I believe that Malcolm North is a Business development manger with the ministry of social development .
In 2012 he and his wife Debbie North and son Samuel North , used a young Hungarian chef to fund the setting up of the Muse on Allen restaurant. Once they had his money they turned on him and removed his as director and transferred all his shares into Samuel’s name .
The matter had been before the court for some 2 years when the lawyers advised that the company was insolvent . by this stage Jozsef had spent $50,000 on top of the 64,000 which had been stolen from him .
I prepared complaints for the police and for the registrar of companies they can be found here Offences . The evidence is available on request but due to the bulk of the evidence I have not placed it on the web site .
Neither the police nor registrar of companies would act because the matter is before the court , the fact that it is before the court under section 174 of the companies act appears to be beside the point and the many serious imprison-able offences are on the back burner probably awaiting the statute of limitations to pass .
Because I appear to be the only person who has focused on the criminal aspect Malcolm has had it in for me.
I have reported his actions and those of his son to the police many times and I think they are up to warning 4 .
Just a few weeks ago Malcolm sought to cast aspersions on me with a business group that I belong to , I responded by sending an open letter to his wife Debbie whose actions facilitated this whole mess right at the beginning.
Now Malcolm has threatened legal action alleging defamation . It is therefore appropriate for me to respond in terms of section 25 of the defamation act
the following are the statements which Malcolm alleges to be defamatory . Truth and honest opinion are never defamatory , truth may be inconvenient but in the end we are all accountable to the truth
I have for each statement produced the evidence which I rely on
The only equity in the business was the funds which Jozsef introduced. Truth the evidence is the 2014 accounts . as can be seen by the end of 2014 the only equity in the company was Jozsef’s funds , Samuel actually had a deficit .
In my professional opinion and based on the evidence I have collated I am of the opinion that all three of you should be locked up for defrauding Jozsef.
Honest opinion based on 15 years policing experience and 13 years as a private investigator see the offences as shown above
Samuel is still driving the BMW which he purchased using the money which he made out of Muse on allen and he has now transferred the ownership to Catering limited.
Truth I will supply the registration documents and the ppsr’s. they can be found here as shown to Muse on Allen here BMW and transferred to catering co Here bmw-1muse1 note also the number plate change but the chassis no etc are the same good to see that a young man who has just put a company into liquidation can afford a personalised plate the regos are.
The three of you have defrauded Jozsef , you have allowed Muse on Allen to be run into the ground and have left a trail of debts.
Honest opinion based on 15 years policing experience and 13 years as a private investigator offences and the credit report of Muse . here muse-on-allen-credit-check not the defaults and also the fact that the company is now in liquidation see here
Throughout this time and to this date you have stood by and allowed your son and husband to bully and abuse both Jozsef and myself.
Truth the police have warned him at least three times you have apparently done nothing but duck for cover
I have communicated my concerns about Malcolm’s behaviour to the ministry of social development I do not believe that persons who practices this level of bullying that in his private life , does not display those same qualities at work .
Honest opinion the degree of bullying which we have suffered is unbelievable there are many emails in which they have made the most cruel remarks to me , I am totally fed up with their bullying behaviour
Often what is not objected to proves more than you realise. In this case Malcolm North by not claiming these statements to be defamatory admits to them as fact
1. I am writing to you in the hope that we may be able to sort out the bullying which I have been suffering at the hands of you husband and son.
2.Jozsef and Sam were the only directors when the company was formed. You were to be an alternate director for Samuel and you completed your own forms and backdated your directorship to day one . If you were to ask any one at the companies office they would tell you that this is not a lawful way to do things as you cannot appoint yourself director
3.With your son You then appointed Malcolm your husband to be a further director then all three of you went home and passed a resolution to remove Jozsef as director
4.As a director of the company you allowed Samuel to transfer all of Jozsefs shares into his own name without any legal basis and without the introduction of further equity into the company .
5.Through out this time and to this date you have stood by and allowed your son and husband to bully and abuse both Jozsef and myself.
6. we have made complaints to the police under the harmful digital communications act and despite the fact that they have been warned a number of time the abuse has continued
7. Last Year Malcolm made a complaint against my private investigators licence , there was no substance in his complaint
8. His vexatious complaints had me under investigation for some 10 months
9 Now he is sending emails to people associated with my business
10 If the police did their job and were not busy dealing with traffic the three of you would beheld fully answerable to the law .
11.I realize that attack is the best form of defence and that is exactly the only defence which your son and husband have
12.Debbie how about some integrity you work for counselors how about getting some counselign for your boys so that they can see that what they are doing is pure bullying and totally un ethical.
This is an open letter to Debbie North Wife of Malcolm North mother of Samuel North
Debbie I am writing to you in the hope that we may be able to sort out the bullying which I have been suffering at the hands of you husband and son.
I find it quite Ironic that you work for “The New Zealand Association of Counsellors “ and are listed as Debbie North firstname.lastname@example.org on their web site
In 2012 Samuel opened a restaurant Muse on Allen with Jozsef Szekely
Jozsef put in $64,000 and became a 70 % share holder due to the fact that the business had been purchased for $90,000 .
The only equity in the business was the funds which Jozsef introduced.
Jozsef and Sam were the only directors when the company was formed. You were to be an alternate director for Samuel and you completed your own forms and backdated your directorship to day one . If yo were to ask any one at the companies office they would tell you that this is not a lawful way to do things as you cannot appoint yourself director.
With your son You then appointed Malcolm your husband to be a further director then all three of you went home and passed a resolution to remove Jozsef as director .
As a director of the company you allowed Samuel to transfer all of Jozsefs shares into his own name without any legal basis and without the introduction of further equity into the company .
Court action followed and you eventually resigned as director in November 2014
Through out this time and to this date you have stood by and allowed your son and husband to bully and abuse both Jozsef and myself.
we have made complaints to the police under the harmful digital communications act and despite the fact that they have been warned a number of time the abuse has continued
Last Year Malcolm made a complaint against my private investigators licence , there was no substance in his complaint and the authority reported
His vexatious complaints had me under investigation for some 10 months
Now he is sending emails to people associated with my business
Hello I warned you before Is this the type of person you want in your chapter
Debbie I have had enough of this .
the three of you have defrauded Jozsef , you have allowed Muse on Allen to be run into the ground and have left a trail of debts.
Samuel is still driving the BMW which he purchased using the money which he made out of Muse on Allen and he has now transferred the ownership to Catering limited.
If the police did their job and were not busy dealing with traffic the three of you would beheld fully answerable to the law .
In my professional opinion and based on the evidence I have collated I am of the opinion that all three of you should be locked up for defrauding Jozsef.
I realize that attack is the best form of defence and that is exactly the only defence which your son and husband have
Debbie how about some integrity you work for counselors how about getting some counselign for your boys so that they can see that what they are doing is pure bullying and totally un ethical.
I have communicated my concerns about Malcolm’s behavior to the ministry of social development I do not believe that persons who practices this level of bullying that in his private life , does not display those same qualities at work .
PLEASE HELP STAMP OUT BULLYING AND FRAUD .
Muse Eatery is it or is it not connected to Muse on Allen ?or what does this say about Samuel Norths integrity ?
Let us play a game of Truth or lies We won’t tell you which is which But lets just look at the facts the following are statements made in the news item highlighted above click here for the article
“The former Muse on Allen restaurant has been put into liquidation”. see the answer here well that was straight forward enough but now lets try this one
Owner Samuel North says it is not connected to his new business, Muse Eatery and Bar, on Victoria St.
Lets look at the web page for Muse eatery lets look at the about page
do you see what I see ?
But in the article Samuel North claims are reported as
His current business Muse Eatery & Bar on Victoria St was not connected to the liquidated business, he said.
It was owned by Catering Limited, of which he is the sole director.
Catering limited was incorporated 03 Dec 2015 so How could Muse eatery , owned by Catering limited have won the above awards the news items clearly show that these awards were for Muse on Allen?
Samuel was indeed very fortunate to have Sarah Meikle as a friend see here read more about her here Five Minutes with Visa Wellington On a Plate director Sarah Meikle.
the trip advisor reviews https://www.facebook.com/MuseEateryBar/app/254084314702229/ are coincidentally all those of Muse on Allen see here
I particularly love the way that in the midst of the article which claims that “Muse Eatery & Bar on Victoria St was not connected to the liquidated business”( muse on allen ) there are several links being
notable quotes are
“Muse On Allen restaurant has been at the address for three and a half years, but will reopen at 56 Victoria St, formerly home to 3C Bar and Restaurant.”
“When the restaurant reopens in the first week of March, it’ll be serving lunch for the first time in addition to dinner, with plans for a breakfast service, too.”
Muse’s new look
Muse’s success continues
Muse has been open for a month at its new Victoria St premises
Now is a good time now to visit Facebook the link is found at the bottom of the Muse eatery web site https://www.facebook.com/MuseEateryBar/ keep scrolling
7 April 2016
Muse On Allen restaurant has been at the address for three and a half years, but will reopen at 56 Victoria St, formerly home to 3C Bar and Restaurant.
Muse owner and director Samuel North says the new space offers the restaurant a chance to expand its services.
Since opening the fine dining establishment as a 21-year-old, North has grown Muse into an award-winning success story.
When the restaurant reopens in the first week of March, it’ll be serving lunch for the first time in addition to dinner, with plans for a breakfast service, too.
Muse’s trademark purple decor will remain, as will its seven staff and favourite dishes such as the beef tartare, tuna sashimi, and creme brulee with doughnuts.
The high-ceilinged, bamboo-floored space in Victoria St is double the size of Muse’s original premises more
by the way notice anything about the Logos ?
now look at theat the bottom of this post you can see the domain names museonallen.co.nz is registered at the domain name registry and shows this full record saved for prosperity here “museonallen.co.nz” (Active) _ Domain Name Commission is recorded to Malcolm@museeatery.co.nz
museeatery.co.nz is the web site which Samuel Norths “new” restaurant uses
Samuel North uses the email address email@example.com his father Malcolm uses firstname.lastname@example.org
this is what happens when you look up muserestaurant.co.nz or see the preserved hard copy here “muserestaurant.co.nz” (Active) _ Domain Name Commission
Strangely enough the domain name was registered to Jozsef Szekely who happens to be the person who sank his life savings into Muse of Allen before being removed by Samuel, Malcolm and Debbie north as a director see here
Samuel then transferred all of Jozsefs shares into his own name in two steps here and here when no corresponding transaction had occurred in the actual company books and when Jozsef was the only person to have equity in the company see here this is why there was a court matter “After court North said his the debt stemmed from a legal battle he had with a business partner when Muse first opened” Jozsef basically took offence to being ripped off to the tune of $64,000. strange that the bill to IRD is about that size .. coincidence ?
we do hope that the liquidators look at the accounts closely we are not book keepers but the accounts for Muse on Allen certainly appear to have more than one issue.
we don’t know what you think but we are pretty certain that muse on Allen and Muse eatery are one and the same .
I have raised the issue of the authority not being qualified and have requested an OIA to establish the legal basis on which the authority claims to legitimately hold office no response has been received and it now appears that ” the authority ” is away on leave
The legislation states http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0115/latest/DLM1594620.html
No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing
I Checked the roll of lawyers and could not see Mr Gill’s name on it so I wrote to the law society and got the response that he had not had a practicing certificate since 30 June 2015
Mr Roger Bernard William GILL does not hold a current practising certificate.
His last certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society expired on 30 June 2015.
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | DD: +64 4 463 2919 | PH: 0800 22 30 30 | F: +64 4 463 2989
26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
DX SP20202 | PO Box 5041, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
I again consulted legislation
barrister means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under or by virtue of this Act and practising as a barrister, whether or not he or she also practises as a solicitor; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by barristers in New Zealand
solicitor means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under, or by virtue of, this Act and practising as a solicitor, whether or not he or she also practises as a barrister; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by solicitors in New Zealand
lawyer means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor
21 Provision of legal services
(1)A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—
(a)provides legal services in New Zealand; and
(b)describes himself, herself, or itself as—
(i)a lawyer; or
(ii)a law practitioner; or
(iii)a legal practitioner; or
(iv)a barrister; or
(v)a solicitor; or
(vi)a barrister and solicitor; or
(vii)an attorney-at-law; or
From the Law society web site
Who is a “lawyer”?
A lawyer is a person who holds a current practising certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society. Lawyers practise either as a barrister and solicitor or as a barrister (sometimes called a “barrister sole”).
Anyone providing certain legal services who describes themselves as a “lawyer”, a “barrister”, or a “barrister and solicitor” but who doesn’t hold a current practising certificate commits an offence against the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the LCA”).
If you have been admitted as a barrister and solicitor but do not hold a current practising certificate, you may refer to yourself as an “enrolled barrister and solicitor of the High Court”.
Going back to the definition in the pspla act
No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing.
Since Mr Gill is not a lawyer he is not a barrister he has no statutory obligations to the rule of law and is also not an officer of the court , statute states that he is to be a barrister or solicitor. so what implications does this have on the enforcement of the Private security personnel licensing act ?
can some one without the legal standing to be the authority make decisions on the suitability of Security guards and Private investigators suitability to hold their jobs ?
Are the decisions Roger Gill has made since 30 June 2015 a ultra vires ? and therefore void ?
Will we re write legislation to cover this glaring non compliance with statute ?
I Raised the issue with the ministers. I now note that Mr Gill is away until the end of the month. strange that when so many licences come up for renewal in August .
His deputy Stevan Cole was the deputy he has since become a community magistrate it would appear that no one has been appointed as deputy therefore it seems like there is no Legal “authority”
How the Authority is chosen
The Authority is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister of Justice. They must have at least 5 years’ experience as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court. Appointments to the position are for a term of 3 years, and a person may be reappointed.
The current Authority is Mr Roger Gill. source ( note how the justice dept gets their definition wrong the operative word IS is missing )
Mr Gill is a qualified lawyer and has 16 years experience as a Chief Executive of four national organisations, including the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Stock Exchange. For the past 12 years Mr Gill was a Registrar and Manager of the Wellington High Court.
Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries. source
more info on Roger Gill
Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.
Ultra Vires Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law.
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
attorney general here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
The reason that our company and trust structure is so well liked is because THERE IS NO DUE DILIGENCE DONE BY THE REGISTRARS OF NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES AND TRUSTS ARE NOT RECORDED.
Few realize that our trust and company structure is actually most abused through lawyers who in turn are protected by our courts .
I am a whistle blower on the corrupt use of trusts , I thought that in this country which at the time prided itself to be the least corrupt that I could say ” hey guess what the law enforcement agency The animal welfare institute of New Zealand does not exist at all ” what happened? lawyers got together sued me for a ridiculous sum tried to bankrupt me and tried to put my company out of business. they were protected by their own society and the judges who were once members of that very society.
I have come to realize that the biggest gang in town are the lawyers. Its like complaining about a gang member and then being told to speak to the gang leaders if you feel there is a problem . If it is some one they want to dispose of it will be useful to them but if the person is in the ” in crowd ” and their activities make the gang look bad then there is a huge cover up. I have even had instances where he judges have gone way out on a limb to silence the entire matter one of those instances was with regards to a well published Russian lawyer who was up to his neck in trust companies such as those refereed to in the panama papers.
Just recently I assisted a young man who had had all of his shares fraudulently transferred from him and into the name of his business partner the minority share holder .Effectively he had his business stolen from him . We managed to get a lawyer appointed for the company who was taking instructions from the very person who was involved in the theft of the shares. I told the lawyer for the company that he had a duty to be independent ie act for the company and to act according to the rules and could not condone the illegal activities of the company. The result :-the lawyer made false complaint alleging that I was in contempt of court and had committed blackmail when I wrote to him and pointed out this section of the law I was promptly taken to court for harassment In Wellington when I lived in Auckland . The date of the hearing was conveniently left off the papers I was served and the evidence is such that I am convinced that the court, the registrars and the lawyers all conspire together to ensure that lawyers make a healthy living and no one dares question their activities.
As a result I now have a legal bill.. yes their fees of over $6,000 . I have a solution I will be selling an e book exposing their tactics of winning and every cent that I raise will go settling this ” debt” if there is interest I will simply sell more copies . I suspect that with the publication of the panama papers this e book could be quite popular as the companies legislation abuse and the manner in which some law firms condone unlawful transactions is central to makign the company structure in NZ a mockery
New Zealand is far more corrupt than you can imagine.
any one wishing to receive a copy of the e book can pre order shortly
Hot off the press we have an article in the herald
the story comes from the international consortium of investigative journalists
they publish a video as below
You will note that the video mentions “MOSSACK FONSECA”
New Zealand appears to have its very own branch of this company see here
the share holder of this company is
3 Centaur Close, Albany, Auckland, 0632 , New Zealand
260 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
- DAVID LOVE LIMITED (3350190) – Shareholder
- MOSSACK FONSECA & CO. (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (4852039) – Shareholder
There are 101 companies registered to the address of Bentley accountants see here many appear to be trust companies held on behalf of foreigners.
The Benley group of companies is not the only group involved in international trusts the journalists at naked capitalism identified NZ’s role in UnaEnergy Trustees Limited
Naked Capatalism raised the point that
New Zealand-based “foreign trusts” have been actively marketed overseas for benefits including their exemption from New Zealand tax on foreign sourced income, minimal compliance and reporting requirements, and no requirement for public disclosure of the beneficial owners.
As Transparency NZ has noted the apparent lack of requirement to comply with he companies act must also be a benefit s illustrated with the Muse on Allen Saga
more on Mossack Fonseca
Giant leak exposes global array of crime, corruption https://panamapapers.icij.org/
The transition is mainly due to the fact that the shareholding in Muse on Allen Limited was unlawfully obtained by Samuel North by simply accessing the the company register and transferring the shares to himself and again here the law is quite specific about this process but Samuel simply ignored the law and used a computer to unlawfully transfer the shares.
Samuel is quite aware of what he has done , there have been many admissions including repeatedly telling the court that the shares were transferred “in error’ despite the claim of ” error ” nothing has been done to correct it in 3 years and the accounts continue to show that Samuel has no equity in the company despite claiming to be the majority share holder
Muse eatery is now trying to get a liquor licence for the new premises at 56 VICTORIA STREET. the web site has been linked to the new domain name museeatery.co.nz which opens to the url http://museonallen.co.nz/.
The content of the web site is that of Muse on Allen and the content is the same Muse Eatery media.
Concrete evidence that the new company catering Limited has adopted the name Muse eatery is in the application for liquor licence Alcohol Application – Muse Restaurant, Ground Floor, 56 Victoria Street, Wellington Central which a number of persons have opposed .
so between the names Muse restaurant and Muse eatery the public are being asked to accept the new restaurant as a continuation of the old while Samuel North uses up the money from the sale to ensure that the person who put all his money in the restaurant is left totally out of pocket .
we can only appeal to the public that if they believe in fairness and honesty then they should give Muse Restaurant, Muse eatery& bar or what ever it is called this week , a wide berth .
Our view is yes to both depending on who you are
Please click on the link above or here to make a submission prior to Monday 1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others
Submission of Grace Haden
I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator. I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.
Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.
Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but the years erode your strength and you are repeatedly portrayed as a sinister being when in reality you are the opposite.
I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those who drown we have bucket loads of research and we actively strive to reduce the road toll and enforce all sorts of measure and throw tons of money at prevention.
The annual road toll and he drownings are far smaller than the annual suicide rate. And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings will be suicides .
On the one hand our society is reckless with regards to suicide and encourages those who are healthy but stressed commit suicide because of the apparent lack of justice while those who have no hope of ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied this right due to lack of physical capacity.
In our current civil litigation system there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing and is aimed to ensure their entire life collapse around their ears and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will eventually feel that they are just a very bad person .. these are mind games
For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical methods which seek to bully and undermine good people involved in the judicial system part of this is giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be sinister and when the court supports the opposition few will believe that this person is a victim of a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of evidence.
If we were to interview the relatives and friends of a suicide victim I believe that a disproportionate number of incidents would show some kind of legal issue in the background.
Our primitive justice system does not consider emotions and the civil jurisdiction does not have to comply with the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.
On the other hand those who live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life but have the mental capacity to know that future life is futile and will not improve must sit and wait till nature takes over.
If you have a pet and allow it to continue to live in those circumstances you would be prosecuted under the animal welfare act
If you have a pet and bully and torment it so that it shys away from others and finds itself unworthy you could also face prosecution but these tactics are totally acceptable if the victim is a human.
The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us
Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those facing litigation should not be pushed into it
We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the reducing drownings and road toll and if the government will not fund lifesaving medication for those suffering illness or if no remedy is available they should not be forced to die a slow agonising death
Amazingly such an approach will actually reduce our suicide rate by keeping healthy people alive and allowing those terminally ill the right to die .
I wish to be heard on my submissions