Transparency

peter goodfellowAny 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

26/08/2011

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

21/03/2012

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.”

20/06/2012

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

 

26/10/2012

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

9/04/2013

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.

7/10/2013

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

23/10/2013

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

19-Mar-14

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.

Comment

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.

State capture—a form of grand corruption

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

chronological emails

emails  by topic ( more or less )

pages 2-8  VISIT TO CHINA BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE 20 to 23 OCTOBER

pages 9-10 Minster Collins’ Visit Update

pages 11-25 Sunday 20 October private dinner

pages 27-41 Minister Collins’ Visit

pages 42-50Minister of Justice visit to China update on programme elements

pages 52-54Oravida invitation

pages 55-70Minister of Justice call on Orivida Office Minister Collins’ Visit

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

 

shhhHot topic of the week    .. secret trusts.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Now  a few observations about the report.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nudge nudgeNew Zealanders have an issue that goes beyond a lack of resources, the OECD said: They don’t believe their people or companies would pay bribes in the first place.

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.

“The low number of allegations is not a reflection that New Zealand is immune from foreign bribery,” the OECD warned, saying the country must raise its awareness efforts.” source

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.

John Banks    also  didn’t accept  a bribe  that is  why he too is in    court  his bribe was called an anonymous donation  see   Banks is going to trial! and Judgement Judge Gittos 16 Oct 2013

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.

 

 

bibleOpen letter to Judith Collins and Chester Borrows

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, saidI’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.

Background Circumstances

On 20 July 2012 my company VeriSure Investigations Limited was put into liquidation based on an affidavit of service sworn by Tony Parker though AL Jones of Thomas and co .

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.

whistleblower northshore 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

Council workers charged in $840k corruption case

Council official accused of $840,000 scam

Men accused of $840,000 scam back in court

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.

 

confusedTransparency 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!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

below the surface Whistle blowers are left out on their own  while  many  who  claim to support  them have  their head in the sand

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

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

my   comments which are awaiting   moderation are  as follows .

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

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

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

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

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

 It has been covered up at every level of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

gary swanGary Swan of Translegal is providing the second installment of  our how   to  serve documents in the most   unethical  but  apparently legal manner.

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.

First of all you have a lawyer who contracts to   a licenced private Investigator, in this case Translegal services NZ Limited .

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 .

  1. 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 .
  2. The affidavit of…..  does not say whose affidavit it is on the cover  we have to make that  out from the scribble inside.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. At least  we  also know now  that the squiggle  that was  supposed to be a name  stands for Downey
  6. 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
  7. 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/