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 !


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 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  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


hoadley and woodOpen letter to Wyn Hoadley 

Good morning. This is addressed to the TCDC councillors and the various persons associated with  Wyn Hoadley   a copy of this is on

We all need to know the people we work with  ,  some  of them have a perceived  ethical standing     and often  you need to look beyond this perception  to see the real person , that way you know who you are  truly dealing with.

For the past 7 years  Wyn Hoadley has been  suing me  to conceal very serious corruption which involves  a person writing and advising on legislation for his own business plan, then implementing this plan,   using a  false name, in  a council  where he as manager of dog and stock control  used the council resources facilities staff and infrastructure to derive a personal income. ( the united nations define this as  a form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain ) . In New Zealand it is apparently condones.. that is why your rates are high.. jobs for the boys !

I  as a private investigator ( former police prosecuting Sergeant ) asked  a simple question from MAF -  why does this  private  law enforcement authority not exist ?

and of Waitakere  city council I asked -why  the council dog and stock  control   manager was contracting animal welfare services to himself and prioritising this over council work, he even    changed the logos  so that his private  enterprise and  the council operation appeared to be one.

Wyn Hoadley stepped in  and not  just condoned this corruption  she helped conceal it.   In 2011 I asked her a number of questions     I have raised these again  you may be  some what surprised  with what has come out in the meantime.

This  is the truth. I stand by everything I have said   I have evidence to support it all   this is extreme corruption being condoned  by  a lawyer  , barrister , former Mayor and a TCDC district Councillor  and a trustee of other trusts.  Please judge her  competence on the evidence.  ( evidence is hyperlinked and  will open in your browser.)

 Questions for Wyn Hoadley

For the past 7 years you and your associates have been pursuing me through the court   .

I have tried to speak with you on a number of occasions as I believe that  discussion is a great basis for  resolution , You have never made yourself available and have  preferred to continue to take action against me under the  guise of AWINZ.

Last  year you claimed $16,800  from me  without ever  advising me that you felt  that this sum was payable to  you  personally  , you  became a substituted creditor and rather conveniently    my company was liquidated when your process server swore a  false affidavit.

I have laid a complaint with the police but your process server conveniently cannot be located or properly identified.

I was fortunate enough that the courts recognised it as the wrought that it was and resurrected my company. See the court decision here   Court Order Terminating Liquidation

Wyn I cannot understand how someone can be involved in litigation like this for  7 years and remain ignorant of the facts.  I have placed   many documents before you which have come from MAF direct.   It is of concern to me that you as Chairperson of AWINZ have never questioned the evidence which proves that the court action which you took against me   in July 2006 was false.

2011 I sent an open letter to you , In it  asked you questions,  you never responded.  I  will go through them again  and show   the  answers  thought the   OIA  and law society  to some  of  those questions    those which remain unanswered I still seek   answers for.

Wyn   I look forward to this matter being dealt with, condoning corruption is not   a good look  and especially  not for  an elected member of council  .   I am putting these questions  ( some now with answers   ) back to you    and   again ask  for resolution  it may be an option that your  mayor   could mediate in a resolution   this has gone on for far too long.

Wyn  I look forward to answers   I   am taking  the liberty of copying  in your fellow councillors  and   will  be publishing this   on my  anticorruption web site.


  • My 2011 question was “What exactly did you join  on the 10th May  2006,  was there a proper meeting with minutes were other people there  or   did the date somehow  evolve due to Mr Wells  completing a form with the charities commission.”

In  mid-2012 Neil Wells responds to the law society and in an attempt to justify   his story of existence of AWINZ  he supplies minutes  which according to   a MAF audit report were missing in 2008   , Neil   is not very computer savvy because  his minutes  show that they were in fact created in  May 2011. Any way that aside  the minutes are supposed to be evidence of  you appointment as trustee .  This might be sufficient   evidence for someone not versed with the law but experienced investigators such as myself ask questions being

  1. Why are the minutes not signed? Could it be that between creating the minutes retrospectively 5 years later and sending it to the law society there simply was no time?
  2. Why were the minutes lost in the first place when hard copies are supposed to be kept? You according to the concocted records were chairperson for the entire period referred to.
  3. If the minutes were lost in 2008 due to a computer crash how come we have a copy now? Is this how you run all the trusts you chair?
  4. The trust deed  which was missing in 2000  three weeks after it was allegedly signed  was missing  in  2006 when you without any visible means became a trustee  , How could you  become a trustee without  any   formal acknowledgment to the obligations of the trust and How could you consent to the terms of the trust when you didn’t know  what the terms were, (on account of the deed being missing)?
  5. Is it not true that in reality you did not become a trustee on 10 May 2006   and at the very most you formed an informal   arrangement with Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells under a trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
  • My 2011 question was How come you have never been able to provide any documents that  prove that you were a trustee, If you didn’t sign any papers  how did you know you were to become a trustee to a trust, how did you get an obligation to the deed.

This question remains unanswered   only you can answer this   , This was not just some family trust this allegedly was one of only two  private law enforcement authorities in New Zealand.

  • My 2011 question was Mr Coutts told me that the trust, he belonged to which by its own   documentation ( 7 (a)) ceased to exist on 1.3.2003, never met ,   so how did you become a trustee of this defunct trust?

This question is for you as a barrister,  I hope that   you know  about the legal  functioning of  trusts  since you have been on so many.

It would be a real shame if you a barrister and trustee did not know   the  formalities  which  go with the running of trusts.

For clarification I am referring to  your  time as  alleged trustee of a trust called  the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ )  which had no   provable existence between  10 May 2006  and when you signed  the new deed to cover up the sham on 5 December 2006 – this  deed was  a requirement  for the IRD as without it you could not register for charitable status   Wells in his  affidavit refers to this (paragraph 38 and 39 ).

  • My 2011 question was how were you appointed given the fact that the trust never met?

Neil wells predicted your appointment as chairperson of the AWINZ trust in April 2006 , the trustees presumably should have had some say in this  and since the trust   had not met  and according to the minutes had not met since 2004  we have to raise   a question as to how this trust was really being run   .. I forgot I did raise that question that is why you sued me.  I had said that it appeared that the   trust which Wells claimed to be the law enforcement authority appeared to be a sham. I was right   it was a sham but you helped cover up the Sham   so that he could take defamation claims against me.  it needed a  new trust deed to do this    you facilitated it without question!.

  • My 2011 question was If this this (2000 AWINZ ) trust still existed, how did   this trust  which was allegedly formed   on 1.3.2000 have any obligations to the approved status given that none of the trustees  other than Wells had   signed any documents for the application   for approved status. And that there are  no documents any where which   bind those trustees to the   responsibility of running a law enforcement agency.

There are several issues with AWINZ first  that it was a trust  the second and the  most important one  was that  it was a law enforcement authority.

We still have not had this question answered – how can trustees of a trust  apply for law enforcement powers when the deed has not  been signed and the trustees had not met?

The other question affects the   legal status of trusts as to being incorporated or unincorporated.

An unincorporated trust gets it existence through the combined trustees who need to be named.   ( as was done  in your statement of claim  on 18 July 2006   except that you had no proof at all that  the tree of you together were a trust or had at any time ever traded  under that name. )

An incorporated trust is a legal person in its own right and capable of suing and being sued in its own name and applying  for  things in the  name of the trust rather than in the name of the combined trustees  . You  continued to pass off AWINZ to the court  as though it was   an incorporated trust when Quite Clearly it never was incorporated.. that is why  you took  me and  the registered trust to court in the first place remember.

The application for approved status was not made by a legal person in their own name it was made by Neil Wells claiming  that it was a trust when  he knew that no trust existed.

None of the trustees of the 2000 deed have ever made an application or been party to an application for approved status. They have not even been involved in the running of the approved organisation so much so that the minutes  of 10 may 2006  had to  explain  to them what an approved organisation was. “What is an approved organisation: It is an organisation approved by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Animal Welfare Act. AWINZ and SPCA are the only two approved organisations

So Who or   What was AWINZ the approved organisation .. ? How did you get to be chairperson of an approved organisation other than just by claiming to be?  Wyn in your experience with local government  and law  do such things happen by Osmosis? You used to be a Mayor  and you have never questioned  how   an organisation comes to  run  from council premises.  You have never questioned the fact that Neil Wells was acting in  a situation of gross conflict of interest  in contracting to himself in this MOU .

  • My 2011 question was In  May  2006 you assumed the name  Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  then took legal action  against myself and  the legally incorporated AWINZ  which pre-existed your implied involvement  by  three weeks  - for passing off and  breach of fair trade. As a barrister   could you please   let me know  how someone who assumes a name later can sue a prior existing  legal  entity for   passing off.

Still waiting for an answer for this   perhaps it needs to be put more graphically

  1. 27 April 2006 AWINZ is registered ( this is the AWINZ I was trustee of )
  2. 10 May 2006  relying only the evidence of this  re-created  minute  and at a time the deed was missing ( according to the minute )  you claim to be a trustee of a trust which did not and could not have law enforcement  authority
  3. Letters to the law society from you and your associates  show that you instructed Brookfields
  4. 26 June 2006   your lawyer David Neutze signed a letter, he did not disclose that  you  had instructed him, he then supplied me with an outdated trust deed  .
  5. You then filed  a statement of claim  on 18 July 2006
  6. You have never provided any evidence  until 2011  that you were not   trading as AWINZ before  27 April  2006   and  therefore  you have  absolutely no case  for passing off and breach of fair trade because you could not have traded  before 27 April  2006  as you have no  legally acceptable evidence of being  involved in any manner or means with AWINZ prior  to  5 December 2006  when you  signed are hashed trust deed .
  • My 2011 question was How we could have been  breaching the fair trading act  when you had not traded using the name AWINZ prior to our existence.

This question remains un answered and the evidence   above shows  that you had absolutely no   grounds  for a claim of passing off and  breach of fair trade.  How  can you as a barrister possibly consent to   a claim being  filed in court   making those allegations  they are blatantly false.

  • My 2011 question was How could you sue us without checking the validity of your claim?

As this signature shows you have passed yourself off as Chairperson   throughout 2006   this one is from a fundraising letter   this at a time  when  you have no  formal  standing as a chair person .

Wyn it scares me to death that a former Mayor, current councillor  and barrister has no notion of the formalities that come with holding office in what you allege to be a law enforcement authority.

You know I have raised these points I have personally handed you the evidence.. have you  in 7 years never read anything to do with the court action ? Have you simply facilitated it in your name  and  chosen to remain ignorant?

  • My 2011 question was Since you  took action against us, a legally incorporated charitable trust for passing off and  breach of fair trade, do you not think that the logo you and your  associates  Mr Wells and Mr Coutts JP   adopted  was not a tad  similar with the  logo on the  Waitakere council dog control building?  And could also be seen as passing off and breach of fair trade?

For  the record they are shown  here

awinz logo

waitakere logo

As a councillor would you be concerned if the TCDC council was being used in such a manner or would you also turn a blind  eye signage gateor as in this case   do what you can to buildingcover it up ?

It may also pay for you to read this audit report   from MAF which states in their final draft audit 2008it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WCC page 9   all personnel  ( including the AWINZ  inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation  facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry  to monitor AW issues, this did  lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations”

  • My 2011 question was Why was the new logo you adopted  so close to the ones on the council building and vehicles?

You have never answered this. I believe that AWINZ changed its Logo in the time when you  were Chair person .. was this never of concern to you ? You signed this fundraising letter   which bore a near identical   logo to the council  signage and you did not  question it? ( the colour on the  fundraising letter was dictated by the two tone print in which it was produced  but otherwise the AWINZ logo was basically the  council logo without  the  words institute of New Zealand underneath it). And this occurred at  a time when you were actively pursuing me through court for questioning the seamless   existence of AWINZ and council .

  • My 2011 question was why did you use the council phone number for your flyer   and why continue to use the postal address of the   council manager Mr Wells ( your fellow trustee); do you not think that that was a conflict of interest for him?

You have never answered this. These were the very qustions being raised   and it was because I raised these questions that you sued  me, WYN an astute person would have picked up on this      why did you turn a blind   eye?

  • My 2011 question was You signed this  donation flyer and also  the  following years flyer  . Legislation states that  “No trustees or society shall be incorporated under a name which is identical with that of any other Board  “ Mr Wells ( the  council manager and your  fellow trustee) had  a letter from the ministry of economic developments which explained  this  point  . Please explain by what legislation or documentary evidence you can supply which gave you the right to call yourself the chairperson of the board of trustees of AWINZ.

You have never answered this. Perhaps you don’t understand the question  – You claim to be chair person of a trust, You   became chairperson   at a meeting    which had persons present who were not trustees   and where only three trustees were present. The  trust by its own minutes  had not met since allegedly 2004   when its deed states that the trust will meet no less than  four times per year.    Of course you weren’t to know that   the deed was  missing at the time, it says so in the  minutes .

The minutes also record “Status of Deed

Neil advised that the original signed deed had been mis-filed

Neil and with Wyn will work on a revision of the deed

Deed needs to be finalised in the next 4 weeks “


It is therefore blatantly obvious that you knew that the deed was missing..    Wyn How can you be a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms of the trust are ?

  • My 2011 question was Wyn , as Former Mayor   and now a  councillor  of TCDC   does this mean that you support council officers  running a    private venture using  council staff and resources to generate income for   a group other than Council?

You have never answered this. It would  appear by your actions that you go out of your way to protect private pecuniary gain from  council assets.  I suggest that You read the united nations convention against corruption   to get a copy I suggest you speak to  Steven Hoadley   you know where to find him .

  • My 2011 question was This practice internationally is  known as corruption  , in  taking action to conceal  the activities  of Mr Wells and his  approved “ organisation “ which in reality was no more than an alias for himself , do you not think that you may have been concealing corruption ?

You have never answered this. Your actions  over the past  years since this question has been put to you indicate  that   you do not hesitate to crucify persons such as myself for questioning corruption

  • My 2011 question was Why did you as chairperson  not have any over sight over the bank accounts?

You have never answered this. The  minutes   indicate that  the bank accounts  were not in the control of the trustees.  In April 2007 I saw the bank accounts and found that they were totally in Wells control   You have continued to allow them to be in Wells control.  Even MAF raised questions about this in the audit report which you specifically sought to have withheld from me.

  • My 2011 question was what due diligence have you ever done with regards to the setup of the “organisation “you claim to be head of?  Why sue before you have done   due diligence?  And why did you not wish to discuss the matter with me or meet with our trustees to attempt to resolve it?

You have never answered this. You appear to  prefer to remain   silent    and continue to attack me as you did last year when you callously and illegally liquidated my company  through your actions..  It amuses me that you call yourself Humanitarian   what you have done  to me and my family would   have had you charged under the very legislation which you  claimed to have administered if  I had been a dog. 7 years of inhumane treatment torture is  unacceptable. .

  • My 2011 question was The legal action you took against me and the legal entity  AWINZ was    to force us to give up the name and the web site, You have stated that the trustees of AWINZ decided to instruct legal counsel Brookfield’s.   Why then go to a lawyer Vivienne Holm who did not have a practising certificate.

You have never answered this. More has come out about this through the law society,   why  ask a legal exec to phone me late at night and intimidate me?  Is that how   it is done?

  • My 2011 question was Why not take the recommended action as advised by the MED in the letter Mr Wells had or could you not take this course because you did not have the evidence or the standing?

You have never answered this.

  • My 2011 question was You always said it ( the legal action )  was urgent is that why Intimidation was the chosen  method? Did you condone the intimidation? You certainly did nothing to stop it!

You have never answered this. I did phone you and asked if we could talk you  said that  you were not the messenger..  Wouldn’t talking have resolved it  easily and quickly  .. why not  talk?

You have never answered this.

  • My 2011 question was You withdrew your claim (passing off and breach of fair trade)   after you had  brought about  some  $20,000 cost against  me personally all intended to  strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion with regards to  the  questions I had raised   about AWINZ. Do you think that that was ethical? As an officer of the court  should you not have spoken up and advised the court that you really did not have a rightful claim or standing?

You have never answered this.  This is now the basis of my claim to the court for obtaining a judgement by fraud due to the fact that there now appears to be no evidence at all that you were a trustee   prior to 5 December 2006

  • My 2011 question was In December 2006   some 5 months after you initiated legal action without seeking redress outside the court you signed a trust deed , this trust eventually obtained charitable status and retrospectively took on the role as the approved Organisation.. Could you please explain how this is legally possible?

You have never answered this. You may not understand this   but   how could    a new trust formed  5 Dec 2006 take over  the function of  law enforcement  when this law enforcement was not carried out by  a trust.  Did you never ask for minutes  did  you never question why there was a lack of documentation?

  • My 2011 question was This ( Dec 2006 ) trust obtained   charitable funds  which were used in the litigation against me which  was conducted in the  name of AWINZ,  could you please advise  why  the lawyers  your trusts funds paid for ( being Brookfields for  these invoices ) were able to claim that your unincorporated trust was a legal  entity in its own name  and how  your Dec 2006   trust  established  5 months  after the statement of claim was filed  got to be involved in the  litigation.

You have never answered this. Perhaps you don’t understand this

The money was given to Wells in 2005   the background to the funds are set out  in these blog posts

The Lord Dowding fund how to use charitable funds to conceal crime

The truth about the New Zealand fund for Humane Research

Would the real Lord Dowding please stand up

How did this money  which was given for humanitarian    purposes  get to be used for  pursuing me though court for questioning corruption.

In using this money you destroyed my family   caused me to   fear for my life ( due to being near suicidal due to you r action  and  bringing about health issues caused by the long term stress)

I would sooner have  had a  short bashing by  a thug  than the prolonged  duress you have subjected me and my family too    what you have done is extremely cruel and inhumane.

  • My 2011 question was I note that   on various sites you set out your public involvement   why do you never make mention of AWINZ ?

Even with your candidacy for TCDC  I would have thought that  revealing that you were a trustee  of   a Law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act would have been a biggie.  Why has your involvement   with AWINZ been so  secretive?

This is a copy of your letter relinquishing   the approved status  is here, it puzzles me that  you  relinquished something which was not yours  in the first place

  1. My reasoning is that   You did not sign the application
  2. MAF had  no documents which were signed by you ( or any other person  apart from Wells ) except the  relinquishing letter
  3. So the question has to be  How did you ever get to  become a representative of a law enforcement authority ?

Wyn  Law  does not jump through   vacuums  You do not become a trustee without  going through the proper process   and you cannot become a law enforcement authority through thin air.

You have spent 7 years  trying to silence me ,  it is enough Wyn   You have destroyed my family  You have taken  some $300,00 from me and  you are still pursuing me for more. What more  do you want.

How can you sit there on your moral high horse and be so cruel

Wyn  you have had all the evidence sent to you 10 times over  a diligent person would have had  alarm bells ringing by now and distanced themselves and  be seen to  put the wrong  right but you have continued  on   supporting the campaign against me and my family relentlessly  allowing the charitable  dollar to be used in pursuit of  this  concealment of corrupting  see

Wyn  it simply has to stop   will you come clean ? ( I rather think you  won’t   because you are in too deep and you  know  it  and you will do anything to  protect your perceived pure reputation )

I do  know  Wyn that you won’t be taking me to court  for defamation because you know that I can prove everything I have written and you  know that I am speaking the truth.

Do you think we should sit down and talk Wyn? Well I  don’t think  you are willing I  did phone you   this morning at 10.15  and you declined the offer.


Grace Haden


Because truth matters

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

this email was
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2013 11:01 a.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’