Transparency

corruption 5Over the past years I have been gathering  signatures for a petition for a commission against corruption .

at last the day came and It was presented in Parliament by Andrew Little , see here I was placed before the law and order committee   and I was invited to produce evidence.law and order committee correspondence

So the logical thing to do is to provide evidence  which showed that corruption exists in New Zealand and that there is no  way of  questioning it.   So I produced my evidence  which covered  a number of topics each of which  disclosed corruption and  fraud and each a matter which had not been  dealt with   read my full submission here Evidence in support of the Petition of Grace Haden and others 5 11

On 26 November I received a  response , you may note that I did not name any one in my submissions, I merely attached official documents   as evidence .  the response   states ” We note that the evidence you have provided contains allegation of fraud against named individuals. After detailed consideration, we have resolved to not accept your evidence and to expun:ge it from our records under Standing Order 236(b) due to the risk of harm
that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.” see full letter here response rejecting evidence

I SENT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz] Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2014 3:48 p.m. To: ‘andy.gardner@parliament.govt.nz’ Cc: ‘Andrew Little’ Subject: Response to Law and order committee. 2011/117 Petition of Grace Haden and 121 others
Mike Sabin and the select committee

I am in receipt of your letter dated 26 November 2014 in which you state that my evidence is rejected

1. “due to the risk of harm that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.”
And you also allege that

2. “Your evidence makes it clear that the issues you have raised have already been thoroughly investigated, and we are satisfied that institutions such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Ombudsman are the proper agencies to carry out detailed investigations into allegations of the nature that you raise”

It would appear that we have a catch 22 situation here as it appears that I cannot mention un resolved fraud and corruption as evidence as to why we need a commission against corruption to investigate just such issues.

I have not mentioned any one I have however attached documents which were largely obtained from Government and local government files and responses to OIA’s .

As an experienced fraud Investigator I find it frustrating that there has never been an independent investigation of these matters

With regards to the AWINZ matter, a fictional law enforcement authority. This has never been investigated , the civil jurisdiction of the court was used to conceal the corruption though a defamation claim in which I was denied the right to a defence of truth and honest opinion . Additionally it never had a formal proof hearing and went straight to a quantum hearing where perjury was relied upon .

I made a complaint to the police for the perjury but they declined this complaint.

The complaint with regards the false application has never been investigated by any one.

The police hand it to the SFO

The SFO have never investigated they handed it back to the police

The Police decided that it had already been dealt with by the court when it had not he only thing which had been before the court was a defamation claim a claim based on the fact that I said AWINZ did not exist, I have tuck loads of evidence and it does not exist, MPI cannot produce evidence of who the real or legal persons were involved in the law enforcement authority

The ombudsmen only assisted in obtaining documents and it took then two and a half years to re lease documents which would have assisted in my appeals

This is a matter of serious corruption which has never been independently investigated by any of the alleged anti-corruption agencies , hence it had to feature in my evidence.

Had I raised the issue with MAF and the ombudsmen, and perhaps later with the SFO and they had investigated, then I would not be petitioning for a commission against corruption as it does not take the brains of Britain to see that this is pure blatant fraud.

Could you please advise
1. what the future of the petition is has it been thrown out due to lack of evidence ?
2. can I amend my evidence in any way ,
3. does the government not care about the fact that law enforcement authority was given to a fictional organisation.
4. Can you request an independent review of this matter ?

This is a matter of gross public concern and very topical , I have not disclosed my evidence as requested but if my petition is thrown out then I do feel that the public have to know why. I support transparency

I request that you please reconsider your response as I do not believe that it is possible to request a commission against corruption without showing that current agencies have failed.
Regards
Grace Haden

The response was simple straight forward  response

The report to Parliament     is   located here Full report text [PDF 54k]    it  tells you exactly nothing

The Law and Order Committee has considered Petition 2011/117 of Grace Haden and 121 others, requesting that the House legislate to set up an Independent Commission against Corruption tasked with the prevention, education, detection, and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.
We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House and recommend that the House  take note of our report.

So what is there to note in a report which has no  content?

It appears to me that this was a very swift and underhanded way of getting rid of  a petition for  accountability.

there are ways of dealing with  evidence which does not sit comfortably and this is set out in standing orders Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, New Zealand, 2014 [PDF 1196k]

There are procedures set out   for dealing with situations such as this and  these are set out in sections 232   on

To me this  strikes  at the very heart of corruption  , in my evidence I have two copies of a  a letter   one which was  obtained from Maf   which contained redaction’s  the other  unedited.

Considering that the  Minister gave law enforcement powers to a fictional  organization  and this statement  was redacted  , I think it is  very material on the level of corruption in New Zealand. Suttons letter

I believe that the opinion given by Crown Counsel is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a  proposal given that Iam advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.- Hon Jim Sutton

the fictional    ” organization ”  Animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand was given law enforcement powers, 

the minister mistakenly thought it was an incorporated society   and amended this when  he was told it was a trust , However no  signed trust deed for the applicant existed  and this has been a serious case of identity fraud  swept under the carpet  and    denied.

AWINZ administered   the law for  some 9 years  using council staff and resources  to procure a  private income it  lost its law enforcement powers when a group of people posing as the  ” organisation ”  relinquished the approved status .

No loss of reputation to those   who are   on the inside those who have mates in parliament  but   those who raised questions in total innocence have been totally annihilated.    But then   to be a pleb or some one important  there is a difference.

Looks like those in parliament are still doing their work.

transparencyToday is Anti corruption day ,we know that because the email just arrived in our in  box this is the on line version

the associated web site  is http://www.anticorruptionday.org  the  day is  9 December 2014  so  that we look at it again  it was yesterday  because we are a day ahead.

What is of special significance  is that  Yesterday Grace Haden and Transparency New Zealand limited   appeared  in the Auckland High court on a defamation  claim   for having published the  identity of the persons who  were the ultimate  owners of a chain of companies  . The identities were not a secret and they were obtained  through  tracing companies through the  companies register   as  I will show below.

So on the one hand we have transparency International demanding openness  and   on the other we have persons  who   connect the dots  through the public registers  sued  for defamation   by showing that a company such as Falcona systems limited  which was  connected to 150 million dollars  worth of fraud  and for showing that  one person  is ultimately responsible for   the  ownership of some 1500  companies

We simply traced Falcona systems limited share holder INTERHOLD LIMITED to its shareholder GENHOLD LIMITED  to its shareholder TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED  to its shareholder who we cant mention because that would according to that person  and their  lawyers be  defamation.

Ironically the lawyers  who are taking this action are being less than  transparent themselves  and have gone out of their  way  to  seek to gag us .

The information is however available on the internet and you have to know  how to find it, let us help you  .

The directors form  for Trust NZ Holdings  shows Stephen James Green as the director  the company on behalf of the shareholder . This form   was completed by equity trust  a trading name  for one of  several possible companies  being TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED  or  EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED both exist at the same address  and Stephen Green  is director of both

equity-trust co.nz  a “Who is” check on  this  registrant   can be found here

 

 

EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED also uses the domain name  equitytrust.co.nz, they are a lesson in themselves as to the need  for verification   as this document would indicate  .

It claims that the company is supported by a team of lawyers  and has a  certified accountant.. (doesn’t say that  he she is a chartered accountant though )  and claims to be a member of the Asia Offshore Association  however a search of the membership  list with that association fails to  locate  Equity trust International on it .

It is  of particular significance that  The legal action which is being leveled against Transparency and Grace  is being taken   through  Stewart and associates equity law  ,what is alleged to be a “branch” of a law firm which has allegedly ” merged ”   with Equity law barristers

If you do a search  in the law society roll you will note that there are two firms shown

Capture

 

Stewart and associates Lawyers limited is a company  see the company records here

Equity law barristers Limited is a company  see the company records here  the history of shareholdings  and directorship are worth looking at and comparing  these two companies to Equity trust International  limited 

The  company which uses the  Trust-nz.com  web site  is Equity trust International  limited  ..( you might have to click  English first as it opens in Russian.)

Trust-nz   The directors of Equity trust International  are shown as

Steven James GREEN
138 Weymouth Road, Manurewa, Auckland, 2102 , New Zealand
Greg Roderick STEWART
Unit 5, 27 Fache Street, Clyde, Clyde, 9330 , New Zealand

the latter of course being the lawyer of Stewart and associates Lawyers limited   who brought the defamation proceedings and associated action

The plot then thickens   with the shareholders residence Flat 8a, 4 Short Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand just having been sold to  a company  LSE Limited  owned and directed by George Bogiatto

The significance  in these names  is that they all  appear together on the intituling of court proceedings  being leveled  against us in an attempt to provide what Transparency International and the UN  say    should be disclosed.

bogiatto and stewart The real issue which I see for New Zealand is  that transparency is being  blocked  through  lawyers using the    the  courts to  thoroughly beat people  up  for disclosing that which is on public record any way and a people have a right to know  .  Equity trust International  limited  has registered many companies  some of which  have found themselves  noted by the press  for a raft of reasons.

Then they have the audacity to   take this action through a very non transparent medium  and hide behind psuedonyms  and false identities .

If you look at Stewart and associates Lawyers web site http://www.stewartlaw.co.nz  you will note that their logo is

stewart and associates LogoEquity law Barristers   Logo   can still be found on the way back machine

 

so not too unexpectedly  we find that the letter head and signature block  used by Ms Leenoh   is

signature block stewart and associates  equity

and we are asked to believe that   it is branch of of Stewart and associates, well if it is then it is also a branch of  Equity Law barristers Limited  a  former law firm,since that is the address the so called ” branch ” is operating from  and whose  telephone numbers and Po box are used see  this  for the address

Ms Leenoh comes with her own  issues  , the name she obtained her degree in is Lee  she claims to have  a conjoint degree from  the university of Auckland  and  a search on Leenoh reveals no graduates by that name  But a search on   Joo Yeon Lee  reveals that  there are  several persons by this name  and   a LLb and B com  for   one.

LeenohLee

 

 

 

We support  the call for transparency   in   transaction    both companies and  in the  law register  .

We have a right to  at all  times know who we are dealing with  in a manner which takes speculation out of the   picture.

The court is not a place for deception  and  any one  engaging in deceptive practices should be held accountable to the law   and  the person  who   exposes the deceptive practices should not have to expect to end up in  court.

Thank You   Curtis Gregorash

This morning when I woke up  I had never heard your name, I read my Herald and you have  restored my  faith in humanity.

In my experience we are   riddled with corruption  .It is concealed by those who work  for it,  intentionally, through  ignorance and  others for self preservation.

At last there is some one   who  not only has the   values to resign  but also the guts to speak out .We need more like you Curtis , there is actually strength in numbers   and  wouldn’t that   just make such a difference on the integrity of New Zealand.

Corruption is like cancer.  You can deny   you have it   but in the end  the symptoms will be too bad and it will either become obvious  or   you simply pop your clogs.

I Stood as an Independent Candidate for  Epsom  to  highlight the corruption issue.  I think I have contributed to the exposure of it  but  only in a minor way  as   what I have had to say has as usual been   well concealed,  yes the media play their part in the concealment too .

I happen to think that if the   improper swearing in of police officers is a significant issue then a fraudulent application  for Law enforcement powers  and as a result   having this granted to a fictitious organization  would also be of significance. The Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )enforced the animal welfare act  for some 10 years  despite having  any  identifiable  legal persons  revealed behind this trading name.  Ultimately   four people, who together have no evidence of having run the  ” organisation ” and who  MPI have no record of  being  the  applicant , sought to have the law enforcement  status revoked 

Both National and Labour   are involved  in this   corruption,  and  it is not as if  it has not been raised with Government departments   the office of the auditor general, Ombudsmen , SFO, MPI , Solicitor General , office of the prime minister etc   did not know,  they all knew   and all played their part.

We have  preciously highlighted the reason  for that , it  is because they  all support Transparency International New Zealand  . And  What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ? apparently not much ,  they know how to deny  that corruption exists   just look   who supports them in their quest to   portray  that  New Zealand is the least corrupt country . In the end  Transparency New Zealand is a business  and  needs to be paid . Rule 1. never bite the hand that feeds.

Come to think of it Transparency International New Zealand has been surprisingly  quite   during the election campaign .

Then  the other  item   which was of news this week was that  There are reports that Chinese communist party anti-corruption officials are looking to investigate suspects in New Zealand.

Mr  Peter Goodfellow   got involved in the matter as mentioned in the  article  but   we have found connections with him and Oravida see Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?

Then  there is the issue of the Crarfar farms and he manner in which  New Zealand farm land is being bought up in a most non transparent  way  and  here again we have a connection with Oravida  through their former director  who resigned from  Orvida one day  and  set up  with   those involved in making an application for the farms  the next  day and then doing so  deceptively  in my opinion through a  British Virgin Islands Company  Is there an obligation to comply with directions of the Overseas investment office ?

New Zealand is all about big business  we are happy to facilitate anything  from International money laundering   to  selling off our land  to unknown persons  all the while  we have this pretense of being squeaky clean

In 2011 commerce Minister Simon Power wants the taxman to help crack down on NZ registered companies implicated overseas in smuggling, money laundering and tax fraud.

Three  years later and  another election later  nothing much has changed in the mean time  brand NZ has been damaged   by having  our companies  registered here  through our slack company registration processes  being used in international money  laundering  and fraud.

We dont learn from our mistakes , we allow  the real criminals to use our justice system to conceal corruption  and  beat up   whistle blowers.

The Government  and  its employees   all stand on the side line and are complicit.   I takes a very special person to   make a stand . I have  heard far too may  say, “I am just a few years off retirement  I dont want to rock the boat.  ‘   Those who remember the   old TV program Gliding On.. Well  Its alive and well  .

I am preparing my submissions for  the commission against corruption petition  which was presented in June , let us hope that people vote  wisely   and that  we will see the C word  ( corruption )  Used a lot more  and  also see actions to combat it.

 

Not too long ago  we  posted an article with regards to Milk New Zealand Holding , this is the company which  is purportedly  owned  by  Shangai Pengxin

The  office of overseas investment OIO Assessment at page  four stated

The Applicant is Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (“the Applicant”), a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an
overseas person under the Act.

The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.

It transpired that the  applicant  did not   comply with this direction   instead  another company named  Milk New Zealand Holding was registered as a New Zealand company   with a share holder initially unidentified but later revealed to   be Milk New Zealand  Investment  a  company registered in the British Virgin islands .

I requested information from the companies office   through FYI  and a response has  been received  .

MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT LIMITED  is indeed registered in the British Virgin islands , but the  companies register  there does not  disclose who the share holders  are .

The British Virgin Islands company was   registered on  24 May 2012  , the company which registers off shore   incorporation has provided a certificate of incumbency    which presumably is only accurate as  at the date it was issued.

Additionally   the  final paragraph it  states that the register may be kept elsewhere and their records may not be up to date .. so fat lot of use that certificate is  .

But  going back   to the instructions   of   the OIO   it states   The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.

The  agreement therefore  between the applicant and the government   has not been complied with    and the  Purchaser  has no   obligations to fulfill the    conditions  as the purchaser is not the applicant , it is a grand son   who has the same name .

It is the   company  in between the applicant  and   purchaser which is of concern  as     this is the  weakest  and   a very non transparent link in the chain .

I wonder  if any one will do anything about it ? I have sent the  open letter below to the ministers  .

Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:01 a.m.
To: ‘m.woodhouse@ministers.govt.nz'; ‘b.english@ministers.govt.nz'; ‘s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz’

Open letter to the Ministers  of finance,   land information  and  economic development  and OIA request

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that  the purchaser of the Crafar  farms   was not the company which applied to and was approved by the OIO

The directions of  the OIO  appear to have  been ignored , these  were  that “The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.”

The resulting group of companies went on to purchase more farms  and a deception/error occurred which caused the OIO   to state at point  16  of the application for the purchase of the  Synlait farms

“In 2012, Milk NZ was granted consent to acquire 16 dairy farms known as the Crafar Farms (“Crafar Farms”). Consent was granted subject to extensive conditions, including annual reporting. The Overseas Investment Office has recently received Milk NZ’s first annual report and is satisfied that Milk NZ is not in breach of any conditions of consent.”

But the report which  was produced was not from the applicant  in the Crafar application  but   from  a company   which  has the same name and purports  to descend from the applicant.

The statement  on the OIO web site  states “Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk NZ), the company that purchased the 16 former Crafar Farms last year, has submitted its first annual report to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).” This statement is  true however it was not the company which was approved to purchase the farms , it was in effect a name sake  with   questionable genealogy.

The annual report  furnished    further complicates  matter s by referring to the purchaser of the  farms as being Pengxin New Zealand Farm Group, which is a subsidiary of  Milk new Zealand Holding  (NZ)    as opposed to  a direct subsidiary of Milk  New Zealand Holding,  (HK)  the applicant  .   As a fraud investigator I am aware that  through the use of names  assumptions  can be made which  divert     those    who accept the assumption away from the truth.

In between  the company ,which was the applicant  Milk NZ holding ( HK)   and milk New Zealand Holding ( NZ)   is  a non-transparent  and unscreened ,unapproved   entity called Milk New Zealand investments  .This  has a certificate of incumbency dated  5 december 2013, which by its own  disclaimer may or may not be accurate.

Milk  New Zealand holding the applicant    is not the   purchaser or the  direct   owner of the purchaser  and   this may bring about   issues    of its own as the purchaser is not  a party to  any of the conditions agreed to   with the OIO .

There appears to be a disconnect between the OIO  and the  MED .   No one has   verified that the   applicant  has been properly  registered as directed as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993.

 It would appear that the provisions of  the act specified under  the heading  Overseas companies has not been complied with .

As per section 15 of the companies act,  each  company is a separate legal entity , therefore   the applicant considered by the OIO  and the purchaser are two separate legal persons.

By way of OIA   please provide   copies of any documents in which   any of the ministers or ministries have considered the fact that  the applicant in the  Crafar farms  deal was  not the   purchaser . And   please provide copies of  any consents   which  have allowed the  purchaser to be different from the  applicant .

I ask this  under urgency due to the Lochinvar station being negotiated  and if falsehoods exist   then this should be  addressed  prior to the sale  going through.

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

What would happen   if the  silent majority was not  silent ?

Imagine if  every one who is  eligible to vote  voted .

The undecided would become the deciders  and we may all  be better off because of them .

Instead of not voting  if all non voters voted  for nothing but ” other minority parties ”  which received .48%  of the vote in the last elections  their  vote take woudl be increased  to  34.63%   which would be  3.47%  more than National  got in the  last elections .

Now wouldn’t that be a  left field game changer  ?

These minority parties  would be in a position  to form a government with any one   . They could   actually form a Government  with every one except national and Labour .

They could throw out    consultants, advisers  and  just runt eh country on good  old common sense  .

It would be any ones guess  who would be prime minister  but I certainly do hope that   the first thing this parliament  would address is corruption  .

I have no doubts  that those in  the Grey are those  who can help us beat the  1% .. are you in  ????

 

  Petition for an independent lawyers authority

What is the point of having laws if there  is no accountability to it?

We have screeds of legislation  which applies to lawyers  but just about every time  a complaint  made to the law society  comes back with the words that the lawyer concerned does not meet the threshold   for that rule or offence  or it is written off  in some other lame manner  without real consideration of the rule has been breached or not .

We appear to have allowed a  Grey area creep into law a decision which says technically they have  broken the rules or ignored them  but we dont think that it has done serious damage.  Should we  perhaps  re write our laws  so that  the  law can be broken  by 5%  , 10%   or even totally ignored or sat theft is not a theft is  the sum is less than , or   too bad he stole your TV  but because it was old it doesn’t matter.   Or simply apply  the law  selectively  to people  who you think   has  good reputation which will be tarnished by  a conviction  regardless of the facts.

I think I may have  hit the problem on   the head there as our legal system is built  on the 12 the century  legal concept  in  Britain.There were four inns of court  Grays InnLincoln’s Inn,   Inner Temple,    Middle temple , the links will take you  on a fascinating    voyage of discovery .

It  is perhaps not  very surprising that the words   Bar, standing  and  Inns   are all associated with the   law  .That is why only those standing  can  be at the bar, I can only guess that the others  were under the  table  or  dead in a corner  .

Through the   involvement of the Knights Templar and the  inns,  religion was a tool used  control  those both in the  Inns  and those   on whom the law was practiced. The Fear that  some harm would befall them  would  get any  one  to confess except those  who secretly knew that  you could tell lies and get away with it.

But fast forward to  2014, knights in shining amour are out, religion has been  shown not to  deliver the thunder bolts and lighting  to those who  do not speak the truth  or act honourably  . So what do we do  we   say to the lawyers   go and form an organization and control yourselves. New Zealand Law Society

As a safe guard we   set up  the LCRO    to which you can appeal  if you dont like what the law society does  but  we make certain that the people on the LCRO are appointed in consultation with  the law society  and also funded by them.

Because of the lack of funds the LCRO is desperately under resourced  and there appears to be a wait of some 2 years  before the matter is determined by the LCRO , evidence of this is  shown  in the dates of  the determinations .

To expedite matters and  to make it appear that most of the lawyers are good  guys   the law society ” writes the complaint off ” in their  early resolution process, this has the effect that people   just done bother making complaints   as it is simply a waste of  their time.  Their actions with lawyers are more akin to that of a mother of a very spoiled  only child  , rather than a mother of 10  who  in years gone by would have given   the culprit a good reason to remember why he has to stick to the rules.

I   have   only ever had one successful   complaint to the law society  and  that took 3 years to complete .  I was to get $30,000   after  false invoices had been issued .

As a former police officer I find it appalling that a person with  the full weight and responsibility of upholding the law and being an officer of the court    can  commit  acts which  when I was a police officer  were crimes .I have seen people locked up for  stealing  a packet of tobacco  yet here  I have been deprived of a massive sum   through false accounting and the  offender   is now suing me for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy and liquidation are two processes used to  ” take some one   out ”   which liquidation of a company is the equivalent of killing off an opponent, bankruptcy is as close as you can  legally get to  bopping off a person  who gets in your way and if  they resit  they will son find that another $3,000 is added  to the bill.

This week a  Lawyer was  jailed for stealing from clients  this brings about the question, what is the threshold for theft? In my day a theft was a theft  but it appears that now thefts are acceptable up to a certain limit.

I have also become aware that  the law society  has a process which takes time  and  does not allow for intervention . Since  filing my  complaint with regards to  my former lawyer in  February 2011,   he has  taken me to court no less than five times  and my matter  has still not been resolved.

He is currently trying  to bankrupt me over $3,000  and  sue me for $500,000 .   All these court processes have   strict time frames  and   is  taking my time.  It has occurred to me that if he  bankrupts me for $3,000 all  my  issues will go away    and when your broke there is no point in coming after you for more dosh  cause your bankrupt.. It must be the  best  place to be. Perhaps my former lawyer is  trying to make me an example after all he   is in the business of setting up trusts  so that people  can hide their  money overseas . I know I wont get a cent from him  as  he  , despite  his business connections does not hold assets in his own name.

A  very good example  of how the  process is abused  is  that  my former lawyer   who was struck off as a  lawyer but  has had a reprieve and can practice   again if the was to get  a practicing certificate , is apparently  running his practice through a Proxy, a   very junior junior   who is working under the supervision of a lawyer in Alexandra and claiming to be a branch of that law firm   and having incorporated   both  law firms names into  the   trading name for the branch.

The very junior lawyer  operates from the premises of the former law firm  and    any one not knowing would think that it is business as usual at the former law firm .   I rather suspect that she is being given Practice   experience  by suing me,  all it can do is  cost me money  because if I  hired a lawyer and was   going to get a cost  payment in favour of me,   my former lawyer would  simply skip the country .

Now I consider  taking court action without   any evidence  as an abuse of process , it is akin to beating some one up  with a piece of 4 x2  and saying  sorry  wrong person  , didn’t mean to  hurt you .

But the law society will no doubt look at this and say no harm  done  and leave the door wide open to the next lawyer to make the same mistake.

In the mean time the person who has had  the court action filed agaisnt them has  how many sleepless nights?

This ” mistake  ‘ is actually a breach of the rules   and   the law society   has a duty to keep lawyers accountable to the rules , but the reality is that it works well for  lawyers not to be hard on   this  kind of thing  as it gives them something to put pressure on people with  .

This is not the only mistake   there have been many  .

It is for such  incidents ,  that I believe that the law society  should not be the both  the  body which disciplines  lawyers and holds them accountable .   I have drawn up a petition to segregate the functions of the law society  being 65 Regulatory functions  and 66 Representative functions. And to ask the government to set up one organization which    is dependent of Lawyers and only has the regulatory functions   so as to  hold lawyers truly accountable to the law.

A matter  follows   from complaint to law society , to LCRO to  tribunal   and  even after that there is  appeal

I am 4 years in on my matter and we have not hit the LCRO yet  , the LCRO will need at least 6 months to make a decision  then    there can be an appeal to the tribunal . Bankruptcy is just a  few   months  so it is a lot easier  for the lawyer to beat up his complainant  than it is for the complainant  to get  justice .

We need a process which work as  fast as a bankruptcy application does, a  process    during which administrators can intervene  and assess  all  court action  between the parties  and ensure that  only matters  are filed which    have followed the rules, proper negotiation and for which  there is evidence.

No more soft touch for lawyers.  They need to be held accountable to the law  to a Higher degree than the people who they proceed against . You can help by singing the petition

The petition is down loadable here   Petition for an independent lawyers authority

It is timely with Nicky Hager‘s  publication of Dirty politics that  we examine the corruption behind the  dirt.

I am in the process of putting together my  submissions for the select committee  to  substantiate my  petition for an Independent commission agaisnt corruption .

I have already done an informal post Why I initiated a Petition for a commission against corruption.

On that post we covered off  several headings  our concerns with regards to the  rather nontransparent system which appears to be operating in parliament. All the  issues   can be attributed to one single  underlying  problem .  There is no code of conduct for members of parliament .

Labour MP Ross Robertson has for the past 13 years been battling   to get Parliament to  accept a code of conduct for MPs. see story

There is a cabinet manual  which touches on  Code of conduct and holds ministers   accountable to the  Prime Minister for their behaviour. This however does not extend to   members of parliament who are not ministers they are responsible to their party leaders.

New Zealand MPs do have a register of pecuniary interest  the requirements for this are set out in  appendix B  of the standing orders .

The   returns are found   at this link . Again as  with so many registers in New Zealand there is nothing which compels the truth  and no consequences for  deliberate omissions.  The integrity  of the register is  therefor  solely dependent on the integrity of those who  provide the information.

In Australia we see a different scene  and a magnificent summary which  also    looks at New Zealand  and notes that

The parliamentary practice states that :

As occasion requires, ministerial guidelines may be issued by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister to deal with particular circumstances that have arisen (such as the conduct to be observed by Ministers involved in mayoral election campaigns). However, these ministerial codes of conduct are political guidelines adopted by Governments to guide their own conduct. They have no statutory origin and are not regarded as being legally enforceable. Their significance depends upon the sense of commitment to public office held by Ministers and on their political responsibility to Parliament and public opinion.

New Zealand Parliamentary Practice notes that:

Except in the case of financial interests, the House has not adopted any detailed ethical guidelines for its members, taking the view that advice about appropriate behaviour is primarily a matter for induction training and internal party discipline.

And so it  is that the system  which operates in Our government today   revolves around the prim ministers top drawer.

Conduct which should be independently  investigated is retained until a suitable   ” spat arises”  party Politics are never far  away and we are constantly reminded that the  governance is   a war between left and right.

While  it is the conduct of  the house which should be considered we find  that  the  protects its members as  do the other parties.

Being the prime minister allows better access than any one   to the dirt  and  you simply hold on to it  to trade off    and save the neck of one of your own.

it is of note that  the code of conduct and ethics is linked to    ICAC particularly  involving Lobbying.   It appears that elections may be    time for open slather  of those wishing  favours  in the   forth coming terms  to help  provide a leg up   for the party who  is to deliver   the goods. see this link .

The   open door to the Westminster  style  of  parliament is that   it places the prim minister   in total control of the conduct  of the ministers  and the Prime minister  does not even require  formal parliamentary  authorization  to alter amend or interpret anything   he likes  as he likes.

It is therefore a matter of playing the game   and while we frown upon bullying in the playground, the same tactics are essential  for  political  survival.   Its all count getting   your bum on  the hot seat so that you can steer  your  country   for  what  could well be  private  financial  gains.     why not?    we dont have  any  law agaisnt  it!

money launderingNew Zealand  is renowned for  its ease of settling up a company.  A company is a new legal person  and separate legal entity.  Each company  generally has  the same rights and privileges in law afforded to a real   or natural person .( the type that  breathes )

There appears to be two sets of  standards though  one afforded to natural  people  the other to   legal persons (  corporates )

A real person  takes 9 months to develop  in utero  and 18 years after their  birth attains  legal  age where  he/she  can    own property , make independent decisions , sign contracts   etc. there are no short cuts  and you cannot cheat . Claiming a false age  , false parenthood,  nationality , identity  are generally considered serious offences.

Then there  is the second type of person  the corporate.. body of persons  or  company. – the legal person

The legal person   can be  created by any one in the world , all it takes is an online trip to the  NZ  companies office.   You will need a NZ address but no one will check if you actually live there.  if you dont live there they will ask yo to update the records.

It has  been made slightly trickier now  due to  the requirement   for  a log in  but   dont fret  there is noting that a few $$  wont overcome, there are plenty agencies willing to help

You dont even need to be truthful  about  the ownership   of the company and this can be disguised  behind trusts and behind other persons called nominees. Not only will you for  the princely sum of $160  get a New Zealand company  you will also have  a NZ identity.

To avoid   displaying the  overseas ownership  of  your new company you can use  an address in New Zealand  you could use a friends address and  perhaps use the  motel that you stayed in  the last time you  visited.

We have seen directors  and share holders who are one and the same  using different name  and different signatures.  the   system is    open to such abuse that  it is limitless…..no one checks.

As director  you  can use your middle name  and mothers surname  or  what every you   feel like being known as this week    you should be a real person  but as we will show  in our example   imaginary people  can be directors    and liquidators. .The good news is  we no longer have a national  Enforcement unit  we have an integrity unit  who  simply ask you to correct the details.   No penalties for Bullshit here.

So imagine if a foreigner wants to purchase real estate in NZ but  cant get authority,   they can  set up a company  ,  use it to set up a second company   and buy   a house.  They  can then  on sell the   company and the assets without any need for    conveyancing.  and the house  will  transfer as   part of the   assets of the company.

In short the company registration is totally  unsafe and   only the records of honest people have integrity .

The Transparency International  Integrity report  recognized that

  the ease of company registration  has been exploited for fraudulent purposes by international actors and New Zealanders.

This is compounded   by the lack of due diligence  employed by our companies office   and lack of enforcement.

New Zealand companies are  an invitation to international money laundering.

There is no  doubt  that there are laws in place to deal with  fraudulent application to the   companies office but these are no longer  enforced.

The last    published  conviction is for  DR Gerald WATERS,  who was  running a company for  scamster Jonathan Mann   Waikato doctor fights convictions  and also see Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims  and http://bewarefraudmann.wordpress.com/

Several years ago I was  also involved on the periphery of a case with a fictional director and   liquidator
Fresh Prepared Limited  owed a lawyer  $64,000.  the company  was directed by Lynne PRYOR  Unit 1, 135 Grey St, Onehunga, Auckland she directed it on behalf of her boss Terry Hay , (Business partner of David Nathan )Instead of  paying the lawyers  Hay on sold the company to  Sanjay PATEL  01 Nov 2006 who on 30 Jan 2007 appointed Liquidator Babubhai Patel  of Papakura.  It transpired that both ” men”  were fictional  Babubhai  even shifted  to Mumbai and his affidavits  witnessed by a solicitor in Shanghai .Fortunately in those days there was such a thing as  National enforcement unit in the  companies office , one which actually prosecuted.  Lynne PRYOR and Terry Hay were both charged with   some 22 fraud offences . see news items Charges over alleged fake liquidator  and  Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt . Hay   took off to Honolulu his home turf  and stayed   low  until  Pryor had been dealt with in the  courts ,  she was able to  bargain away 21 charges as Hay was the prime offender. Lynne Pryor was disqualified from  being a director   but she  remains at the premises which have now become a new company doing the same as before , business as  usual , her brother Graham Pryor is supposedly her supervisor . this company is now called Salad foods  . Salad foods share holding is  hidden in a solicitors trust, but it used to be Terry Hay  whose financial interests were in this company.

The transition of Fresh prepared into salad Foods was not  simple for a bit there there was another company in the mix   SALAD FOODS (1992) LIMITED  directed and allegedly owned by  Gui Li , Hays girlfriend at the time  who used her parents  Shanghai address.

Hay managed to  have the  charges dropped after he had  done a deal with government the response is on FYI  Download View as HTML

But sadly it appears that these falsehoods are  now condoned.   I have always noted that when ther is no consequence to an action   the abuse will increase.

This  brings me back to this weeks Chinese company   care of the British Virgin Island .

Milk New Zealand Investment  was allegedly the share holder   but had no real   identifiable existence.

Yesterday the   entry was changed on the companies register. the company is now shown as

Milk New Zealand Investment Limited  Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola , British Virgin Is.

All changed with the   flick of a pen  effectively having the  effect of transferring the beneficial  ownership of massive blocks of New Zealand pasture and all done apparently without a shred of evidence. I have requested  the proof. will keep you posted

truthThere are Many New Zealanders who know all too well  of the corruption in New Zealand.  There are also many who  dismiss   corruption as a conspiracy theory.

Invariably the ones  who agree with every word I say are the ones who have been exposed to corruption and found that it is  wave that  washed over you and consumes assets  on the way .

The only people who do not see corruption are the ones in denial   who  desperately want to believe the rhetoric because of the financial advantage it holds for them.

Amateur sleuths  can have a field  day  with uncovering corruption in New Zealand   but most are foiled by the presumption that  ” things will have been done properly.” The reality is that we  do not have proper systems or safe guards in place and our company  registration is easily  foiled

Trading names  are commonly used and it is not  unusual to find that   companies swap names   or trade in the name of another company.  so  it is always important o know who you are actually dealing with.

You can buy a house in the name of a company  and  then on sell the company , there by changing the   directors and share holders of the company and   the assets transfer  to new  owners without need  for  conveyancing as the ownership of the  property has not changed,  just change in   ownership of the company.

Like any magic trick  you   dont believe it can be done until you see  how it is done, then  you will notice  that it is  happening more  than  you ever thought.  its like buying a purple car, once you have one you see them every where. The reality is that nothing has changed only  that   you now  have an awareness.

Looking at the companies involved in  the Milk New Zealand   group of companies  , it is noted that the company Milk New Zealand Investment Limited  does not appear on the New Zealand register   but  it appears on the  company genealogy .

Rumour has it  that  the company is registers in the  British virgin Island, but even if it does  there is no evidence to show that this is he company  which is the share holder  of the multi million dollar  chain of companies.

We have already seen that  the Chinese company Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. is  selling off shares in our land.  

Our company  registration is   so unsafe that   it is a possibility that this company which has never been considered as  a potential purchaser is the actual owner of our land .

we can only wait and see.   time  will tell .

collins milkMy very wise mother always told me that once you part with something, sell it off or give it away  , you lose control over it. It looks to me  that we have lost control over  our  farm land  as it appears that it  about to change hands within China.

The overseas investment office  did  due  diligence on the purchasers of  the Crafar farm- Milk New Zealand Holding  Hong Kong , the report directed that this company should set up as a New Zealand company.Part 18 Overseas companiesof the  Companies Act provides for this.

A new company named Milk New Zealand Holding  appeared on our registry n its share holder   was not Milk New Zealand Holding  HK  , and neither  was this registration  that of an over seas company.

Instead the share holder was listed as Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand see post A closer look at the 2 Milk New Zealand Holding Limited companies

On discovering a  Chinese document  on Reuters  more   has become apparent

BRIEF-Dakang Pasture Farming to raise up to 2.5 bln yuan in private placement for New Zealand acquisition

(Reuters) – Hunan Dakang Pasture Farming Co Ltd

* Says plans to raise up to 2.51 billion yuan ($404.25 million) via private placement of shares, proceeds will be used to acquire two pastures in New Zealand

Source text in Chinese: link.reuters.com/cuv22w;see transaltion  Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. 

 The second  document   link.reuters.com/fuv22w  indicates the possibility  that the share holder may be  the company registered in  the British Virgin Islands.

Due to the nature and secrecy of  this registration  we cannot be sure if Milk NZ holdings  HK is the 100% share holder  of this company   or even if this company is the  shareholder of the New Zealand   company Milk NZ holdings, thepossibility is that another company with an identical name exists some where else  hidden in a tax haven  which will come forward int he future and claim to be the shareholder.

Another possibility is  the the chain of ownership  could be through more than one  company   with several intermediaries between the company which the due diligence was done on and the  ultimate purchaser a process during which the share holding of the BV   investment company was diluted and now  is not 100%  Shanghai Pengxing, through subsidiaries.

When company structures become complicated there is  always a reason  and the reason only becomes clear with hind sight.

The Reuters document  also  alludes to the  sale of our farms though shares  the report is not one of  Shanghai Penxin  is is  of Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Hunan Health Board

This company on a flow chart as  55%  controlled by Shahai Pengxin and the ownership of the  farms is attributed to th is company  in the report   see translated  documentation Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan ( per  Google translate )

the statement which I believe needs explanation   is  this

After the net proceeds will be used to: (1) the acquisition of New Zealand’s North Island Ranch and transformation projects; (2) the acquisition of New Zealand Los Cen ranch and improvement projects. In the implementation of the acquisition, the company will acquire new use Pengxin Group to raise funds Stake in the Hong Kong company (including its underlying company), and the Hong Kong company indirectly owned by North Island Ranch  Entitled to, and the Hong Kong subsidiary has signed agreements to acquire the Los Cen ranch. Pengxin Group through the acquisition of new Hong Kong companies, Roland will indirectly take ownership of livestock pasture North Island, and can be implemented on the ranch of Los Cen
Acquisitions.

source Chinese document  translation  Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan

Time to look at the players 

Terry Lee

1 December 2009  Lee  became director of Westlake capital Registered office Gilligan Shephard.

2 December 2009  Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of KIWI DAIRY CORPORATION LIMITED Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  Westlake capital  is the shareholder   This company  became Oravida NZ  LTD on 13 may 2011

3 December 2009 Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  This company  became ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED on 27 June 2011

Oravida property limited  owns 8  titles . It has to be noted that  ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED formed  22/7/2011 changed its name to KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LIMITED 27/7/11

18 Nov 2010 Terry Lee sets up a new company and   Westlake capital becomes 100% share holder MILK NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION LIMITED.  Zhaobai JIANG  becomes a director   On 02 Sep 2011  and acquires 50% of this shareholding  2 July 2014 . this company is not involved in any of the land purchases.

28 September 2010  Terry Lee resigns  from Oravida portfolios

30 September  2010 Terry Lee & Zhaobai JIANG set up  Nature pure Limited  60 % Milk New Zealand Holding Limited Kong Kong   40% Westlake shareholding .  this company  is not involved in any o f the land purchases .

My red flags

Terry Lee   is the sole person to  update the company registers  and  file now directors shareholders etc.

It is  to me extremely odd that the  Director is  doing this task

It is also odd that    the Hong Kong company   which has shareholding in New Zealand  simply did not  become the  shareholder of the New Zealand company or register here.

To me the registration of Milk New Zealand  holdings is  deceptive  as the  statement of the share holder is so deficient that there is no proof of existence.

I also notice that Mr Jiangs signatures are not consistent  and I have to wonder if some one else is signing for him at times.

The revelations  of  the   assumed ownership of  the land  By  Rolands  is worrying and  I  have to wonder if the Chinese  like myself have worked out  how  our companies registration process   has more holes in it  than  a seive.

We need an urgent  inquiry .