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.

Invariable  the matter  which was raised is resolved  through the back door  but the whistle blower is left standing on their own  and neglected left to  fight  for justice  through our antiquated court system which does not  rely on evidence or truth.

. In my case the matter has gone on for  7 1/2 years  ,  I am certain that if people hear my story they would make certain that they would be persuaded   that   whistle blowing certainly is not worth it.

A current example is Peter Dunne.. stop to think about it  hasn’t he just  exposed the fact that the government is secretly spying on New Zealanders  the  following Leaks have been attributed to him source

• An internal GCSB survey showing staff morale at the spy agency had “declined dramatically” (October 16, 2012).

• Novopay payroll system undermining Inland Revenue’s payment of teachers’ child support and KiwiSaver contributions (February 5, 2013).

• Details of the Prime Minister’s involvement in the appointment of his old schoolmate Ian Fletcher as head of the GCSB (April 2013).

• The resignation of National MP Jackie Blue to take up the position of Equal Opportunities Commissioner (April 16, 2013).

All are  matters touching corruption    all are matters which the government is being less than transparent  about.

I can safely say this  because I know   that it is impossible to report corruption in New Zealand  , our   civil court system is   dangerous  and  the entire system appears to favour  corruption.

It is still unbelievable to me that the Government  can condone   people writing legislation for their own use, advising on it and then applying under a false name.  then allow   the  private law enforcement authority to  continue to exist  knowing that   its structure would not be sufficiently robust to  qualify for a $5 bank loan .

This ” organization ( AWINZ )  was then allowed to operate from council premises   so that  it appeared that the  organization was  a  crown entity  from one angle  , a council  entity from  another angle  but in reality was one man playing local and central government off against each other while  making a private  pecuniary gain  courtesy of the  rate payers.

I made the fatal mistake of believing that  being the least corrupt meant that we  had a   identify and  annihilate approach to  corruption. Instead i  found that our approach is  ignore  ,keep stum and cover up.

We should be encouraging more ministers like  Peter Dunne  not  disposing of them.   He may have breached  some ethical rules  but he certainly cannot be accused of concealing corruption.

to see what  effect   our attitude  to whistelblowershave on people  I  invite you to look at this video of  a fire chief in Canada, he spoke out  about  a conflict of interest in council  and paid the ultimate price  see story

No matter who we are , no matter  where we are  not one of us is served will  by a  government which  conceals   corruption  and  bribery .

Perhaps we should unite for our future  and have a zero tolerance to  bribery and corruption  not by ignoring  it and pretending it  is not there  but by actively  exposing it  and cleaning up our our act   so that we can hold our heads high and know that we are the least corrupt because we deal with the issue  and not because we ignore it.

It is a sad indictment on society when we care more about animals than we do about fellow human beings.     Don’t get me wrong  I do not support cruelty to animals  but   it appears to me that those who  campaign against  cruelty for animals are not  averse to treating humans  in a cruel manner.

Much research has been done to show that people who treat animals unfavourably will also treat people unfavourable.  I submit that the reverse also applies.

 You cannot pretend to care about animals when you treat people in a most horrendous way.

The New Zealand Animal welfare strategy published in the animal welfare matters  New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy  lists two outcomes  

1.       Care of animals-We meet the needs of our animals and avoid causing unreasonable or unnecessary harm to animals through our activities.

2.       Reputation for integrity- New Zealand’s animal welfare practices add value to our exports and contribute to our reputation as a responsible agricultural producer

Let us focus on the second item Reputation for integrity

Reputation- A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing

Warren Buffett stated “  It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”

 While  Abraham Lincoln  said “ Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

The word “integrity” stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete). In this context, integrity is the inner sense of “wholeness” deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character.

H. Jackson Brown, Jr.  said “Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring, and integrity, they think of you. “

And W. Clement Stone said “Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.”

Reputation for integrity can therefore be taken to mean that the Ministry of primary industries wants to be seen as consistently acting in an ethical, legal and honest way.

The  document animal welfare matters  at point 2  talks of compassionate treatment of animals  as already discussed we cannot have  compassion for animals if we do not have compassion  for  fellow humans.

The article considers the fact that animals feel pain and distress and have other experiences; this in many respects is the same for humans.

The duty of care for animals physical, health, and behavioural needs cannot exceed the duty of  care for human physical, health, and behavioural needs and must  at the very least be equal .

The word humane is used a number of times and the requirement for Humane action is stressed.

Humane is defined characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed:

We can conclude from this statement that action which is unsympathetic and which causes distress and suffering would not be considered “humane “

Last year  I was hounded through the court  by a charitable trust   which used its trust funds  to pursue a judgement debt which had been awarded to one  of the trustees in his private capacity as reward for   deceiving  the court and  misleading the court.

$94,860.48  of charitable funds were used to  collect  a cost award in favour of Mr Neil Wells that author of the animal welfare  no 1 bill and the “ independent “  advisor to the select committee  who  had an undeclared vested interest in  seeing the legislation passed into law so  that he could set up a fictional organisation under a false name to  acquire   coercive law enforcement powers.

What is even more spectacular is that he later set up a trust to cover up the fact that the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no existence in any manner or form other than as a trading name for himself.

It was only when a Waitakere council officer  asked who she was volunteering her council paid time  to that it emerged that AWINZ had no legal existence and was not defined as being  any  particular legal person.

Wells set up  a meeting  and  started to cover up, this included  taking court action so that things which  could not  be proved otherwise  were proved  through misleading the court. Being a barrister made this  a simple  task  as  his status allowed him to be trusted over and  above any mere plebe appearing in the court.

Once he had the 57,500 awarded in his favour,  he set  about taking contemporaneous  liquidation and bankruptcy   action without  first sending any demand .

This was not the only sums he was after he wanted the $41,000 costs plus the interest, and then when that was taken care of   other demands came out of the woodwork totalling nearly $200,000.

This was all done using the charitable dollar proof of this can be found on the charities web site  in the annual accounts of a further trust caked AWINZ which did not even exist  when  litigation commenced.

The chronology of events is  found  in this document misappropriation of funds

What is   incredible is  that  one of the   purposes of this trust  is stated as being

To encourage and develop by humane education individual responsibility for the welfare of animals and the promotion of humane attitudes in society to animals and people;

Makes a mockery   of charities and    donations   don’t you think?

The following is my complaint to the charities commission  what’s the bet  that  this  type of action is  going to be condoned ?

This Teflon trust appears to be able to get away with   so much  it makes you wonder what influence they have  in the various government departments.

Neil Wells  barrister..former council manager . well connected to the labour party , associate of  bob Harvey , wrote the animal welfare bill  closely associated with MAf now the ministry of primary industries

Wyn Hoadley   former mayor,   Councillor  Thames  Coromandel  district council   closely associated to  the ministry of primary industries , labour party  connections husband is professor  of Human rights  at Auckland university

Graeme Coutts   JP , recruiter

Tom Didovich   former council manager life coach  .. that has to be a joke    doesn’t hesitate  funding the assault on a family.

The ministry of Primary industries  formerly MAF has this week been taught a lesson   in the significance of names.  this is  probably best summed up in the  herald  Editorial: Name change hardly makes business sense .

It would appear   therefore that MAF aka the ministry of  Primary Industries knows  nothing  about    legal names, trading names  and legal persons.    Until they do they will be  a continued target  of identity fraud.  Perhaps its time  they  learned a lesson from   the Chinese.. It would appear that the  Chines do  due diligence  and    do everything they can  to stamp out identity fraud.

Where as MAF and the MPI   in the least corrupt country in the world  can be so complacent   as to be negligent.  but  the when in doubt ” deny   everything ” approach appears to work in their  favour.. except when you deal with  the Chinese.

The ministry  has had its head in the  sand  far too long   and is  oblivious to the fact that   a name change could  have an impact on exports — fraud does not just happen in bribery or in   accounts  it also happens  through Identity fraud  – the Chinese know this   but apparently the MPI does not.

I have two  first hand experiences of this with the former MAF    and both   show  how ignoring  a name    can perpetrate  fraud and corruption. If I have had two incidents  how many more  are out there ??????

The  first matter is Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )  – The MPI  formerly MAF  gave this law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act , this enabled AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority  but  the issue was  that AWINZ did not exist in any  guise or form  other  than an undefined trading name.

MAF never received any evidence that AWINZ existed   and   acted on  unfounded trust   when it advised the minister of agriculture at the time and caused  AWINZ to be gazetted and  the issuing of this press release by the minister.

Note that   on the gazette item the    letters Inc appear after the name  , if you  refer to the  Incorporated societies  Act  you will note that only incorporated societies are refereed to as  inc.

the news item states that  ” AWINZ is a charitable trust Based in Auckland” yet MAF had never seen a trust deed  and    despite the application made  only by Mr wells through an unsigned  application for approved status    MAF  did not query  any of the following.

1. That the application was unsigned
2. the application was supported by  an executed trust deed
3. that none of the persons who were  purportedly the  AWINZ trustees   had shown their consent in any manner or form to becoming a law enforcement authority with coercive statutory powers.
4. That Mr Wells misled the MAF and the minister as to the  the  existence of  AWINZ  and  it structure  both  verbally and in correspondence. see page 6 of this document  “A signed  copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.” – it appears that MAF was so ignorant that it didn’t matter  that  they never received a copy of the  deed,  that originals   are never sent off , only certified copies are sent   and that in the unsigned  deed that they were given a copy of   no section 20 ( a) exists.
5. MAF  did  absolutely no  due diligence  and did not check with the registrar of   charitable trusts to see if  a trust was registered.  The  effect of registration  under the charitable trust act  makes a  trust by  group of people into a legal   person through incorporation .- Basically no contract to anything that is not a legal person  will not be valid  and as such  the  agreement between MAF  and AWINZ was not  worth the paper it was written on     as  no trust deed had been sighted   and   no legal body  named AWINZ existed.

Even when MAF became aware that   AWINZ had no legal existence  it continued to all  it to be a law enforcement authority , this period was from March 2006  until  December 2010   when Auckland council    was formed  .

But it gets better than that  MAF is not even  alerted to the fraud when the see the logos of AWINZ  matching those of Waitakere city council  dog control division.

and their own people writing up an audit report  which   states ”  it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WC ”

The second matter   involves  a company called Fresh prepared Limited  ,   the   background to this   company   has been well reported in the press Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt   and Charges over alleged fake liquidator   and the latest news item   .

Mr Terry Hay   who  is the subject of all of thise items   saw  to  it to harass  me by placing three  advertisements in the mandarin times

He also made use of  my visit to t e company premises  which I had undertaken to  locate the fictional director  Sanjay Patel.   While I was there I was told that the company  was no longer fresh prepared Limited but was Salad foods.     I  was told that the company had changed its name.  I pointed out  that it was not a name change but that   apparently another company had taken over the business   seamlessly  .

I noted that there were MAF certificates  for import  licensing on the wall in the name  of Fresh prepared limited . I mentioned that if this was Salad foods Limited  then   MAF would be  interested in these certificates for one company being used for another.– I was wrong    Names  are of no relevance to MAF and a certificate on the wall  apparently is enough  no matter what name it is in.

I  reported this to MAF  and  found myself under investigation  by MAF for passing myself  off as a MAF officer    . I was eventually warned  when   all MAF had to rely on  was  the statement of one employee  who claimed ” I don’t remember who she said she was  but  she  said  she was from MAF ”

Fortunately   the NEW of the MED  were   a lot more competent  and did charge Mr Hay with 22 offenses of fraud   Only to see these charges dropped  by Crown law office after being approached by  a QC.

Significantly I was to find out  just how closely  Mr Wells and Mr Hay were associated , they played it beautifully  both having a  desire to    keep themselves out of Jail by discrediting me  and obfuscating the facts.

I  was to  find out that the very same people  who were behind   granting the AWINZ approval  were also involved in the  investigation of the  fresh prepared allegations  into me.    I had to be silenced  was pointing out  something potentially   career limiting to these people.. the fact that  they had trusted Mr Wells on his word and had simply mot checked   It was therefore  easier to crucify me than face the music.. this  shows  that I would have been better off as a whistle blower in China  than  In New Zealand.  hence NZ is the least corrupt county .. we hide it so  well.   Look no corruption !

It brings up an important issue .. privacy

16 May 2013

Minister for Courts
Chester Borrows
PARLIAMENT
By Email: chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz
Document Service

I am writing in relation to the letter you sent to Ms Haden dated 15 May 2013. I comment as
follows:

I agree there are a number of statutes which require personal service. Applications within the District Court are contained in this number. Applications in the District Court are legal documents and should be required to be served by someone with “standing”. These documents often contain  very personal information. The fact that currently “anybody” can serve these often very important and personal documents, is appalling! Why should New Zealander’s be expected to trust ”just anybody”? We should not have to, we need protection from “untrustworthy people” who are allowed to serve legal documentation. Surely, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out!
In January, (as you are probably aware) an unsavoury document server (of no standing) swore an “affidavit of service”that he served me, when he did not. In fact, he swore two separate “affidavits of service” with different dates and times as to the service. The nature of the documents that he swore he served on me was very personal indeed. These documents were never served on me, therefore I am left wondering what he did do with those documents. He could have hung them up on a public notice board for all I know. Do you really consider the appropriate legislation in place to safeguard me, in this regard?

The fact that there is punishment of up to 7 years for committing perjury is beside the point. It is in fact, very difficult to uphold charges of perjury, aside from anything else, special permission is required because of the difficult nature of pressing charges.

This, is not in my opinion, acceptable. Accountability is almost zero. If you think the legislation
you have in place is adequate, I think you are sadly, living in a fantasy Aotearoa “land”.
Of the many members of the public I have spoken to, I have ascertained that it is assumed by them,that people of standing are required to serve legal documentation. I consider absolutely, that adequate protection of New Zealanders in this regard is not in place.

The fact that it would cost applicants significantly more money to apply for applications, may prove to be a deterrent to those applicants who use the Court to try and sort personal matters, which perhaps, could be resolved outside the Court. Currently, as is certainly the case in my case, the applicants could have resolved the issue by playing “nice”. They are in fact, unable to, hence the Court proceedings. Perhaps you could consider my letter as “one with experience”. I am telling you, I feel completely unprotected by the government and the laws which are not in place _ surrounding document service and I believe it is essential that people of “standing” should be required, with the very important/personal details of the public.

Would you trust Michael Downey with your personal information? If you would trust him, my hat goes off to you. I certainly do not, and I still do not know what he did with the documentation that he was supposed to have served on me, and didn’t.

This matter is very serious, are the government taking it seriously? I think not. Place yourself in my shoes. My life has been turned upside down because of the peijury of Michael Downey and the fact, that the likes of people, like me, are not protected. We the people, are very vulnerable to people of the likes of Downey. You may think it will not happen to you, but maybe one day it will because from what I can gather this happens all too often and this is not good enough! I beg you not to be ignorant, and to get with the play. It is insolent, to pretend it does not happen. Non service happens, all too often, because there are people out there who are not honest, and the government are giving them every reason not to be, given that enforcement of peijury is so extremely difficult.

I can honestly say, that two days ago I was pushed along the road by a logging truck, who failed to stop at an accident, and my treatment within the Court system because of the perjury, is worse than that! When I wake during the night- my thoughts are with the Court matter and my “unfair” treatment, not the logging truck that very nearly took my life (and the life of my five children’s mother). My Court ordeal (because of the false affidavits) could all have been prevented if the document server, had served the documents. He didn’t. How would you feel if you had, not one, but two, false affidavits served on you by lawyers who condoned them? The Judge ruled I had evaded service because those same lawyers convinced the Judge of it!

“Anybody who swears a false affidavit can be held accountable under the laws of peijury” I don’t think so, it took me three months for anybody even to listen to me. On the plus side, many people are now aware of the laws or lack of them and are shocked! What will it take for the government to listen to the people, who elected them into parliament, in the hope of betterment of our country?!

I am going to send a copy of this letter to Ms Haden to use on her website if she wishes, as we are two of those people who have been drastically effected as a result of non service. Countless
numbers, were unable to prove they were not served!

He was employed By Translegal services NZ Limited

The  documents  which  he  was given to  severe  were to remove  a child from  his mothers custody  so that the estranged grand parents  could access the 5 year old  without   his ability to have  the support or comfort of any of  of siblings or mother.

I wrote to to the minister of courts and have received the response  today  see the  letter  here chester borrows document service

I have responded to the minister as  follows

Reply to  Chester Borrows

 Thank you for your  letter   .

 I  wish to point out that the persons   being used for the service of documents  are  hardly professional in any sense of the word  they  appear to be persons who could  quite easily be classified as of no fixed abode.

 Process servers are not registered in any manner or  form  and John Smith of Auckland can become a process server.

 I have laid a complaint for perjury.  The person who signed the affidavit is identifiable only  by a partial name of  Tony Parker  and  Of Auckland ,  he is not locatable or  able to be charged in the criminal  jurisdiction due to the fact that   they cannot be identified  or located.

 Mr Downey  on the other hand came from a small enough community  to be identified  , his picture  on face book assisted  , I note the page has since been removed

These fine pillars of  society  are  taken on their word  that  they have served documents  and the party who legitimately    claims that they were not served  is left   to  fight that point  and is often determined by the  court as a person who  “ evades “ service  , this   tarnishes their copy book and the  court looks at them unfavorably from then on.

 It simply does not serve justice .

 There  perhaps needs to be a vicarious liability provision  in this case to ensure that   the party who  serves is held accountable for perjury  and   non-service.

 In the interest of transparency I will  post this reply on  my  blog site  www.anticorruption.co.nz

for  the consequences of this lack of service see the blog here http://justnz.wordpress.com/

I can certainly relate to much of what  this lady has to   say.  I am fortunate  that in reporting corruption that it has only cost me  my  marriage and family and an obscene sum of  money .

I can relate to what has happened at her house to what happened to Kim dot  com  and you have to wonder why we are making  fast  changes to our spying legislation  .. is this what  we  have ahead of us ?

already we cannot question corruption  that part is already being covered up

do watch this  it is certainly worth  looking at.

DHS Whistleblower Labeled Domestic Terrorist (Censored from 60 Minutes)

When the government acts beyond the law, like in the recent Fast and Furious scandal, don’t “we the people” have a right to ask questions of our government? Is asking questions of your government a crime?

Why is the government now labeling people anti-government just because they ask legitimate questions, on specific issues to hold the government responsible?

Now in Florida they are asking citizens to turn people into Law Enforcement if a person appears to be anti-government, why? What is the definition anti-government?

To answer some of those questions, you will want to watch this.

The movie trailer is   viewable at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1852949/

I remember  doing criminology in my younger days    and the age old question was   what  makes a person become a criminal.

Well I have finally worked it  out.. you become a criminal because  of your status in society, who you know  and what strings you can pull can make the difference to being charged or not.  If you are not  charged  then you wont become a criminal . If you destroy evidence then you will also get away with your crimes as will   the simple trick of getting in first and  taking the  whistle blower to court on  fake claims.

There are many  would be criminals out there  who are fortunate enough to have the right connections or know the right  methodology to  keep themselves out of the spot light, they live on to  rip others off while the unsuspecting  appease the statistics to show that  they system is working.

Again the  matter of the  unfortunate school teacher Tracy Gwendoline Hibberd has made headlines  see here  , I have referred to her previously  in this post .

She   obviously does not know people in influence as she has  ended up in jail for  having  been placed in possession of a  forged  document  which is not even a degree.

YET  there are two  far worse   cases running free   they are as  follows.

Neil Wells  the former head of the RNZSPCA  is not even in the firing line for  having  written legislation for his own business plan then advising on this very legislation  as independent  adviser to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest    and then  making an application  under the legislation which he had written  for approved status   using a pseudonym   and making  false claims to MAF and the minister that and organisation existed  when in reality it was just himself.

HE OBTAINED LAW COERCIVE  ENFORCEMENT POWERS FOR A FICTIONAL ORGANISATION  WHICH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN HIMSELF

Wells ran  this law enforcement   authority which lacked any   formal structure and was just  a pseudonym for himself , from  Waitakere city council premises ,where he was   dog control manager  had had set the staff up to  volunteer their time to himself  and they were required  to prioritize their  council paid time to   his fictitious organization  while using the councils resources and infrastructure .  Wells  personally ran a bank account in the name of the  fictitious organization  AWINZ ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand)  so when a doc control officer   found an animal   suffering  they would report it to their boss  Neil wells , He would  hand the complaint on to the head of the fictional AWINZ.. Neil wells ..  He would pass it on the the Barrister..Neil wells  and  by  virtue of the legislation  which Neil Wells had heavily contributed to  , the proceeds of prosecution would be returned to  the fictional AWINZ   by virtue of section 171   for which Neil Wells  was  the  only account signatory  . – effectively he single handedly ran a private RNZSPCA  which was all income and no outgoings.

HE USED PUBLIC ASSETS FOR PRIVATE PECUNIARY GAIN

HE MISLED MAF AS TO THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF AWINZ

The  united nations convention agaisnt corruption calls  this action  public office for private pecuniary gain.  It is frowned upon and is even  illegal  in  99% of the world  but in Good old corruption free NZ  it is   condoned. I know it is condoned  because I have spent 7 years banging my head agaisnt every  government department, there is not a Councillor  , a minister  or  head of department   who has not  hears about  this from me. not one  has acted  proactively

Another   person who is not a criminal  is Terry Hay, BECAUSE I BELIEVE  ON  WHAT I HAVE HEARD THAT HE MANAGED TO BUY HIS WAY  OUT OF THE CHARGES WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COURT. 

Terry Hay is a partner of  David Nathan  of  Auckland chamber of commerce  fame.

Terry Hay   was charged with  a number of charges of fraud   by the ministry of  economic developments  national enforcement unit   the charges are here

He had created a fictional  liquidator and director to  avoid paying lawyers bill .  His associate Lyn Pryor was convicted    and  received a slap across the and with a wet dish rag  the news items are    Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Hay  absconded and lived in Honolulu  he then attempted to bribe his way back in to the country the NEU refused and told him to   front the judge , the NEU was wound up  the charges were dropped and  Hay is back in the country .

I have made an official information act request  which is   being conveniently ignored

so in summary

It is not  a criminal act to  make an application for law enforcement powers using a  non existent organization . therefore telling lies to the minister  and   to  MAF  is OK   and to  tell lies to the court to cover this  up is OK ( I have prepared a perjury file  but  no one is willing to prosecute .. I am a former police prosecutor  I know   that the  claims   were supported )

It is  apparently  not a criminal act to  create a fictional  liquidator or director  or to use a false address  for a shareholder , therefore  telling lies to   the ministry of economic developments is OK .. having plenty of money  and good connections   allows you to get away with the crime without having to face court.

BUT   it is apparently a crime  for an early child hood teacher  to have  a false degree which was issued from a private teaching establishment.

Dyslexia fraud defence

Why  is there such disparity in prosecutions  isn’t a crime a crime.. shouldn’t all  three  be free  or all three  be in jail ?

And if   any one is concerned about  a  a  Kindy teacher not having a qualification  perhaps  some one should  ask Judge Wade to show  his law degree. ( I have it on good authority  that  he has  not sat  one.)

Co incidentally I had made submissions at the   select committee on the Judith Collins amendment to the  family court  bill on this exact subject.

We are diligent  about keeping statistics  as to when  and where  vehicle  fatalities occur  and   drownings occur.  we go all out to make any one with anything bigger than a puddle fence it   but what do we do about suicide?  Nothing – in fact if we were  concerned about human deaths  we would be  doing a whole lot more than we are.

Currently the sum of the road toll and the drownings  are still significantly less than than   the suicides.  You also have to consider that  some of  the drownings and   road deaths are also  suicides .

Many year  ago  the editor of the herald picked up a letter I had written   and  expanded on it   Editorial: Get humbug out of pool fencing rules While I support  safety and common sense  around pool areas I also support supervision of children.  I raised three children on a yacht with   sides which were only a few inches high.

The extremes that I have to go to  for some one  else child wandering into my house  unsupervised and without my knowledge then  jumping out of  bedroom window to drown in the pool  are over the top  but  we have lots of measures in place  probably because the very persons who  manufacture window and doer locks sit on these  pool committees. No one has ever   thought  about the fact that bodies are found by these very doors and windows in the case of  fire, the escape roots having been successful  locked.

But if we implement  the same   concern and care with every potential death and did as much to prevent the  suicide rate  what would New Zealand look like..   well lets dream.

Local councils  would   be  responsible  to the rate payers and residents.  they would  operate to the  retirement of transparency  and provide information as requested.

even more radical they would correct anything which   was non compliant   and   council employees  would be as accountable to the law as we are to the  parking restrictions and the consequences for  them would be as severe  as it is for us to  find that your  car has  a ticket or been towed because you are a  few minutes late.

You would be able to question  corruption without fear of losing your  family   and your home  councils and government  departments alike would  ensure that the same laws applicable to you and me   apply to them.

Truth would be a required standard in our courts  and perjury   has real and serious consequences.

The society  we  would have   wold be the one which we now pretend to have . Those  who are desperate for help  would not have to go on banging their  heads agaisnt the  political  walls.

New Zealand has been abducted  by a few , it is driven by greed .  until many of us  decide that we  stand together and  that  we  want our country to be about us  and not about the  financial benefit to  unseen persons,  nothing is going to change.

Each and every one of us has to wake up and stop being  complacent not one of us can do this on our own , lets reduce  suicide through  seeking accountability   of public servants .

Fairness  and Justice is what it is all about .. lets hope we get it

Dumped teacher will fight charges

An early childhood teacher who forged her qualifications is in prison awaiting sentence and has had her name removed from the New Zealand Teachers Council Register. More

Why is  it that one person is sent to jail for an offence ,when another, who in my honest opinion, has committed exactly the same offence  but in a more serious manner, can’t even be reported or investigated?

Is it because one is  teacher and the other a lawyer?

Or is it that the lawyer used a tactic which would also have worked for the teacher if she had thought of it.

In the end both should be accountable to the law in exactly the same manner!

The  teacher

1. never passed the final paper of her diploma,
2. got provisional registration as a teacher and a job( basically the  teachers registration did not check )
3. provided  forged documents but later said in her defence a Clevedon Kidz manager had forged the documents

The lawyer

1. Had not set up a trust
2. made an application in the name of the alleged trust for law enforcement authority and was granted it ( basically the  minister  did not check )
3. provided forged documents to the law society to cover up the lack of existence of a trust.

I could not even get the matter with regards the lawyer investigated. Ye the school teacher was charged and was found guilty by a Jury .

The law society and the LCRO have both condoned the action of the lawyer , police, SFO have refused to act on the matter of the lawyer and MAF and the council involved have spent their time covering the matter up.

Quite frankly I think that if the teacher is in jail the lawyer should be too.

What the lawyer did that the teacher did not.

There is a secret to how you can conceal crime in New Zealand .. Attack is the best form of defence here is what Tracy Hibberd should have done she could have saved herself her career and a stint in jail.

Her first and major mistake was that she does not have friends in High places. It is far more important to have good connections than anything else.

Once she had roped in a few “ well respected “ persons her outer shield of protection would have been in place.

Secondly along with this respected person she should have taken defamation legal action against whoever alleged that her teachers qualifications were dubious.
The right Lawyer would have commenced proceedings without any evidence at all see How Brookfields secures victory
For good measure the documents could be served on the other party by Brookfields using the Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand a service provided by Translegal services NZ ltd.
Once the other party is before the court no one will dare investigate or fear of undermining the court.
It is a lot easier to secure a win in the civil court , ther is a low threshold of proof .. in my case no proof at all was needed just the uncorroborated evidence of the person who would otherwise have found himself in Tracy Hibberds position.
As my case has proved you don’t need to produce one single document which alleges the defamation if you use the following formula .
1. Make up claims using the well-known and well respected persons you have brought into the mess.
2. Use interlocutory applications on these false claims to push up costs against the party who was alleging that you were dishonest.
3. Insist that the costs are paid or their defence struck out, in my case I had to find somewhere about $20,000 in a week.
4. Ignore the courts directions to file new claims but enforce the striking out of the defence against the other party.
5. Proceed with the other party not knowing that it has proceeded, just tell the court that the other party won’t show and then don’t serve them.
6. Inform the court that there is no requirement for a formal proof hearing and go straight to a Quantum hearing akin to sentencing.
7. Ensure that you bad mouth the alleging party so that the sentencing report is highly critical of the person who made factual allegations against you . As a result of this they will be discredited and while this judgement stands so will the notion that your credentials are valid.
8. Don’t worry about perjury the police wont prosecute for this.
9. No one will dare to investigate you again because to do so would undermine the court.

By Following the above recipe you can use the court to pervert the course of justice. You wont go to jail and the other party gets to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars some of which end up back in your pocket.
It is such a great system it is such a win win for criminals that I can’t understand why every criminal doesn’t use it.
What is crucial is that you get the right lawyer whatever you do don’t go to an honest lawyer it won’t work.
So there you have it that is why teachers go to jail and lawyers don’t