Any house wife will tell you that if you sweep dirt under the rug that you will eventually be caught out. In terms of politics I think NZ has got to the stage where we are ignoring this fact but the reality is becoming visible
I find it amazing that in 8 years I have not been able to get a government response on the corruption in Animal welfare where a lawyer was able to write legislation for his own business plan which he then advised on and obtained after making an application in a false name.
Obviously I was not going to get a response as this would expose the tactics which are considered legitimate by both the National and Labour parties.
The illusion of our corruption free status is the facade behind which the reality exists. We need only look at the events of the past week to see that Foreign citizens get far more attention from our politicians than locals do .
While politicians are elected by the public ( real persons ) the support of our government appears to be to companies ( legal person ) .
a Simple chronology sourced from the Oravida news page shows involvement of the government with the company
Origins of the company
The company was incorporated on 2/12/2009 as KIWI DAIRY CORPORATION LIMITED it went through several name changes to become ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED
The company ORAVIDA LIMITED was formed on 22 July 2011 and became the owner of ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED ( which was previously called Oravida Ltd ) in September 2011 .
chronology is as follows
On August 25th, most prominent harbour buildings’ in Auckland CBD. The event was well attended by guests from the government, business associates and building’s key tenants. Mr. Peter Goodfellow, the chairman of NZ’s national party and his partner, Member of the Parliament for central Auckland as well as partners from PWC and Bell Gully were all in the attendance.
6/09/2011 Julia Jiyan XU appointed director oravida ltd
8/10/2011 Opening of the Oravida Shanghai
22-Nov-11 Oravida NZ Limited donates $1,600 to National Party
22-Nov-11 Oravida NZ Limited donates $55,000 to National Party
1/12/2011 New Zealand Scampi Tasting cocktail party at NZTE Shanghai
Seafood and Wine luncheon with New Zealand Minister of Trade at NZ On March 21st, 2011, Oravida proudly sponsored the seafood & wine luncheon with Mr. Tim Groser, New Zealand’s Minister of Trade at New Zealand Center in Shanghai. The event was aimed to present New Zealand seafood and wines to a well-attended group top chefs. Mr. Groser said: “ if you are looking for the cheapest product, New Zealand in not the place, but if you are looking for products that offer best value for money, you will find such products everywhere in New Zealand.”
Led by the district Mayor, Li, Yaoxin, the delegation of Shanghai’s Changning municipality conducted a weeklong official visit in New Zealand. The main purpose of the visit was to explore the possibilities of branding New Zealand as part of Changning District’s initiatives of “country specific centers”, which is a trading platform intended for companies around the world to showcase and subsequently sell unique and under discovered products in China. Oravida Ltd is one of the chosen companies by Changning District government to spearhead the efforts representing New Zealand.
Oravida’s vision to bring safe, natural and minimally processed premium food, unique to New Zealand’s unspoiled environment to Chinese consumers resonates well with Changning Government’s missions. By choosing Changning District as the home for Oravida’s China Showcase of New Zealand products, the company is best positioned to bridge the supply and demand by capitalizing on Chinese government’s support to promote country specific products, especially in establishing the consumer confidence in China, and New Zealand government’s endorsement for promoting companies with premium products from New Zealand to gain access to a much needed bigger market. During the visit, Mayor Li, Yaoxin met with the National party chairman Peter Goodfellow to discuss this exciting opportunity extensively and laid down the foundation for the bilateral collaborations.
11-Oct-12 David WONG-TUNG husband of Judith Collins National MP appointed director Oravida and Oravida NZ
On Friday 26th October 2012, Mr Deyi Shi the founder and principal of the Oravida Group of Companies, a passionate and extremely competent golfer, had the honour of playing golf with New Zealand’s current Prime Minister The Right Honourable John Key. Prime Minister Key, a keen and competent golfer, entered into the light hearted spirit of the head to head competition with Mr Shi at this fun event.
10/11/2012 Oravida and Sanford, partners in premium seafood for China
On November 10th, 2012, New Zealand Herald, the country’s leading newspaper featured an article on New Zealand seafood, ‘Sanford hooks into China market’. The article revealed to readers that because of the rising wealth in China, a shift in taste towards more premium seafood has been recognised. Oravida in partnership with Sanford has been successfully seizing the opportunity to supply New Zealand scampi to over 200 restaurants in Shanghai and is expecting to bring more high-end seafood species to China’s shores in the near future. The Chief executive of Sanford, Eric Barratt, says that sales to China are likely to increase from 8.5 per cent of Sanford’s total exports to around 25 per cent over the next eight years. Sanford is confident that China’s growing demand for imported seafood can be supplied sustainably and well managed, especially with partners with extensive local knowledge. Peter John GOODFELLOW National party president is a director of Sanfords
During Prime Minister John Key’s visit to China, The Honorable Tim Grosser, Minister of Trade, The Right Honorable Sir Donald McKinnon，Chairman of New Zealand China Council visited Sogo Supermarket in Shanghai, where many of the NZ premium products are sold. Among many of the NZ products, Oraivda’s fresh milk and Sanford’s scampi are the newest additions to the product lists, and can certainly be categorized as the most innovative.
Oravida NZ moved into a new premise on Oct. 7th, 2013. The relocation of our corporate office to 139 Quay Street, a building which we bought two years ago symbolizes that Oravida has entered into the next phase of fast growth. Present Jenny Shipley – Judith Collins cut the ribbon
5/11/2013 Led by New Zealand’s Trade and Enterprise, Oravida successfully participated in the global seafood show held in Dalian.
20/10/2013 Directors of Oravida invited to a community lunch with Judith Collins total present 15-20 people
20/10/2013 Private dinner with Judith Collins and Oravida directors
The Honorable Judith Collins, Minister of Justice, ACC and Ethnic Affairs, His excellency, Ambassador Carl Worker visited Oravida Shanghai office upon company’s invitation. As a NZ company committed to branding NZ’s premium food products and developing the distribution channels in China for these products, Oravida has been at the forefront of advocating food “made in NZ”. Both Minister Collins and Ambassador Walker recognized company’s efforts, congratulated us on what we have achieved and encouraged us to continue building NZ’s premium food reputation in China.
23/12/2013 Oravida group donates $30,000 to national party
Prime Minister John Key met up with Oravida’s chairman Stone Shi at a dinner in Beijing last night, greeting him with a handshake and a “nice to see you again” before posing for photos.
If only every New Zealand company could get such an endorsement from our government then the playing field would be level.
It would appear that this is as much about promoting Oravida as it is about facilitating exports into china for Sanford , which is the family company of Peter Goodfellow
While transparency international New Zealand maintains that there is integrity in our systems the reality is that integrity is lacking.
Persons with vested interest are able to influence the government and while this can occur we are in danger of having our government influenced by those who wish to financially gain from it.
The events of the last week would suggest that our government is far from independent . The corruption which exists and is considered normal in other countries is being brought in to New Zealand. We are naive and do not have processes in place to deal with corruption
It cold well be considered that Judith Collins who through her husbands position at Oravida is obtaining a financial benefit from the promotion which she had undertaken in China on behalf of Oravida.
In a three day visit she had lunch and dinner with the directors in Beijing and then visited the factory in Shanghai .. you have to remind yourself that she is the minister of Justice .. and remind me again what that has to do with scampi and milk .
The documents which were released last week under the OIA are available here I have attempted to put them into chronological order
emails by topic ( more or less )
pages 9-10 Minster Collins’ Visit Update
pages 11-25 Sunday 20 October private dinner
pages 27-41 Minister Collins’ Visit
pages 52-54Oravida invitation
pages 72-78 request for Bios
pages 79-80 brief sunday lunch
pages 83-84 Briefing Oravida
pages 85-86invitation embassy
pages 89-95ambassador communications Oravida
pages 96-104 JUDITH COLLINS TO CHINA 24- 2.9 JUNE
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?
Since becoming a party to the anti-bribery convention in 2001, the country hasn’t prosecuted a single foreign bribery case, and only four allegations have surfaced, the report said. It opened the first investigations into two of those allegations in July 2013.
It is strange isn’t it that there is no bribery in New Zealand , I have to agree that Bribery is pretty much no existent because we simply don’t call it that and we don’t recognize actions dressed up as ” transactions ” as bribery.
Take for example the American business man Terry Hay who is a PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED (493822) – Shareholder and PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED (709847) – Shareholder. Until recently he was a director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
I questioned the address which he used on the companies register , after proving that it was false and found that he simply rectified the matter by resigning as director, he is still however the companies major shareholder and using the same fictitious address. the companies office appears to be comfortable with this and sent me their policy on enforcement
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 . The Official Information act response if here Download View as HTML
Now it appears that making a deal with the crown law office is not bribery because the payment doesn’t go to one person we just do it on a larger scale and payments are possible if you pay the government department and rely on confidentiality.
Sky city also appears to be in the news this week for providing Mayor Len Brown with a room to entertain his lady friend in. Of course he insists that he paid for it and Sky city are not going to say any different they have favours owing to them. they wish to expand.
It appears that In New Zealand Bribery is not an issue as blackmail is more then likely the tool of choice, the blackmail is not played out in any letters or by any words but with a wink and a nod, it appears that in this corruption free society of ours we have a policy where by every one has the dirt on every one else and so it is a case of let he who is without sin , cast the first stone.
The rot is coming out from under the carpet even police search warrants magically drop text between versions as demonstrated in court this week in Vince Siemers case agaisnt the Police this is a copy of the search warrant he received on the day and this is the copy which Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock produced in court as the original .
Now I happen to know a bit about originals and copies and it would appear that there are two possibilities
1. the photocopy machine which copied the original search warrant malfunctioned and copied out a version which didnt have the year and a large section of words or
2. there are two ” original versions ”
the legislation which deals with search warrants states that the copy of the executed warrant must be given to the party being searched.. It appears that Vince never got a copy n 5 years.
I am certain that there has been no bribery in this matter , but I bet there was a nod and a wink some where along the line.
Isn’t it great to live in the worlds least corrupt country. we are so free from corruption and bribery that we don’t have to have protection in place.
I am seeking urgent legislative amendments to the oaths and declarations act. There is apparently nothing in the act which requires the taker of the oath to identify or confirm the identity of the person making the oath. This comes in light of this response received from the law society response from the law society to my complaint set out below .
Co incidentally there appears to me moves afoot in the UK to do away with the oath being taken on the bible. And it makes sense that deponents are actually identifiable as Ian Abrahams, a magistrate from Bristol, said “I’m suggesting we take holy books out of the process. Instead, people will have to show they understand they could be sent to prison if they don’t tell the truth.”
While swearing on the bible may have had the effect of keeping people honest in the middle ages it has little or no effect today especially when the deponent knows that they will not be prosecuted as they cannot be identified. It may have been a different matter in days gone by where in smaller communities people knew each other but in today’s transient society identify has become a far greater issue.
While swearing on the bible may have had the affect of keeping people honest in the middle ages it has little or no effect today especially when the deponent knows that they will not be prosecuted as they cannot be identified. It may have been a different matter in days gone by where in smaller communities people knew each other but in today’s transient society identify has become a far greater issue.
Section 110 of the crimes Act makes it an offence to “makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.” However if there is an issue of identity, accountability cannot be achieved and this leaves a gap in the law where it is possible to swear a false affidavit and remaining anonymous due to the law not requiring the disclosure and confirmation of the identity of the deponent .
I suffered the effects of a false affidavit and he deponent cannot be identified or located , I am certain that I am not the only one to have been affected in this manner but many would not know that this has occurred in their case and may have suffered an injustice because of it.
By Swearing an affidavit using a name other than your legal name and using an address which is so wide that it encompasses an entire city has the effect of avoiding prosecution and putting an almost impossible task on the person against whom the document was produced to attempt to prove that the deponent was fictitious. I am certain that this is not what the law intended. So how does swearing on the Bible make this document truth ?
This issue would be easily overcome by requiring all deponents to produce valid photographic identification and full residential address including proof of residence at that address.
Ideally every affidavit must be supported by a document which shows an imprint of the passport or drivers license of the deponent and confirmed and certified by the oath taker as belong to that person. These documents could then be filed electronically with the court and held on file for a defined period of time. This is a simple but logical step which would introduce accountability.
In the absence of such a law change it is necessary for affidavits to be confirmed in court on oral evidence, if the person swearing the affidavit is not known to the party against whom the affidavit is sworn and makes the whole point of affidavits worthless and will result in more court time being consumed.
No documents had been served on me and when this was proved to the court the liquidation was reversed. See court decision
I made a complaint to the police but Mr Parker has not been able to be found as his full name was not shown on the affidavit and his address was also missing.
I am a licenced Private Investigator and am concerned with the use of unlicensed unregistered and un-locatable persons being able to swear blatantly false documents.
I published an article on my blog and was approached by a lady who had suffered the same through the same document serving company Translegal services limited
Due to her document server living in Dargaville, he was located and identified and is now facing criminal charges.
Just recently we became aware that the same lawyer swore both affidavits.
I wrote to the law firm concerned and received a short reply “It has never been a requirement to identify the person swearing an affidavit.”
I was doing some other research this week and found form C8
The form quite clearly states that a requirement is “full name, place of residence, occupation”
It is simply wrong that an unidentified person can swear a false affidavit which can have massive repercussions on people’s lives and I therefore wish to make a complaint with regards to AL Jones for being reckless in swearing affidavits in not obtaining full details from the person swearing the affidavit as required under the provisions of form C 8 .
If Al Jones has not breached any rule I would hope that the law society will tighten up on requirements for its members to obtain details and confirm identity when swearing affidavits.
On 8 October 2013 I received this response from the law society, I note that the law society evades the real issue which is the identification of the deponent the affidavit which I referred to simply said that “I, TONY PARKER of AUCKLAND. Process Server contracted to Translegal Services NZ Limited, swear:-“
The Police have not been able to locate or identify Tony Parker of Auckland he may as well have said he was “Parker from New Zealand”
If as the law society says “The lawyer taking the affidavit is witnessing the promise of truthfulness not inquiring into the actuality of truthfulness. The lawyer does not read the contents of the affidavit (unless the deponent is blind in which case the contents must be read out loud to the deponent). “Then how can the deponent be held accountable to the truth if the deponent cannot be located again or identified?
I do not agree that it was regrettable that the lawyer has been caught up in this situation, I think that the process is slack. I have sworn affidavits before JP’s and have had to produce my driver’s license or some sort of identification. I have had deputy registrars refuse to witness my affidavit because I didn’t have the words I, [full name, place of residence, occupation], swear— when I have had that information in the affidavit but not precisely as quoted.
There is a need to standardise the process so that all who take oaths use the same procedure and ensure that the deponent is properly identified.
I hope that you can see the need for this law change and that this can be implemented soon in the interest of justice.
last week we saw an item in the Herald Man jailed for scamming North Shore council this was the final saga in a series of articles which date back to 2010, ironically that is the date when Auckland council was formed.
The links to the stories are as follows
Not one of the news items mentions a whistle blower, this was revealed in this mornings paper thought a letter to the editor by Larry Mitchell
That whistle blower was indeed luckier than I was I guess it was because Hemant Kumar Maharaj and Suresh Din were not lawyers and did not know how to use the court to conceal their offending.
Had they been a Lawyer Like Neil Wells for instance they would have immediately taken action against the whistle blower and discredited him/ her .
Strangely enough Auckland Council who is according to the article “vigorously pursuing the defendants” through a civil claim in the High Court to seek full recovery of its costs.” is not at all interested in recovering or even investigating any matters relating to what went on in Waitakere city .
Len Brown claimed that the fraud which operated from 2000-2010 is historic , it would appear that it is just as historic as this matter.
Lets see what the new council will bring fortunately there will be a new CEO and a new counsel for council . Wendy Brandon is to be chief of staff for David Cunniliffe , I dare say that if the new counsel and new CEO are at all savvy we will find that we will have a new item to match this one from Spain. Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial
I do hope that they set up whistle-blowing facilities and take whistle blowers seriously it would save millions.
Transparency International has conducted a survey of more than 114,000 respondents in 107 countries. It unfortunately does not mention how many people were surveyed in New Zealand. there appears to be an increase of numbers reporting corruption within institutions and the number of people who have reported paying bribes even 3% paid to the judiciary is too much in the country which claims to be corruption free… Yeh Right !
perhaps the most interesting of all of the statistics is “TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION?”
26% strongly agree 55% agree 13% disagree and 5% disagree
The true barometer on Corruption in New Zealand is what is seen in actions
The 81% who think they can make a difference are very much the silent majority .. and they obviously have not had their eyes open or not tried to report corruption.
If those people actually did something the following evens would not be occurring.
1. Vince Siemer editor of Kiwisfirst.com is being sent to prison for 6 weeks because he reported an error made by a judge. An error which she covered by a suppression order.
Compare this to
2. Business man Terry Hay who was charged with 22 counts of fraud who skipped the country and returned years later and got his QC Mr Robert Bruce Stewart QC to pay off the crown law office see FYI.org to drop the charges . This is after his lesser co offender entered a plea of guilty and was convicted.
Does this not prove that Fraud is condoned but transparency is punished!!!!!!!
It is only due to my own involvement with whistle blowers that I have become aware of the plight, I bet that each and every one of us all face the same and we all face it along.
I was sent the following link this week about a whistle blower on the world bank
so look at the U tube clip well worth it
World Bank: Money Laundering Criminals | Interview with Whistleblower Karen Hudes
It appears to m that the most abused Whistle blowers have one thin in common, we are all exposing corruption at Government level. a NO NO !
The very people we elect and are supposed to represent us are actually in bed with big business.
I am currently reading “double happiness “ well worth while
I have tried to see my local MP again but John Banks is so twitchy he wont let me near him because despite the fact that we have freedom of association I know people who know the people who are suing him.
Too bad about the democratic right of having representation in Government.. not for me.
so when Whistle blowers speak out they lose and political Bullshit wins and the people keep their heads in the sand a bit longer.
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.
Having a blog is great because people see that they are not the only one to have to deal with issues such as non service. So today I have the pleasure in providing part two of document service How Translegal do their affidavits.
The licenced Private Investigator sticks to the script as reported in the Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand and employs a document server who is of little or no fixed abode and with a generic name so that they can fade into the sun set.
In this case it is a Mike Downey . Mike was required to serve a set of documents on a lady to make one of her children a ward of the state so that the grand ma and grand dad could stick needles in him to make certain that he was their grand son .. no minor matter and assault in my mind and breach of privacy to boot but that is beside the point right now.
The affidavit of Mike Downey …its a shocker .
- The affidavit is sworn on 31 of 2013 , fortunately we worked out that it was January because February was the only other month so far in 2013 and it only had 28 days .
- The affidavit of….. does not say whose affidavit it is on the cover we have to make that out from the scribble inside.
- Michael whose last name is not clear shows that he lives in Dargaville he claims he is a legal document server , but so is any one else ,apparently, if they hand over a legal document, no skill or registration required. You serve so you are.
- Fortunately we can identify him , he left his card with the registrar so we now have his Po Box number and probably the number of a pre paid Sim card. wow set up for a quick get away … hope you are taking notes
- At least we also know now that the squiggle that was supposed to be a name stands for Downey
- On Monday 4 January he claims to have served the respondent with the papers just a few issues here first she never got them , she was away for the holidays
- and according to the majority of calenders int eh country the 4th was a Friday
But who cares about details when you are committing perjury in for a penny in for a pound.
Legitimate Document servers in the far north have been wondering why this part of their work has all but dried up
We know why.. Translegal can afford to under cut them. and there is no risk to their licence because its all condoned.
Ethical document serves would not even think of using such practices but what chance do they have , you don’t even have to do one visit all you do is swear an affidavit and keep your fingers crossed.
Lets hope that the police will move to prosecuting perjury with as much vigour as the speed limit is enforce.
We believe this is the fine upstanding citizen who undertakes the document service .If you can give us more details we would love to hear from you
just make a comment at the bottom of the blog and I will get the message, your details will not be released.
For more on this see http://justnz.wordpress.com/