? Have you simply facilitated it in your name and chosen to remain ignorant?
- My 2011 question was Since you took action against us, a legally incorporated charitable trust for passing off and breach of fair trade, do you not think that the logo you and your associates Mr Wells and Mr Coutts JP adopted was not a tad similar with the logo on the Waitakere council dog control building? And could also be seen as passing off and breach of fair trade?
For the record they are shown here
It may also pay for you to read this audit report from MAF which states in their final draft audit 2008 “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 page 9 all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations”
- My 2011 question was Why was the new logo you adopted so close to the ones on the council building and vehicles?
You have never answered this. I believe that AWINZ changed its Logo in the time when you were Chair person .. was this never of concern to you ? You signed this fundraising letter which bore a near identical logo to the council signage and you did not question it? ( the colour on the fundraising letter was dictated by the two tone print in which it was produced but otherwise the AWINZ logo was basically the council logo without the words institute of New Zealand underneath it). And this occurred at a time when you were actively pursuing me through court for questioning the seamless existence of AWINZ and council .
- My 2011 question was why did you use the council phone number for your flyer and why continue to use the postal address of the council manager Mr Wells ( your fellow trustee); do you not think that that was a conflict of interest for him?
You have never answered this. These were the very qustions being raised and it was because I raised these questions that you sued me, WYN an astute person would have picked up on this why did you turn a blind eye?
- My 2011 question was You signed this donation flyer and also the following years flyer . Legislation states that “No trustees or society shall be incorporated under a name which is identical with that of any other Board “ Mr Wells ( the council manager and your fellow trustee) had a letter from the ministry of economic developments which explained this point . Please explain by what legislation or documentary evidence you can supply which gave you the right to call yourself the chairperson of the board of trustees of AWINZ.
You have never answered this. Perhaps you don’t understand the question – You claim to be chair person of a trust, You became chairperson at a meeting which had persons present who were not trustees and where only three trustees were present. The trust by its own minutes had not met since allegedly 2004 when its deed states that the trust will meet no less than four times per year. Of course you weren’t to know that the deed was missing at the time, it says so in the minutes .
The minutes also record “Status of Deed
Neil advised that the original signed deed had been mis-filed
Neil and with Wyn will work on a revision of the deed
Deed needs to be finalised in the next 4 weeks “
It is therefore blatantly obvious that you knew that the deed was missing.. Wyn How can you be a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms of the trust are ?
- My 2011 question was Wyn , as Former Mayor and now a councillor of TCDC does this mean that you support council officers running a private venture using council staff and resources to generate income for a group other than Council?
You have never answered this. It would appear by your actions that you go out of your way to protect private pecuniary gain from council assets. I suggest that You read the united nations convention against corruption to get a copy I suggest you speak to Steven Hoadley you know where to find him .
- My 2011 question was This practice internationally is known as corruption , in taking action to conceal the activities of Mr Wells and his approved “ organisation “ which in reality was no more than an alias for himself , do you not think that you may have been concealing corruption ?
You have never answered this. Your actions over the past years since this question has been put to you indicate that you do not hesitate to crucify persons such as myself for questioning corruption
- My 2011 question was Why did you as chairperson not have any over sight over the bank accounts?
You have never answered this. The minutes indicate that the bank accounts were not in the control of the trustees. In April 2007 I saw the bank accounts and found that they were totally in Wells control You have continued to allow them to be in Wells control. Even MAF raised questions about this in the audit report which you specifically sought to have withheld from me.
- My 2011 question was what due diligence have you ever done with regards to the setup of the “organisation “you claim to be head of? Why sue before you have done due diligence? And why did you not wish to discuss the matter with me or meet with our trustees to attempt to resolve it?
You have never answered this. You appear to prefer to remain silent and continue to attack me as you did last year when you callously and illegally liquidated my company through your actions.. It amuses me that you call yourself Humanitarian what you have done to me and my family would have had you charged under the very legislation which you claimed to have administered if I had been a dog. 7 years of inhumane treatment torture is unacceptable. .
- My 2011 question was The legal action you took against me and the legal entity AWINZ was to force us to give up the name and the web site, You have stated that the trustees of AWINZ decided to instruct legal counsel Brookfield’s. Why then go to a lawyer Vivienne Holm who did not have a practising certificate.
You have never answered this. More has come out about this through the law society, why ask a legal exec to phone me late at night and intimidate me? Is that how it is done?
- My 2011 question was Why not take the recommended action as advised by the MED in the letter Mr Wells had or could you not take this course because you did not have the evidence or the standing?
You have never answered this.
- My 2011 question was You always said it ( the legal action ) was urgent is that why Intimidation was the chosen method? Did you condone the intimidation? You certainly did nothing to stop it!
You have never answered this. I did phone you and asked if we could talk you said that you were not the messenger.. Wouldn’t talking have resolved it easily and quickly .. why not talk?
- My 2011 question was Did you instruct Vivienne Holm to intimidate us , did you check the facts of the letter Mr. Neutze sent on “your instruction “ and did you check the “statement of claim for accuracy”
You have never answered this.
- My 2011 question was You withdrew your claim (passing off and breach of fair trade) after you had brought about some $20,000 cost against me personally all intended to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion with regards to the questions I had raised about AWINZ. Do you think that that was ethical? As an officer of the court should you not have spoken up and advised the court that you really did not have a rightful claim or standing?
You have never answered this. This is now the basis of my claim to the court for obtaining a judgement by fraud due to the fact that there now appears to be no evidence at all that you were a trustee prior to 5 December 2006
- My 2011 question was In December 2006 some 5 months after you initiated legal action without seeking redress outside the court you signed a trust deed , this trust eventually obtained charitable status and retrospectively took on the role as the approved Organisation.. Could you please explain how this is legally possible?
You have never answered this. You may not understand this but how could a new trust formed 5 Dec 2006 take over the function of law enforcement when this law enforcement was not carried out by a trust. Did you never ask for minutes did you never question why there was a lack of documentation?
- My 2011 question was This ( Dec 2006 ) trust obtained charitable funds which were used in the litigation against me which was conducted in the name of AWINZ, could you please advise why the lawyers your trusts funds paid for ( being Brookfields for these invoices ) were able to claim that your unincorporated trust was a legal entity in its own name and how your Dec 2006 trust established 5 months after the statement of claim was filed got to be involved in the litigation.
You have never answered this. Perhaps you don’t understand this
The money was given to Wells in 2005 the background to the funds are set out in these blog posts
How did this money which was given for humanitarian purposes get to be used for pursuing me though court for questioning corruption.
In using this money you destroyed my family caused me to fear for my life ( due to being near suicidal due to you r action and bringing about health issues caused by the long term stress)
I would sooner have had a short bashing by a thug than the prolonged duress you have subjected me and my family too what you have done is extremely cruel and inhumane.
- My 2011 question was I note that on various sites you set out your public involvement why do you never make mention of AWINZ ?
Even with your candidacy for TCDC I would have thought that revealing that you were a trustee of a Law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act would have been a biggie. Why has your involvement with AWINZ been so secretive?
This is a copy of your letter relinquishing the approved status is here, it puzzles me that you relinquished something which was not yours in the first place
- My reasoning is that You did not sign the application
- MAF had no documents which were signed by you ( or any other person apart from Wells ) except the relinquishing letter
- So the question has to be How did you ever get to become a representative of a law enforcement authority ?
Wyn Law does not jump through vacuums You do not become a trustee without going through the proper process and you cannot become a law enforcement authority through thin air.
You have spent 7 years trying to silence me , it is enough Wyn You have destroyed my family You have taken some $300,00 from me and you are still pursuing me for more. What more do you want.
How can you sit there on your moral high horse and be so cruel
Wyn you have had all the evidence sent to you 10 times over a diligent person would have had alarm bells ringing by now and distanced themselves and be seen to put the wrong right but you have continued on supporting the campaign against me and my family relentlessly allowing the charitable dollar to be used in pursuit of this concealment of corrupting see
Wyn it simply has to stop will you come clean ? ( I rather think you won’t because you are in too deep and you know it and you will do anything to protect your perceived pure reputation )
I do know Wyn that you won’t be taking me to court for defamation because you know that I can prove everything I have written and you know that I am speaking the truth.
Do you think we should sit down and talk Wyn? Well I don’t think you are willing I did phone you this morning at 10.15 and you declined the offer.
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
this email was
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013 11:01 a.m.
To: ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
The New Zealand funds were raised by Beauty with compassion which existed between 4 August 1964 -6 September 2000.
Neil Wells approached Mrs Heather the secretary for Beauty with compassion several times and sought to take over the funds.Eventually the funds were transferred to him after being persuaded on false claims that the money should go to him
The funds were claimed By Neil Wells in the name of a AWINZ (Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) Note that in this letter he does not inform her that it is a trust or of the nature structure or definition of AWINZ.
I know that the bank account number which was given was not for an account operated by a trust it was operated by Neil Wells alone under a pseudonym.
In this letter Neil Wells obtains money by false pretenses I will dissect the letter as follows to show his spin.
Neil Wells informs Mrs Heather that “The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand has been functioning since its inception in 1998” The reality is that in 2006 no trust deed had been filed with any of the authorities AWINZ was associated with, there was no public record of a deed. and when I raised questions as to AWINZ existence not one but two trust deed emerged both different. This is the signed one and this is the altered copy which was sent to MAF for their records in 2006 .
What is indisputable is that the deed was signed on 1.3.2000 and since the trust could not have existed prior to this date the statement that the trust existed since 1998 is false.
Mr Wells has some notion that there was an oral trust but by his own records I can show that trustees and the wording of the deed were not finalized in 1998 and no one can agree to become a trustee of a trust which does not have its terms set or agreed to. Its legal BS .
AWINZ was not a channel for animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and North Shore Cities. Both cities have denied it and Auckland council still deny it , it was in reality a private enterprise run from council premises by Neil Wells for Neil wells in such a way that AWINZ and the council were seamlessly merged. This is commented on by Maf in one of their audits see page 2 “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”
While MAF claim that this was occurring Council denied any knowledge of it but then it would be reckless for council to have turned a blind eye and they did and they are still doing this.
The AWINZ for which Neil Wells was soliciting the money was not the trust, He alone ran the approved organisation. The application for the approved organisation which was relied on by the minister was this note that it was not signed by any applicant and logic tells us that a trust cannot make an application before it is formed.
Unincorporated trusts exist only through the trustees and if the persons who were to form the trust were to have acted on an informal or “oral” basis there would still have been a need for each of them to have signed the application to show that they consented to the application being made in their names.
The claim in the application as to incorporation and existence of AWINZ is clearly false( as are many other details ) but Mr Wells appears to be able to tell lies to ministers and it is over looked. Apparently it for telling the truth that you get punished for.
Neil Wells claims that “Over the four years of the making of The Lord of the Rings AWINZ was contracted to Peter Jackson’s production company” the AHA ( American Humane society in their complaint letter regarding the false end title show that AWINZ ,or some one using the name AWINZ was on set for only 48 days letter from the American Humane society which summaries their serious concerns.
Any funds from The Lord Dowding Fund would be kept as a special trust fund within AWINZ to be applied according to the original tenets of the Fund. The funds have been used for personal enrichment of Neil Wells and for the concealing of crime being what I call the perfect fraud in running a private law enforcement authority from public resources in a most nontransparent manner concealed by lies and deception.
The actual money trail .
We now know that the money went to a bank account controlled personally By Neil Wells .
We know that no other signatory was on that account in 2007 and this is confirmed by the minutes which Neil Wells drew up in 2011 to cover his tracks. ( I have covered this in detail previously ) these state
- $90,000 is held as deposit for the Lord Dowding Fund
- Committee must complete a National Bank form
It is very strange when one person on a trust can solicit and obtain in excess of $100,000 all by themselves and keep it in a bank account separate from the other trustees while not calling any meetings … especially when this person is a Barrister and legally cannot run a trust account.
What blows me away more than anything else in these minutes is that there is a definition provided to the trustees as to what an approved organisation is “What is an approved organisation: It is an organisation approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Animal Welfare Act. AWINZ and SPCA are the only two approved organisations.” They have supposedly been running this law enforcement authority for six years and they need to be told what an approved organisation is… DODGY !!!! on top of this their deed is missing! You couldn’t make this up!
The trust deed states that the trustees will meet no less than 4 times per year yet we note that they last allegedly met in 2004 yet most of the trustees when I spoke to them before they were told by Wells not to speak to me told me that they had never formally met. Their signatures were obtained by Tom Didovich when he was manger of Waitakere dog control , Neil wells took over his position and tom Didovich became trustee.. talk about incestuous!
Wyn Hoadley through invisible and not by any legal means allegedly becomes a trustee of this sham trust on may 2006 .Then she and wells and Graeme Coutts immediately sue me and a legal entity called AWINZ incorporated in April 2006 so as to obtain the name and to secure my silence.
In December 2006 a new trust is set up. I argue that this is not a continuation of the original trust as the deed is different and 50% of the trustees are new. The reason this trust deed was signed was because the other deed was not acceptable proof of this is in Neil wells own words in his affidavit at point 38
“On 22 May 2006 I wrote to the Inland Revenue Department foreshadowing an intention to apply for tax exempt status and provided a copy of the trust deed dated 1 March 2000 for verification that the clauses relating to tax status were appropriate.”
Now he question I ask is why send a out dated deed when on 10 May 2006 there was a meeting and allegedly saw a new trustee appointed Two other trustees had resigned in the mean time. ( Grove and Giltrap )
“Formal application was made on 25 July 2006 and after the applicable clauses were amended to reflect 2004 tax law changes the IRD gave approval on 21 December 2006 for tax exempt status of the Trust under the Income Tax Act 2004.”
What Neil Wells is really saying is that the trust deed was rejected by IRD because the trustees did not match and he had to make amendments to the wording of the deed which would allow him to use the trust money for his own pecuniary gain. The new trust deed was signed 5 December 2006, this was not the group of persons involved in the litigation and the money was not there to be used to fund litigation to conceal crime.
This trust formed on 5 December 2006 and choosing to take care of the Lord Dowding trust funds became a charity in 2007 and paid the lawyers Brookfields the invoices which were simply made out to AWINZ – In reality this is identity fraud you call half a dozen groups of people by the same name then you mix them up. They are not all one and the same but you pretend that they are. pretty much what is happening again by using the name Lord Dowding and the
The invoices are as follows
Payments in the 2007 financial year were $34133.54 and the financial statements for the 2006 AWINZ charity shows that $32312 was paid ( see the 2008 accounts )
In 2008 $47651.65 was invoiced but the accounts record only $12,904 paid so the payment was made to Brookfields in 2009 when $60,150 was handed over from charitable funds.
Charities commission response
There are two documents from the charities commission which are of significance the first dated Monday, 20 July 2009 it shows Neil Wells responding to the charities commission he falsely states “We note that you are responding to matters raised by a single complainant against whom AWINZ
has taken successful proceedings in the Auckland District Court” AWINZ never took any action it cannot it is not a legal person apart from the trustees which comprise it at various times.
Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells who did not have a signed deed together at the time of commencing proceedings or have common obligations in any formal manner to a trust deed took the action using a name akin to a trading name. the Statement of Claim is here
Wells refers to AWINZ as if it was a legal person and does not elude to the fact that the charity is not the same as the persons who took the litigation , it just so happens that no the use the same name this is part of his continued deception on both the crown and the courts.
Wells then goes on to deceive the charities commission by stating” The proceedings were taken jointly in the name of the trust and in the name of one of its trustees. ” as can be seen by the Statement of Claim it was filed in July 2006 the trust which eventually became the charity was formed in December 2006, the three people who took the action were not the trust which was the charity at that time they had no evidence of being trustees of a trust together and no trust deed existed by Neil Wells own admission because it was reportedly lost .
Wells further refers to clauses in the trust deed which have of course been suitably amended since the court proceedings began to illustrate this compare the two deeds and you will see what I mean. 2001 deed and 2006 deed if you want to be truly confused you can also look at the copy which I obtained from Maf which ad been supplied by Wells to them
“There is no requirement for the trust to publicly reveal the details of grants made for research and to whom it was paid.” But we know that at the time Neil Wells was “Associate Head of the School of Natural Sciences at Unitec” in his minutes he states “Lord Dowding fund has funded Unitec for $10,000 for research using artificial animals vs. real animals in teaching” You have to wonder just how short the arm’s length is ? Short stumpy ones perhaps with BIG hands ?
The capital sum of the lord Dowding fund is $90,000 I wonder if any one has ever looked at the bank statements because according to the information I have had he received a great deal more.
Chris McIntyre then responds to Neil Wells again on 7 September 2009, I can only guess that this was written after telephone communications between the two and Chris was persuaded By wells and caused him to write the following reply which I address as numbered.
- I can accept that the 2006 trust with the new deed was correctly register, I do not accept that this trust was in any way a legal continuation of the 2001 tryst or that this trust was the approved organisation or the litigants in the court proceedings
- The court orders were against me but were not by this charity the evidence which they produced in 2011 to the law society proves that they deceived the court and the charities commission
- This is not the trust which took legal proceedings this trust was not established when the proceedings began.
- AWINZ is not defined there are a number of AWINZ entities , the charity formed 5/12/2006 was formed five months after the court proceedings commenced
- How does this give confidence that the money is not being laundered this money went to Unitec where Wells worked, if it went to animal research it would have gone to his own department.
- Who was this paid to there should be a requirement to show transfer of money
- The lord Dowding fund has been used to pay for prosecution which will advantage only Neil wells.
- It just shows that telling lies has its rewards.
So here you have it …..a blue print as to how to use charitable funds for money laundering and concealment of crime condoned by police charities commission, SFO , MAF .
This is my honest opinion and again I am sending a copy of this to the AWINZ trustees for their corrections and comments.
Full financial summary of the AWINZ charitable trust established 5 Dec 2006 is below
|Film monitoring fees||11,123||9,848||14167||11290||1094||47,522|
|Income tax refund||1,667||450||50||2,167|
|Reparation payment s|
|Total inwards cash||31640||21456||29219||24323||3112||109,750|
|Film monitoring wages incl PAYE||4,990||7,582||10767||7910||952||32,201|
|Grants – general||1,112||1,112|
|Grants lord Dowding fund||5,750||5,750|
|legal fees – Haden||32,312||12,904||60150||21484||126,850|
|GST paid to IRD||1,608||224||819||204||2,855|
|Total outwards cash||41181||26535||76458||30807||1378||176,359|
|NET CASH SURPLUS/DEFICIT||0|
|Transferred to Accumulated Reserve s||9,541||5078||47239||6484||68,342|
|Opening Accumulated Reserves||119,767||110,226||105148||57909||51425|
|Net Cash Surplus(Deficit) for the year||-9,541||-5,078||-47239||-6484||1735|
|CLOSING BALANCE – ACCUMULATED RESERVES||110,226||105,148||57,909||51,425||53,160|
|National Bank cheque account||4,290||11,936||10183||1169||936|
|National Bank cheque account 02||2,417||3,211||3726||3975||4015|
|Nat ion al Bank Term Deposit||5311|
|National Bank. Term Deposit (Lord Dowding Fund||98,208||90,000||44000||46281||48209|
In The Royal Society of New Zealand Alert Newsletter 743 under item 6 there is the following.
New Zealand Fund for Humane Research (Lord Dowding Fund) research grant
The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand is seeking expressions of interest for a grant of $20,000 from the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research (Lord Dowding Fund).
The grant will be for research that will contribute to the replacement or reduction of the use of animals in research, testing or teaching, but will not itself involve the use of any animals or animal tissue.
Expressions of interest must be received no later than 28 February 2013. To do this, and/or to seek further information, please email Neil Wells (email@example.com).
The final decision will be made on or before 30 April 2013.
For anyone not in the know this would look all kosher but I can see that this offer is being made to appease the authorities because the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand has operated as a charity without performing charitable acts.
Over the years I have become accustomed to the spin of Neil Wells and again this advertisement is trying to make something dodgy look legitimate. Let’s go through the above statement to sort fact from fiction
- New Zealand Fund for Humane Research is registered as a charitable trust and separate legal person not associated in any way with the animal welfare institute of new Zealand except that Mr wells is the only trustee who believes that it still operates
- The trustees were William Timothy Clyde Heather , Neil Wells Law student , Geoffrey Francis Ruck and Frank William Eden Rutter.
- I spoke Mr Ruck a solicitor at that time, in about 2007 he told me that this trust has not operated or functioned in years and had been wound up by resolution of the trustees. It was wound up when Sir Frank Rutter died. (November 2002 ).
- I spoke with Mrs Heather and she advised me that her husband was not well at that time but that he was no longer a trustee. He along with Mrs Heather were directors of BEAUTY WITHOUT CRUELTY SOUTH PACIFIC LIMITED which dissolved 10 October 1996
- Neil Wells is effectively the only person claiming that this trust still operates. He as a trustee would have known that this trust never operated the lord Dowding fund.
- The Lord Dowding fund has never operated by the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research but if you do a Google on The Lord Dowding fund you will see that the words Humane research are intrinsically entwined with it and I can only presume that that is why this trust is associated with the name.. It is spin a concessionary tactic to make something suspect into something apparently legitimate.
I first became aware of this connection in 2006 when Neil Wells who at the time was manager of dog and stock control Waitakere sent out a flyer with the dog registration seeking donations. The flyer is located here.
This solicitation was sent out seeking money for the Waitakere animal welfare fund and effectively traded off the name Lord Dowding and New Zealand Fund for Humane Research
The request for donations was signed by Wyn Hoadley the newly appointed trustee and chair person who through no visible and verifiable manner became chairperson of a AWINZ, trust which had not met in some 2 years and a trust which did not operate according to its own deed or is that deeds.. yes there are more than one.. but that is a long story.
It can be readily seen that in my opinion that Mr Wells ran the so called trust, which incidentally had an identical name to a law enforcement authority , autonomously so much so that he was able to predict ms Hoadleys appointment not only as trustee but also a chair person several months before the event.
It has to be noted that according to dog control officers Dogs were regularly shot at Waitakere city council as a cost effective means of disposing of surplus animals .
- Lord Dowding Fund is a fund which operates in the UK it was run in New Zealand by Beauty with compassion the funds were held by Mrs Heather in her capacity as trusteee. She had a dilemma when the society folded and was approached by Neil Wells who asked to take over the funds. The letter from Wells to Mrs Heather records the events . Mr Wells has never accounted to Mrs heather with regards to the use of the money
- The letter states” Over the four years of the making of The Lord of the Rings AWINZ was contracted to Peter Jackson’s production company, Three Foot Six Ltd, to provide independent monitoring of the welfare of animals used.
- “The standard of that work and care of the animals is best assessed by a letter from the American Humane society which summarises their serious concerns regarding the end credit for the film which they call unauthorised inappropriate and misleading .Summary 1 sick 4 dead 3 seriously injured . The AHA records that AWINZ only monitored the animals for some 48 days again in saying that AWINZ was contracted over 4 years is a deceptive statement .
- Concerns were raised with regards to monitoring by a journalist Felix Marwick and resulted in a ministerial enquiry 13 December 2000 following a letter from him dated 27 November 2000 , the ministerial reply was sent to him on 18 Dec 2000
- News items with regards to the injuries as recorded on this link .
- The animal welfare institute of New Zealand was first thought of as a concept by Neil Wells (former RNZSPCA director and animal welfare lawyer ) to facilitate his business plan of amalgamating dog control with animal welfare
- Neil Wells wrote the legislation to facilitate his business plan and became independent advisor to the select committee all without formally recording his conflict of interest.
- On 22 November 1999 Neil Wells makes an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ which was a concept he promoted to Waitakere city council and was paid for by the public to establish as a council trust.
- AWINZ was never established and the application was made at a time when no trust existed.
- In his application he gives assurances of the existence of AWINZ but the reality was that AWINZ the law enforcement authority was only Mr Wells posing as a charitable trust
- In 2006 it became evident that AWINZ was never incorporated as stated in the application form.I ask questions of Waitakere city council as to why Neil Wells is contracting council services to himself in this MOU and I ask MAF why they gave Law enforcement authority to an unidentifiable an non-existent organisation
- Neil Wells responds by suing me for defamation and creating a cover up trust . He produces a trust deed and don’t need to be an Einstein to work out that a trust formed on 1.3.2000 could not have made an application on 22 November 1999 …Neil Wells has such influence with MAF and other government departments that this fact is glossed over.
- The defamation proceedings were entirely funded using the Lord Dowding fund proceeds (Defamation is easy to win when you play the rules in court and prevent the other party from having a defence of truth and honest opinion heard and it is even easier to win when no evidence at all is produced and you simply skip the proof proceedings. )
- Mr Wells is awarded $57500 which was his personal reward for using the charitable funds to pursue the defamation claim won by dirty tactics including the misleading of the court as to who or what AWINZ was.
- Mr Wells alone ran AWINZ just like he alone runs or thinks he runs the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research . when he called the alleged trustees together and lost count of the number of trust deeds there were supposed to be , he found that people were dropping like flies and so he recruited Wyn Hoadley who became a trustee by no legal means and at a time when the deed was missing. minutes of the meeting . But fortunately Mr wells had been able to predict this event months earlier as sole trustee when despite any meetings or communication between trustees he predicted Hoadley’s appointment.
- The minutes of the meeting speaks volumes note that the document properties show that these minutes were created on 20/5/2011 that is the date when they were required as proof for the law society. Ironically MAF did an audit in 2008 and Mr Wells told them that all documents were missing due to a computer collapse. But that is nothing that some more spin won’t fix.
- In 2012 Mr Wells pursued me vigorously for the money despite the fact that I have a claim before the court for obtaining a judgment by fraud , I was wanting to see if this money had been repaid to the Lord Dowding fund but I now note that the annual return has been posted and is listed as restricted
- The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) has many forms. It suffers from severe personality disorder or identity fraud it does not exist as a registered trust or incorporated society it is and always has been an informal and non-transparent trust akin to a family trust. It is not a legal person in its own right and exists only through the trustees.
What I find hard to believe is that I have suffered for 7 years at the hand of persons who are now offering $20,000 to some one who wants to prevent the suffering of animals when these people have done so much damage the lives of those in a human family unit. They were unable to show compassion when they liquidated my company on false affidavits at a time when my son went totally deaf .
Neil Wells. Grahame Coutts and Wyn Hoadley have relentlessly pursued me and devastated my family because as a whistle-blower I asked why we had a law enforcement authority which did not exist and why Mr Wells was using he council premises, staff and resources to derive a personal income under the fictitious name AWINZ .
Tom Didovich the fourth trustee offering this grant was the former manager of Waitakere dog control who facilitated the entire sham and paid Mr Wells out of public money has been an intrinsic part of this cover up.
My Question is if this is what these people do to humans do they really care about testing on animals. It would perhaps have been more reasonable if those who claimed humanitarian qualities also practiced it against their own species and started with the principles of truth and fairness injustice. It is instead we have the use of public funds for private enterprise and now an offer of $20,000 for research to give the sham an air of legitimacy
We will keep you posted on where the grant goes.. no doubt it will be clouded in secrecy.
The above is my own honest opinion. I have sent a copy of the email below to each of the trustees of the trust registered on 5 Dec 2006 which eventually became the charity , and asking for any corrections.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 2:46 p.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Subject: Would the real Lord Dowding please stand up
Happy New Year to you all
I have just published an article on my anticorruption web site http://www.anticorruption.co.nz
I am bringing it to your attention and ask that you please check the article and if there is anything which is wrong that you please bring this to my attention
On providing evidence as to why my statement is wrong I will be happy to make changes.
I will leave this offer open to you for 5 working days from now. If I do not hear from you within that period I will presume that you agree with the statements.
On Wednesday 16 January I will be forwarding the document to other interested parties. In the mean time you are more than welcome to leave a message on the page to clarify anything which you perceive as contentious.
Because truth matters
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.
- State capture: defined as the efforts of persons/firms to shape the institutional environment in which they operate.[i]
- Public office for private pecuniary gain
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.
In a new twist to where is Wally we also have where was AWINZ
MAF believed that AWINZ was run from Waitakare city council premises but Waitakere city council denied that it existed there.
Mind you given that the organsiation did not exist that makes perfect sense , because AWINZ did not exist it could therefore not have been at Waitakere.
But in a bizarre twist the minister for Agriculture believed that it did exist because they had given it law enforcement powers which were being delegated through the council staff .
In a question in parliament the minister was asked
7723 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (07 May 2007):Was any verification undertaken to determine whether the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was a bona fide organisation with a proper legal structure and accountability before Barry O’Neil, Group Director, of the Biosecurity Authority signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Mr Neil Wells, signing as a Trustee of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, on 4 December 2003; if so, what was the result; if not, why not?
Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied: The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand is an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Before the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was declared to be an approved organisation under the Act, its application was carefully considered in relation to the relevant statutory criteria. These include, inter alia, the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements and management of the organisation. There was no statutory requirement that these matters be re-considered for the purposes of signature of the Memorandum of Understanding, which defines the requirements to be met by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand in the selection and appointment of, and other matters relating to, Inspectors and Auxiliary Officers appointment under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.
My comment: From the information which I have it appears that Mr Wells who was the only person acting for “AWINZ “ everything he said was accepted without verification he gave a number of assurances that AWINZ existed these are
- 28 January 2000 Maf requests Could you please provide documentary evidence confirming that the Trust has been legally registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.
- 17 March 2000 Wells responds and asks for the registration criteria to be reconsidered. He concludes by stating 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.
- 25 March 2000 Wells writes to minister and advises him that a signed copy of the deed will follow -claims that the original is being submitted to Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed
- - originals are never sent certified copies are
- b. there is no section 20 in the deed. trust deed.pdf
- In 1998 Wells put a proposal to the council for a trust called the national animal welfare trust this trust was registered by him in 1999 as was another trust called the ark angel trust. This registration process that he knew the process and if AWINZ had existed by way of trust deed on 22 November when the application was made it would have been well registered by Christmas.
- The evidence from the chronology appears to be that MAF was out of their depth with the legislation as they continually asked Wells for advice on it. The advice given appears to have been self-serving.
Strange too that I should find correspondence from MAF which indicates that None other than Mr wells was consulted in formulating the ministers responses .
Similarly Mr Sheard the lawyer for council also consulted Mr Wells to reply to the LGOIMA requests which led to him never checking if AWINZ existed on the premises but denying that that it did and maintaining that there were no third party agreements for use of staff, .
28 January 2009 “It is not clear what you mean by “agreements with third parties for and on behalf of Waitakere City Council with respect to employees of Waitakere City
Council”. Animal welfare inspectors are not warranted by the Council, they are
warranted by Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery under the Animal Welfare Act 1999
and that action can not have occurred without the consent of the individual
employees. You will also need to explain what you mean by “third party use of
council facilities”. My enquiries have not disclosed any use of the Council’s animal
welfare facilities by third parties.”
11 March 2009 “Finally I note that you continue to allege that AWINZ operates from the Concourse, despite the firm denial in my letter dated 28 January 2009, paragraph 5(h). The basis for that allegation is not clear. In this regard I record that I have seen a transcript of your telephone conversation with the Council’s call center on 1 February 2009. The conversation which took place does not provide any factual basis for continuing to make this allegation”
The agreement which had been signed with third parties was the MOU between animal welfare and AWINZ Wells signing for AWINZ Didovich for dog and stock control
Didovich leaves Council and Wells takes on that position this means that Wells now has responsibility to both sided of this MOU , effectively he is contracting to himself.
Page 2 ” 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”
page 9 ” all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accomodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding the demarcation between the two organisations .”
page 18 Location of audit WCC animal accommodation the concourse
then to add to the confusion the logo which AWINZ used and the logo on the council vehicles ,buildings and gate were deceptively similar .
The dog control officers believed that it was part of their contract to sign up as animal welfare officers , those who questioned lost their jobs.
Further questions asked in Parliament were by Wayne Mapp again judge the answers for yourself the evidence is all here
3013 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):What investigations did the Minister undertake before approving the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) as an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?
Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied: The Minister at the time, through his officials at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, undertook detailed investigations before declaring the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. This included consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury and the Crown Law Office.
My comment: While extensive legal opinions were sought to the ability of AWINZ to provide animal welfare services for council there were no investigations as to the existence and operations of AWINZ itself. Crown law office Maf and treasury opposed the application . It was a legal opinion obtained by the council on which Neil Wells appears to have had an input, which was used to persuade MAF to allow the document to go forward to caucus. This happened after Mr Wells had met with the then president of the Labour party his colleague and Mayor Bob Harvey.
My evidence is:
- Connections Bob Harvey and Wells
- Bob Harvey owned Mac Harman Ayer advertising 1962-1992 Harvey CV
- Neil Wells was general manger there Neil Wells C.V.
- Bob Harvey in welcoming Wells to Waitakere stated “Neil is an old colleague of mine from advertising days and takes over from Tom Didovich.”appointment wells.pdf
- d. Wells briefed Harvey when MAF objected to AWINZ becoming approved harvey briefed.pdf
- e. a paper was prepared for caucus which wells had had the ability to have in put into commentary-from-Wells-on-caucus-papers.pdf
- the applications are considered by caucus and the minister approves the application despite
- MAF believes that, as a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate for you to approve a proposal which is contrary to the law. 30 may 2000 uncut
- MAF considers, following advice from Crown Law Office. that the proposed funding arrangements between AWINZ and the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils are ultra vires the Local Government Act 1974.resulting in financial arrangements that are such that having regard to the interests of the public AWINZ is not suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;. 30 may 2000 uncut
- The WCC obtained a legal opinion” the legal opinion was obtained by dog control and not the council. Maf also notes that should AWINZ’s application be successful, AWINZ expects to take over the animal control activities and facilities of the WCC. Longer term, AWINZ intends to compete for local authority animal control contracts “anywhere in New Zealand but only if the contracts include animal welfare. MAF considers that this strategy is not appropriate given the concerns about the legality of TA funding.30 may annexure some missing sections
- Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.12 june Maf copy and the uncut version showing what MAF removed when they sent the document to me 12 june wells copy
- Maf state “Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “28 aug 2000.pdf
- ” If the crown were to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that would be recognition that work was being undertaken on behalf of he crown should it come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.”8 sept 2000.pdf
- A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court. should the minister agree to approve AWINZ or decide fi the risk is too high Maf believes regulatory clarity should be sought to remove any doubt13 october 2000.pdf
- Bayvel to Neeson ” although Neil has drafted the documents himself they will need to be closely scrutinised by you and legal to ensure that the crowns interest are protected12 dec 2000.pdf
- i. From treasury : Our overall advice is that you do not send this paper to Cabinet. The paper has not clearly argued what the benefits and costs( economic, social, fiscal) of approving AWINZ are and why these benefits outweigh the costs.treasury.pdf