Mycoplasma Bovis a blessing for the greenies and waterways or simply too convenient?

 Last year a number of news items  were prominent with regards to  the issues of dairy farming  and the effect on  waterways   see here   here   here and here 

Put simply, more cows have meant more nutrient and pathogen pollution of waterways. Across the whole country, the number of dairy cows increased by over two million between 1992 and 2011 – an 86 percent expansion. During the same period, average dairy herd size in New Zealand more than doubled from 169 to 386.

Now it occurs to me that   Mycoplasma Bovis  appears to be a blessing for  the greenies or is it simply just a convenient way to   reduce  cattle numbers ?  I have first hand evidence  of how  MPI can be manipulated and how  facts are irrelevant   to them.

Bryce Edwards  published a  great little article yesterday Political Roundup: The M. Bovis debacle deserves more debate. His opening statement  totally echos my experience with MPI

What has emerged from the debate over the Mycoplasma Bovis saga is that New Zealand appears to have been let down by authorities – especially politicians and senior government bureaucrats who have mismanaged the country’s biosecurity, leaving farming in turmoil, and the taxpayer picking up most of the tab for their negligence.

I had cause to speak to a bovine vet the other day  and  he  confirmed that the tests of mycoplasma bovis  are  not particularly reliable,so a whole herd is put down because one cow tested positive, this could  have been a false positive  but who cares  lets put the whole herd down  at a time when Gypsy day is seeing  other herds migrate freely from one area to another .  Guess that fits with the agenda of culling as many   cattle as possible .

It has made me realise that the  characters in the old  TV series gliding on  are still alive and well  and working  at MPI ,  they may of course have taken the precaution to drink their tea and coffee  black .

My own experience with the incompetence of MPI  ( then MAF)goes back 12 years .

I questioned serious corruption which had allowed a person closely associated  with  key players in  MPI   to  write legislation for their own business plan , advise on it  as ” independent  advisor” to the select committee and while MPI knew this person was severely conflicted they stood by and allowed him to  provide comment on caucus  papers which saw the government approve an application for coercive law enforcement powers to a non existent organisation  based on a fraudulent application.

MAF/ MPI are fully aware of it  and have refused to undertake  an investigation, my own opinion for this  is that the lawyer who provided a crown law opinion  was Peter McCarthy who gave a detailed legal opinion but didn’t  even think about checking if the application he was commenting on was legitimately made and that AWINZ existed  .

As a whistleblower on the AWINZ matter I was crucified , the first thing MPI did was  to  attempt to prosecute me for  passing myself off  as a MAF officer, their evidence was so thin that  they resolved to warn me  despite the fact that  there should not have been an investigation  in the first place  . This was tied up with another substantial fraud  see Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt – NZ Herald and Charges over alleged fake liquidator – NZ Herald

That was the  very first attempt to discredit me,   and   to   properly conceal the matter Peter Mc Carthy  was made chief legal officer  of MPI 

Despite  untold complaints to government , ombudsmen , state services commission , police ,SFO and untold ministers  this issue has been totally concealed while I   was refused a renewal of my  private investigators licence   and was labeled a ” conspiracy theorist ”

This has been  total bullying an  white washing of a criminal act .

Wells was able to  negotiate with  MPI to withhold information from me  so that  the complaints to the  law society etc  could be dealt with  without the inconvenience of facts  getting in the way also see here   and here .This crucial document was the audit report which totally expose AWINZ as a sham  but even despite their own findings  nothing was done but  AWINZ conveniently  stopped being an approved organisation  when the super city was formed.

 

 

 

Samuel North conviction recorded by MBIE

The conviction of Samuel North has been recorded by the companies registrar

section 386 A  of the companies act states

386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name

(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—

(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.

(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out in section 373(4).  ( A person convicted of an offence against any of the following sections of this Act is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding $200,000:)

The conviction was  for   setting up  and operating  Muse eatery through the   new company CATERING LIMITED  which took over he business,  the  processes and chattels of Muse on allen which  was liquidated by IRD.  Samuel   has since liquidated Muse eatery but not before he was seen asset striping CATERING LIMITED on the last day. see The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

Malcolm North   , Samuels father   who works for the ministry of social development  was a director for the phoenix company  for a short while  when he was  a bankrupt .Malcolm  North was a director  from 28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017   he was a bankrupt    7 march to  20 June   the official assignee’s report is worth reading  by any one who  is contemplating a business venture with  Malcolm North or Samuel North  . The official assignees report is located here   Malcolm North bankruptcy report it is worth noting

 The Bankrupt ticked “no” to having any real estate interests, however
attached to his Statement of Affairs was a piece of paper with details of his
property ownerships and their corresponding values. This information is
below:
30c & 30d Arawhata Street, Porirua  $370,000.00
10 Palm Grove, Lower Hutt $560,000.00
1/10 Makara Road, Paraparaumu   $430,000.00

 

The Bankrupt stated on his Statement of Affairs that he has been in business
as a director or manager of a limited liability company registered with the
Companies Office in New Zealand in the past three years. No further
information was provided by the Bankrupt as to the Company details that he
was manager/director of. The Official Assignee requested further information
from the Bankrupt. The Bankrupt advised it was an error and that he had not
been in a business as a director or manager in the past 3 years.

company office records show  him as being director of MUSE ON ALLEN LIMITED (3933441)  09 Jan 2013   to 11 Nov 2014  then again  17 Nov 2014  to  06 Dec 2015

he was then a director of CATERING LIMITED (5860509)     28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017

Throughout the administration, the Bankrupt has failed to co-operate with the
Official Assignee on a number of occasions. He has consistently raised issues with
the costs of his personal lawyer as well as the costs of The Official Assignee’s
lawyers. This has resulted in the Official Assignee spending significant time
corresponding with the Bankrupt regarding matters that are not necessary for the
administration of the bankruptcy and have added unnecessary costs to the estate

 

Vivienne Holm Responds But I have Important questions which have not been answered

Below  is the  email received from  Vivienne Holm  with regards to the post Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption

I   have published the message in full with  my response   I have also updated the    earlier  posts to   reflect  Holms views

the questions which I have  and would like to see an answer to are

  1. 1. Why did  Two Barristers  approach a  resource management  Law clerk   who was working for brookfields  from home for legal advice ?

see  Hoadley decision  ” Mrs Hoadley on behalf of AWINZ instructed Brookfields as a source of independent legal advice.”

see Hoadley response ” AWINZ Trustees resolved to seek legal advice and assistance from Brookfields Barristers and Solicitors.”

Nick Wright  in his response narrative of facts  states ” Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the   time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”

Vivienne Holm Told the law society investigator that she was a law clerk  see copy of ltr 11 May to Holm with file notes of conversation SAQ and Holm 18 May 2011 

The law society in their decision on Holm 4192 completed decision Vivienne Holm state

6] In 2006 Vivienne Holm worked at Brookfields as a law clerk. She did not have a practising certificate until 15 August 2006 when she became an employed solicitor at that firm. At that time she was married to Mr Nick Wright, about whom Mrs Haden has also complained, and came into contact with Mrs Haden because she knew Neil Wells.

next question

2.   In her   complaint  to the  Private security Licencing authority Holm  claims “First, I held a practising certificate throughout 2006 as confirmed in the   email from the NZLS attached  annexure H.

I enquired with the law society  and was told that they did not have the records as the records in 2006 were  held by a different  society which   folded when the new legislation came in .( 2008)

I stand by my Enquiries at the time and the  findings that the law society came to, ie that you  were a law clerk and did not hold a practicing certificate until august   I cant see what the big deal is   other than   that you  too can see that there is no logic in two barristers instructing a law clerk.  the email  copy which you sent is not evidence  , it is hearsay and therefore rejected .

3. my contact with you was in 2006 when you phoned me and intimidated me and attempted to blackmail me by making threats against my private investigators licence if we did not change the name of out legally incorporated trust

Why do you  consider this defamatory when the evidence speaks for itself .

see  emails from vivienne parre

Note Vivienne has been  married a number of times her names have been  Parre   Holm and  Wright

4.  in the emails  mentioned above  you say ” I simply wish to alert you to the fact that in my view your registration of the name “AWINZ” and your website are illegal.”  what is the basis for this ? we proved through registration  and  our website clearly proved that we had incorporated to prove that the   AWINZ with   law enforcement authority did not exist , this  was of major public interest.

evidence was sent to  you  from the registrar of companies  see here 

So how is it illegal to  prove that something  which  plays such a pivotal role in society is a fraud  and why did you go all out and sustain an attack on me   for a further 12 years to keep this  fraud concealed

5.  you contacted me via netsafe   to  support a complaint under the harmful digital communications act with  regards to a post on transparency  in 2011  which predates the  act .  If there was  anything   incorrect with this  why not simply communicate with  us and seek a correction .Why did it take till 2016  for you to contact me again

Next contact almost exactly a year later

6. in december 2017  you  again contacted me    again you made threats against my  PI licence , why  make threats   when  if something had been lost in interpretation with net safe and myself  it  could have been  resolved with simple non threatening  communications, each time  you come at me in the most aggressive manner . Every contact contains a threat of one sort  or another .

Despite a most civil response and  the promise to provide clarification   you  made a complaint to the private security licencing authority alleging  very serious  wrong doing   for which you did not provide any evidence .

You even tried to imply something sinister in my   arrival at your house in 2006 when I attempted to seek resolution as a result of your threats

7. you state “I note that I gave you a letter from the New Zealand Law Society rebutting your claims about me weeks ago. ”  I do not recall getting such a letter   are you referring to annexure H  ? if not please send  me the letter you are referring to  happy  to look at it and publish it

Now   you are threatening  defamation  again  , and no, I don’t know  that you are suing me , I do not assume such things . I have repeatedly asked you to point out what you think is defamatory  and you will not tell me. Resolution  is no thigh on your list as you know you will have to eat humble pie   . as I have said its never too late to apologize

May I remind you   that  defamation is a two edged sword  and at this stage it appears that I have the  evidence  that you have been defaming  and blackmailing me  and I have the evidence that I have been speaking the truth .

The fact which matters is that AWINZ   the  approved organization  was not the  same as the trust which  you  claim you were instructed by.

Please Vivienne  You are a policy analyst it defies belief that you don’t know about  identity 101

  • an unincorporated trust   which  does not have a trust deed, trustees  or assets   cannot make an application for  law enforcement powers
  • Neil Wells  did not have a trust deed  in  March 2000  to give the minister a copy, this was  two weeks after  two copies had allegedly been signed
  • Why was Wells claiming that AWINZ  existed in 1998 , if it existed   it could have  incorporated 10 times over , but he was using  his position as  advisor to the select committee  to feel every one so that he could make a fraudulent application   to  the minister.
  • It is this fraud that you have strived so hard to cover up ,  I can prove it and I welcome your defamation action to prove  the truth. the reality is  that  due diligence  would have prevented  12 years of hell for me.
  • Last time you initiated definition proceedings  with your then husband  Nick   never proved the content of the statement of  claim,  it is full of lies and seriously misleads the court , you   had my defence of truth and honest opinion  struck out  so that   you could  win.
  • I call that dirty law   it is against the  rule of law and only unethical  lawyers  act in that way, the law society investigated but because this transition  over the implementation of new legislation  you  got out of it  this is the decision for nick wright decision
  • It is of note that Nick Wright wright response narrative of facts wrote on a letter head for a fictional company  a undefined trading name  something which cannot enter into a contract  and after he had  been a committed patient   which  appeared to escape the law societies notice   as to his suitability  to  hold a practicing certificate..   it gets better all the time see] WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NEW ZEALAND POLICE) [2017] NZHC 2865 [22 November 2017]

as a subtle reminder    as  the lawyer you are  obliged to   comply with  section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act 

(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

Any way  your email in response  to the post is below  and my response  back to  you to which you replied “Thanks for the response Grace, that’s fine.”

 

From: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 5:09 p.m.
To: ‘Vivienne Holm’ <karen161970@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption

Thank you Vivienne

No  I will not accept service   email

I am happy   to   make any corrections  and will  update the posts using your emails  as reference.

I am happy to resolve anything  but  I suspect you are looking for a fight .

The reality is that I checked with the  law society and I have  been told by them that they do not have the records  for   2006 as this was a different society

You  escaped  the wrath of the law society because the act changed in 2008

I am happy to  put an Asterix and   a foot note to the posts to clarify  your view  and  the evidence which I obtained at the time and the findings of the  law society

I cannot understand why you think  that a simple letter can  over turn the findings of the law society   committee , and you call me unhinged !!!!

I  will welcome   your defamation proceedings     it will once and  for all blow the lid on AWINZ .

It is simply beyond me that a policy analyst cannot discern what a trust is  or what a lie to the minister is

You have concealed corruption    you know that you have to attack me  because you are so scared of your own neck

This is nothing more than vexatious  you have built up to this over the years probably because you see this way of getting some  money  due to all your pro bono   mindless work.

Sit down  Vivienne and have a very good hard think about the reality of   AWINZ  the law enforcement authority   which  the  trust deed 1.3.2000  which had not been seen prior to  2006  concealed

Also check out the  lies that Neil wells  told the minister   and ask yourself why you never questioned how wyn Hoadley became a trustee of a trust which  was missing a deed  had no assets and  had never met prior to 10 may 2010

Why would two barristers instruct a law clerk working from home   and why did you tell Sally Quigley that you were a law clerk.

Open some of the evidence on the site   Vivienne   look at it    do your job  you have been  covering up for a fictional organisation  by   consistently attacking me .

Your credibility would   be enhanced if you  looked at the things which  simply do not stack up and say .. oops sorry

I will have no reason to  blog about you and AWINZ once the attacks on me stop.

I have the evidence   , I will be asking for security for costs and I will get a top lawyer    so  be prepared .

Will put this up on transparency  tomorrow. In the interest of transparency

Its never too late to apologise , this can be resolved amicably   you just need to stop attacking me

happy to sit down with a mediator if   you pay

Regards

Grace Haden

 

 

Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption

Vivienne  You could have made a massive difference to  many lives by  asking questions in 2006 , instead you chose to bully     to conceal the corruption that was AWINZ.  AWINZ  was not   just any old organisation  there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them  it did not exist  you covered it up  and you 12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough  .

The purpose of this open letter is to get  some  issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the  government directly  as a contractor  and  apparently as an employee For LINZ.

You are reportedly a lobbyist  and as such I see the  connection between  you and wells .

Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

As such it is in the public interest that you  act  with integrity and  that your actions are exposed .As to integrity  it is my   professional opinion is that you have none, it is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to  damage some ones reputation  so that  corruption could be  concealed.

I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by  giving up  my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years  in an attempt to discredit me .

Your  complaint in January   was totally  malicious and vexatious  yet I was  supposed  to travel to Wellington next week  so that you   could have a go at me in person  at a ” disciplinary ”  hearing. You have also   alleged that you are preparing  a defamation prosecution  but refuse to say how I have defamed you  or given an opportunity  to  make a correction  .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .

In short your  actions  with  the PSPLA  has been  for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .

I have never met you Vivienne  but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the  background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link  with Neil Wells was that you   both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be  kept , Like   protecting corruption rather than exposing it .

Last year I suspected  that Neil Wells was  the  corrupt barrister   who  is mentioned in this  decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the  money he  took , perhaps that unsettled you  because you   had gone all out to defend him  and  spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth   but  by denying me  the  right  to a fair trial and a defence   you influenced the court and  a most defamatory judgement of me  emerged when the  judge believed the spin  the lies and  misinformation Nick Wright  put to the  court.

The  resulting Judgement has served you well     and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to show  what a nasty person I  am and why   they should not believe my allegations of corruption.  It has worked so  far but then you  thought I would have given up by now , No I have not .  with the spot  light on  rape  or sexual violation    you will be next    this is  like being abused for 12 years   .

I suspect that  in fearing  that the tide was turning, you  made a complaint  against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious  and as a result I have  given up  my licence as  it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing  attacks  by those I suspect that you have encouraged to  make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA   I  have eliminated that  avenue for harassment .

You  first approached me at  9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june  2006  you rang my home number   and told me  to change the name of the  legal trust which I was a trustee of  or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence  , you followed this up   with  an email at 11 pm making  similar threats .

You were working from your home as a law clerk  at the time for Brookfields  which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner  of  .

You now falsely  claim that you had a practicing certificate  but the law society  investigations  Here  and the decision here  prove  otherwise .

You  lied to the  PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” your ability to tell lies   reflects on your lack of integrity

One  has to wonder  why Neil Wells a Barrister  and Wyn Hoadley  a barrister  would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter  and why she is now lying about her   status as a law clerk.. smells rotten to me !

The trust which I was a  trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  now called the  ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively  that no other  legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that   the Approved Organisation  by the same name was a fraud.  see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging  that we were  competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive   Wells of donations .  You had the ability to twist facts then   that skill you apparently have retained .

This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time,  the writer now believes that  Vivienne Holm is helping to expose this corruption by giving her an opportunity  to  call all witnesses to court to address the defamation claim brought By Holm  . We are grateful for this opportunity and  apologize for the harsh words we used when  we  were pushed into a situation of  having defamation threats  made against us while having to  go to Wellington to be cross examined by the person making litigation threats. Documents in support as attached   .submissions in response and emails coa

Vivienne  Holm claims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do”  Really!  at 9.45 pm at night   when   this is what  the law society reported in their finding 

So why  not simply hang up  when I answered or say  sorry wrong number  but you went on to intimidate  and followed it up with threatening  emails  at 11 pm on Friday night!  You  used the names Vivienne Parre and Vivienne Wight at the time  you now use  Vivienne Holm and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is  your middle name and date of birth ( not very clever )

You  never took any notice of  the letter  which the   registrar sent you in reply to  your complaint  see here 

You may not be aware of the significance of this  but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan

AWINZ did not exist  despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since  at least 1998 , Tom Didovich  was  working on this fraud with him  and paid for  the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees  see also this file

In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ   Neil Wells wrote on 22  november 1999

Now apparently, according to  you ,   I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what   you think  a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?

I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ?  well  it might surprise you that when Neil Wells  made this application   it was three months  before the date   of the trust deed  he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until  june 2006 when miraculously there were two  ( but they were not the same )

Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a   group of people  applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which  does not exist and  does not have a deed,

How did the  trustees   pass a resolution  to  apply for   law enforcement powers ?

how  does the law of contracts apply in this instance  what liability would  there be  for the individuals in running such an organisation ..   NONE cause they were not involved

why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200  what being an approved organisation  meant, surely they would have known they  allegedly ran one for   6 years .. or did they ?

In correspondence to the minister   Neil Wells wrote in 2000.

A person such  as myself who according to your slanderous comment  has   ” limited intellectual capabilities”  this means  that

  1. there is a trust deed
  2. it has a clause 20 (a)  see the trust deed he produced   it only goes to 19   there is no 20  or 20 (a)
  3. there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
  4. It is  not available because the original has been sent  for registration .(  he knowe that only copies were sent  he lied )

The reality is that Neil Wells  deliberately lied to the minister  not one of those statements is true .

Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by  become a body corporate   ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person  in its own right and has existence  apart from the trustees )  Wells had incorporated two  just months earlier  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD

He knew that only copies  of the deed  were sent  and  in 2006  we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were  different  version 1  and version 2 

Version 2 was sent  to MAF  , the  front page and the signature pages are original and the middle  pages have been switched out.. Do policy  analysts  care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone  that ?   are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?

All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the  years but you and him  continued your vexatious attacks on me.

Have you not read section  4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the  rule of law   you were  an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things  so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate  you  are cunning .

You prepared the statement of claim  and Nick Wright  your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court  the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work   I wont be bullied

In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law  society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006  when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here Holm Decision 

It obviously became too much for Nick when he  became a committed patient  but despite this he continued to practice  law until  june 2011 when he was still acting past that date  despite not having a practicing certificate 

Nick  has now left law , I was particularly taken  with  the poem he read on his face book page  about the  wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true

Getting back to you and your complaint   I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority  , But no matter what I  said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before  you had served papers on me   MY response   is here 

When ever you submit  more  information you introduce more  misinformation and childish action   as can be seen in your  Vivienne Holm submissions in reply

On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate,   for the  first time since 2011  you allege that there is an  issue, then when I  correct it for  you, you    scream to the PSPLA  .. “she has changed it  she is disobeying  the pspla.”

For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, secondly I  like others find your  approach childish  Grow up it really is no different to  the situation with Wyn Hoadley   see the decision re her  Hoadley decision  and her response Hoadley response

I have no legal  obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions  for companies which were not under my PI licence .

You are  right  not to  respond to   my  submissions, to do so would  cause you to put your foot in it further .

As a policy analyst I am disappointed that you do not know the  law, you have been a lawyer for  how long ?and   it appears that  you don’t know about the harassment act or the defamation act .  You apparently cannot read the  Private security  act  and   have failed to  take into consideration the definition  of Private investigator or perhaps you do  but it suits your intimidation   , so I am giving it transparency

You claim that you are preparing a statement of claim for  more defamation proceedings  but you do not wish to make  me aware of  anything  which I am happy to correct if  you prove it to be wrong. Intimidation Intimidation Intimidation .. is that  your only methodology ?

You  may not have heard of DARVO   it is a concept  where by  those who are guilty    Deny   Attack  Reverse Victim and Offender .

You have obviously been communicating with the PSPLA  for a while  and I  have also isolated emails  involving  Malcolm North whose son has just been convicted for operating a phoenix company .Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company

I believe that you  are shit scared that you will be next  that is why you have to   discredit me , I have had enough

If you think I am defaming you   tell me   how and where      , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA  are too similar  you have been  there all along  ensuring that I am never out of court.   How childish can you get  for  the allegations about me speaking to your kids    They came to the door  in 2006  I asked for their mother..  you even managed to make that sound like  the crime of the century .

Not long after I  had an anonymous complaint  to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson  who coincidentally  claimed I had used  those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia

I will not give up until You are  convicted     as a lawyer  your obligation was to the rule of law  you  have been a lawyer off an on since   since 1996  you cannot plead ignorance  and I have every reason to believe  that  you have   coordinated the attacks on  me  to discredit me

It all started with the   Statement of claim which you  and your then husband Nick Wright  filed   for the  fictional AWINZ

The very first  paragraph to the court   is a lie   and the lies  just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this   Nick just stood there  and lied  i was denied a defence  and that is called JUSTICE !

You did not check to see if AWINZ existed  You had evidence that we had legitimate  trust  had body corporate status  but you  gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it  AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption  you take the cake

Neil Wells  conspired with  MAF to ensure that information was withheld  until after the  court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released  this  vital evidence included the audit report  which  proved that AWNZ was a sham .

This  was later  confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society  with this letter 

What is missing is that  the application for  approved status under the legislation which Wells had written  and advised on , was made  by AWINZ  on 22 November 1999.  so how could  trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application  ?

Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees  only Wells signature was on the  application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity  in its own right . as you can see the  signatory of this crown law  opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI  Peter Mc Carthy

the trust deed   which first  saw daylight  in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting  on  10 May  states  that the trustees  required to be reappointed after three years

the  alleged trustees of this  2000 trust did not  hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005    and no  meeting had occured  since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you  can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?

Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response  states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.”  this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person  make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 

So this  woman   who is supposedly a Barrister  seeks legal advice from a  resource management  law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved  quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation  your specialty

Wyn Hoadley also  falsely claims that  AWINZ  resolved to seek  professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution   it is not in the   minutes!  

Wyn  was also not appointed by any legal  method   she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed   and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she   binding herself into ????  would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ????   it simply defies belief.  These people are lawyers  !!!!!! or should I say Liars

By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to  address the   malicious attack on me  which you state in  paragraphs 22 and 23  of your complaint , ie  to  take away  any credibility my PI licence could  give.

The good news   is that  a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take  Translegal   and its  director  Gary Swan for example they  have a PI licence   yet  swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something  which is apparently condoned .see this  and these Translegal document server jailed .      Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.

Nor  does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail   and ability to  find  information  is a skill I have,   a skill which apparently you  lack despite  you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion  in being a corrupt  former lawyer  specialising in intimidation  and  discrediting  people to  win at any cost.

I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make    By not replying  within 5 days you are  confirming to the accuracy of this post

 

Historical references  https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016

Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company

On 1 March 2018, Samuel North appeared at Wellington District Court in front of Judge Mill for his sentencing indication.

Judge Mill indicated the matter was of moderate seriousness and that a community based sentence would be imposed.

Samuel  North accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to two charges of being a director of a phoenix company.

Samuel  North was convicted and sentenced to 200 hours of community work.

We believe that Samuel is now working   at the Petone ale house  hopefully all those  owed  money by him  will be repaid

 

 

 July 9 2015   Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

August 27 2015 Muse on Allen a case study of the dangers of NZ companies

August 28 2015 Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

March 6 2016 Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?

September  7 2016 Muse Eatery is it or is it not connected to Muse on Allen ?or what does this say about Samuel Norths integrity ?

February  4 2018 The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

February  21 2018 Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

March 1 2018   Convicted

386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name

(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—

(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.

(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out insection 373(4).

Muse Eatery Catering Limited Samuel North liquidators first report

The liquidators first report has been released  for catering limited the company which ran Muse eatery , it can be found  here 

The liquidators Palliser  were appointed  by resolution of the shareholder.  The shareholder HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED 

is a trust into which  Samuel North transferred his assets  and his  share holding  in catering limited   22 April 2016  .

Samuel   has  done his apprenticeship in   companies and   when He was investigated  in 2015  it was revealed that he had breached some 30 companies act provisions.

But the  companies act  does not appear to be  well enforced and even    while  Samule was opperating what in our opinion ( based on a truck load of evidence )  was  a  Phoenix company.

It comes as a bit of a surprise that  the liquidator    states  that there are no assets ,    we have to  ask what was it then that was removed from the premises and captured on film .

There was a flat  deck truck belonging to Bramco   and  another truck    belonging to castle  parcels  DDF 834 

and  at least two other cars  ERQ249   and  KKF271

what did they take away thin air ?

the creditors are listed as

ASB Bank PO Box 35 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Carrello del Gelato PO Box 6818 Marion Square Wellington, 6141
CPC (New Zealand) Limited PO Box 90535 Victoria Street West Auckland, 1142
Deloitte Accountants 115033 Auckland, 1140
EVEVE New Zealand Limited PO Box 3992 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Executive Laundry WellingtonLimited 9 Sydney Street Petone Lower Hutt, 5012
Farm Fresh Distributors Limited 128d Park Road Miramar Wellington
Fish Factory Limited PO Box 68-409 Newton Auckland
Gilmours Wellington PO Box 38891 Wellington Mail Centre Wellington, 5045
Lee Fish New Zealand Limited PO Box 33077 Taka puna Auckland, 0740
Mediaworks Radio Limited PO Box 11441 Manners Street Wellington, 6142
Mediterranean Foods (WGTN) Limited Street 42 Constable Newtown Wellington, 6021                                                                                                      Nova Energy Po Box 404 Whakatane, 3158
Powershop NZ PO Box 7651 Newtown Wellington, 6242
Regional Wine and Spirits 15 Ellice Street Mount Victoria Wellington, 6011Private Bag 92
Rentokil Initial Limited 905 Onehunga Auckland, 1643
Six Barrel Soda Company PO Box 11884 Manners Street Wellington
T Leaf Limited PO Box 33139 Petone Lower Hutt, 5046
The Clareville Bakery Limited 3340 SH2 Clareville Carterton, 5713
Waste Management PO Box 204253 High brook Auckland,2161

We note that this list does not include grab one or groupon   who were still selling ” deals”  after  the doors closed

We hope that those    who attend the watershed meeting appoint their own liquidator

Liquidators have an obligation  to report   potential  breaches of legislation ,   we will be   very  happy to assist .

We hope that some one looks for the truck loads of assets  which Samuel  spirited away .

Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

 Just three weeks after  Samuel North closed the  doors to Muse eatery   the company catering Limited which  operated the business muse eatery  has  gone into liquidation  .

It would appear that the share holder

HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand

has placed the company into liquidation  and appointed their own liquidators .

Samuel North was the share holder of the company but   moved  the share holding into a trust in  april 2016  .  It has all been very predictable  and North continued to sell Grab one   and groupon deals  even after he knew he was closing, we  believe that this is  fraudulent.

Our suggestion is that if you  are owed money that you  attend the liquidators  watershed  meeting  when it is announced and  ensure that independent  liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one  appointed by North )   .

When a company  appoints its own liquidators  the  liquidation is   likely not to be  as transparent  or fair as it would be  if the liquidator is working for  a creditor .

It is our honest opinion  that the Liquidators will   sell on the   Chattels, at a nominal price and  the phoenix will  fly again   when North purchases them .

Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and  it is believed that many of its  assets actually belonged to muse.

We have  been contacted  by many persons   who are  owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are  former staff members who  have unresolved  grievances .

Samuel north has removed the  face book page, the  linked in page  and the web site .

samuel north _ LinkedIn

samuel north _ LinkedIn messages

samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators

samuel north _ LinkedIn 2

Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn

the old web site is still viewable  here 

Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.

Any one knowing  where North is please send an email to us through our comment section  and we will share the information  but will keep your  details confidential

We will happily  collate information to  ensure that Justice is  done

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation

Update

Samuel North  has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz>   and is bleating defamation

We Hope the   barrister gets  paid .

Malcolm North from the ministry of social development , Bullies us again

An email  from Malcolm North  has been  forwarded to me, it  is grossly defamatory  and bullying and  alleges  that Samuel terminated his lease.  we would like to hear from any one at MSD ( ministry of  social development), is he also a bully at work  because he certainly is in emails, again speculating and threatening  by stating ” I have spoken to xxxxxx employer about his behaviour so don’t expect him to be employed for much longer‘ it is noted that his email had this  disclaimer ——————————- This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry. ——————————-” does that indicate that he sent the email from the ministy of social developments servers and using his Muserestaurant email address.  Not a good look

But getting back to the statement   that Samuel terminated his lease, this  generally requires a ” notice period ” so when di dhe give notice and how did this  line up with the  Grab one and groupon offers? https://new.grabone.co.nz/restaurants-bars-cafes/european-restaurants/p/muse-eatery-and-bar-13   and   https://www.grouponnz.co.nz/deals/muse-bar-and-eatery   

the pdf   copies downloaded tonight are  here  Muse Eatery and Bar • GrabOne NZ and here    Muse Eatery & Bar – Up To 60% Off – Wellington _ Groupon

We first heard the rumour that Muse was closing on the 18th  January , this is  just 10 days after   the   deals were offered on line  .  If you have an uncertain future   then 10 days out would you offer  deals . These offers are valid till end of march and  early april  as shown on the PDF’s  so where are they  going to  be honoured if  Samuel knew all along that he had  terminated  the  lease .

at least 80 people  spent $99  on groupon  =$7,920    at least  10 people  spent $195  on groupon  =$1,950   total $9,870

86 people bought the  grab one deal at $69 =5,934  total for the two deals potentially outstanding  $15,804

We look forward to hearing from the landlord.   The land lord in Allen street was left out of pocket according to liquidators papers  time will tell if  the name of this land lord will ultimately  appear on the liquidation papers for catering company .

The web page which   was paid up  until the 16 th February was pulled  5 February and now defaults to  the web serves page , The face book page was taken down   last week .So if the web page and Face book pages were pulled  why not pull these deals ?   Why  leave them up why no formal announcement .

We have  heard from  reliable  sources  that  there  are substantial  debts .

Any one out of pocket  with a provable  debt please contact us we are coordinating  a group action .

we will keep you posted  we know there is more to come

The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

 Hard on the heals of  Five Boroughs  another  restaurant has closed its doors.

This one however  did not come as a surprise to us,  as rumours had been flowing freely that Samuel North was going to close the doors at the end of the month.

Transparency took the precaution of notifying  key people so that  the evidence of the intent was there .

This is not the first time that   boy wonder  Samuel  North has closed shop he did this with  Muse on Allen,  took all the   Branded crockery cutlery and any thing that was not tacked  down and started a new business leaving massive debts in his wake.

Our people in Wellington managed to capture the action  as it unfolded . we wonder

1.if the staff knew that they  would turn up for work and ind the contents  gone ,

2. If the land lord knew of if he is going to be out of pocket just like the last one

3. was the stuff  Samuels to take  he had  previously said it belonged to  the premises

4. where  was it all going

5. Are the grab ones  which are still being  sold going to be repaid ?

6. are  the groupons still going to be sold 

Guess these pictures will be of use for  the liquidator   we believe that once again IRD have  been left out of pocket ,well timed  Samuel  we believe that the 7th feb may have been D day for tax payment   so it appears that   to prevent   liquidators  recovering  assets  you have  got in  first.   we wonder where the next  phoenix will rise ? The company Muse eatery   traded under  wsa  Catering Limited.   The face book page for muse was pulled last week  .

Samuel was last seen   in the castle parcels van   shown below ..  he had a convoy  but  , Sam it was not  unseen. and . will you refund the   Grab ones ?  was it not a tad   fraudulent to keep selling them   when you  and every one else in wellington  ( it seems ) knew that you were going to  do a runner.

 

 

The secret Law Society Disciplinary Committees

Following on from the previous post

As we saw   the law society   nurtures and disciplines its own members, this  can be like the  mother of a very spoilt  child  , if the child is a favourite its a case  of  Now Johnny you go and be a good boy mummy will be very cross if you do that again .  or if  the child  is  not liked  a step  child or a foreign lawyer for example  then   there will be a crucifixion   so that a message is sent to the  others and to show that the system is working .

The  disciplinary side of the law society is  undertaken  through statute, the lawyers and conveyancers act .

The conflicting roles of the law society are set in statute .. statute is written by lawyers   and  as with the animal welfare  Act, there is concrete evidence that statutes are written  and advised on by lawyers .

(The animal welfare act , no 1 bill was written by Barrister Neil Wells  to facilitate his own business plan, he advised on this as independent advisor to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest   )

The resulting swiss cheese legislation has sufficient holes for the lawyers to crawl through  and evade the intention of the law.

section 65  sets out the  Regulatory functions 

The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—

(a)to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:

(b)to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:

(c)to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:

(d)to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:

(e)to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.

It is my experience that the  law society  is very poor at holding lawyers accountable to the rule of  Law    and that is where  our entire justice system falls  down . Close enough is not good enough , lawyers  are officers of the court and as such   have higher obligations to truth and honesty  than the average Joe Bloggs  , and we all know that  many lawyers  don’t know the definition of truth.

In a recent decision from the law society the society stated that

The lawyer is an agent for the client in conducting the client’s affairs. The lawyer is obliged to follow the instructions of the client where it is consistent with their professional duties. The lawyer has a duty of absolute loyalty to the client and may not have regard for the interests of third parties except insofar as they are consistent with his or her own instructions and relevant to the protection and promotion of the interests of his or her own client.”

This may be true  but  this is surely limited to   being an officer of the court first  this  is spelled out in  section 4  of the act

the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

This  to me at least makes it clear that the  lawyers primary obligations are to the court  and  he has a duty not to mislead the court or to use the court for an improper purpose .

Time and time again we see   that lawyers  are not being held accountable   to the rule of law  and because they know that  this particular bit of the rules is purposely overlooked they use it  to abuse the use of the court.

In these hard time of lawyers being paid upward of $250  per hour  its about winning ,  no matter how. When   a group of  people   are backing each other up and  no one is being  held accountable to the rule of law then  injustice   reigns.

As a result  it is our observation  that the new Zealand courts have become extremely unsafe .

When a lawyer  steps out of line the first step is to  make a complaint to the law society .

We made a complaint against a lawyer in April 2016, the  quote above came from the decision which was delivered by an anonymous group of people represented with the name and signature of only  one barrister who signed the decision  on 28 November 2017 .

Law  society  disciplinary  committees  are made up of up to seven lawyer members and two lay members , however  the standards committees appear to work   from a position of total anonymity aside from a requirement to notify the minister of the appointment 

Standards committees are set up under section  126  of the act , they appear to be  are totally anonymous  and  are in reality not a legal structure which is capable of being sued or suing,  but   they are regularly represented in court proceedings as if they have  every right of a legal or natural person .

Standard committees in effect are nothing more than  a trading name given to a  group of unidentified persons  , at best it is an unincorporated group and the  rules in law dictate that  they  should be treated as naming the individuals  as members of the what ever trust  or committee.

The decisions  of the committees are listed here look at them the  majority have the lawyers names anonymised despite the fact that many lawyers  who have come to their attention  have  committed real crimes and have never been held accountable  in  another court .

There is a good chance that the  lawyers on the   disciplinary committees   are connected to  the  lawyer  under review  due to them  belonging to a secondary alliance   whihc many law firms  have formed for example

 NZ LAW Limited which is according to the companies office  jointly owned by 55 lawyers , this  from this link 

This is not the only   law firm made up  of many others , there are also  LAW ALLIANCE NZ LIMITED 34 share holders   and LARGE LAW FIRMS GROUP LIMITED 9 share holders  and probably more .

All in all there is nothing at all transparent about  the disciplinary process  , it behind closed doors and as seen  with the example   takes  a very long time for a complain to come out the other end  1 year 7 months   in the example above .

the decision is delivered with this  note

Decisions of the Standards Committee must remain confidential between the parties unless the Standards Committee directs otherwise. The Standards Committee has made no such direction in relation to this matter.

But  despite the  fact that  they decide to back their lawyer members up  for not  complying with the rule of law  there is  an avenue open to appeal their decision  and that is through  the LCRO       and that is even more fascinating.. to be continued