Open letter to Linda O’Reilly Partner Brookfields Lawyers

Auckland lawyer Linda O’Reilly practises in the area of local government and public law. She has extensive experience in local government having worked in management in that field in Auckland and the Waikato, including as Returning Officer in two triennial local government elections. Her experience includes investigating local government and official information issues in the Office of the Ombudsmen, and a period as Regional Solicitor in the Auckland Conservancy Office of the Department of Conservation.
Linda advises a range of private and local government clients on local government, resource management and environmental issues. She is a contributing author to Thomson Reuters Local Government Law in New Zealand and a regular columnist in NZ Local Government magazine.
Industry memberships
Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand

Good afternoon Linda

Was a bit shocked to see your response to my open letter which advised David Neutze to take harassment action against me . In my experience lawyers who work unethically and recklessly cover their tracks with defamation action and harassment action . Those who make genuine mistakes seek to put things right, the obligation is after all to the rule of law .

I consider that suggesting harassment action is totally disgusting, especially by a mediator and a person involved in local government and the ombudsman’s office. what you are suggesting is secrecy , limiting the freedom of speech and there by making the whole issue as transparent as old sump oil .

Currently we have a call for whistleblowers to dob in any one breaking the rules for the outbreak. I wonder if any one contemplating this action realises that lawyers will then make their lives a total misery from there on in by suing them for the next 14 years .

I am whistleblower. I found that Neil Wells Barrister was operating an approved organisation ( private law enforcement Body ) from the premises of Waitakere city council . He was using the council staff ( dog control ) to obtain income for himself and had rebranded the council dog control premises to look like the fictional organisation in whose name he was carrying this out.

To grasp the significance of this you may wish to read the decision of the Ontario supreme court , this is with regards to a legitimate legal person the ontario SPCA. As a direct result of this decision the Ontario SPCA gave up its law enforcement powers.

AWINZ took it one step further, it was formed through fraud and had no legal existence at all other than it being a trading name for Neil Wells who had obtained the powers by writing and advising on the legislation than making a fraudulent application

I now understand why my complaints to the ombudsman’s office have not had traction and it appears that there have been a lot of people beavering away in the back ground ” covering arse ” for their fellow lawyers.

I was first sued for harassment when I did an investigation for a lawyer when he was not paid by a client, the company was on sold to a fictional director who then employed a fictional liquidator . see story here and news items here Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.

Peter Spring Lawyer for Terry Hay took me to court for harassment because I had been at the business address looking for the fictional Sanjay Patel , this did not suit Lynne PRYOR who had assisted Hay in the fraud .

Next was Evgeny Orlov who I had worked with when my marriage fell apart due to Brookfields unethical prosecution tactics . read the items here International fraud connection with Equity law and naked capitalism the story was  entitledNew Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia and The curious case of Equity Law and Equity Trust International

Effectively I had stumbled on what was to be exposed as the Panama papers .

Harassment is a tool used by people who have something to hide . and it appears that Lawyers are believed in court and are not held accountable to the rule of law , their own society nurtures and protects them and is he disciplinary body.. this is a massive conflict of itnerst.

Then people like you have fingers in many pies , and I find that my complaints to the ombudsman’s office are ignored and there must be a fabulous network of in house lawyers working for government departments ensuring that information is with held long enough to put those who you fear at a distinct disadvantage while you beat the up using the court system.

How can you possibly defend the use of council premises for private pecuniary gain . what part of the AWINZ matter don’t you understand.

1.do you turn a blind eye to fictional organisations administering the law ,

2. condone people writing legislation for their own business plan

3. fraudulent applications to the crown

4. using intimidation to attempt to conceal fraud

5. when this fails using he court to pervert the cause of justice by having some ones defence of truth and honest opinion struck out and using a tame judges 92 page decision to re write history , while ensuring that vital evidence is withheld until vital time lines have passed.

Linda You have exposed your self , you may have had one sherry too many when you hit the send on the email and copied me in but it shows how the corrupt network of lawyers works and shows how you are all connected

a law degree does not make any one honest but lack of accountability to the rule of law opens the door to corruption in our legal secor, and in my opinion it is rotten to the core when lawyers have to resort to harassment action and defamation to conceal their dirty dealings .

David Neutze do you have integrity ? or are you a corrupt lawyer ?

This is an open letter to David Neutze, Partner of Brookfields Lawyers seeking him to admit his lack of due diligence and help put right the injustice which resulted. The question is has he been wilfully blind to these events or was he guided by a lawyer who was mentally ill

Education
Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, University of Auckland
Areas of expertise
Insurance, Construction and Engineering Litigation, Health & Safety and Dispute Resolution

Hello David I doubt that you are aware that you had a devastating effect on my life when you allowed your name to be used for legal action without checking the facts .

I thought I would turn to you as a member of the Arbitrators & Mediators Institute of New Zealand as indicated by your profile on your law firms page but it appears that you are not shown on their membership .

Even so I have decided to seek some answers from you which with the passage of time have indicated ( to me at least) more than a minor amount of negligence on your part.

You may be wondering why I have popped up again after all these years, well the answer is simple there are former members of your law firm who are still giving me grief 14 years after the event , I am normally quite a patient person but enough is enough and I am asking all those involved to be accountable for their apparent lack of due diligence.

As a lawyer and former crown prosecutor you will understand your obligations to section 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers act specifically

4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers : Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

I will be relying on various documents which can be summarised as follows 1. your response to the law society 2. your letter to the trustees of the trust which was legally incorporated 3.the statement of claim bearing your name

I certainly hope that you agree that the rule of law exists for the protection of every one and that lawyers who discover that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by less honest lawyers and or mentally challenged lawyers have a duty to the the law to ensure that any miscarriage of justice is corrected .

I here by give you the opportunity to show your integrity by getting you to look at the following issues

In your response to the law society dated 12 April 2011, it appears that everything was done in consultation with you to such an extent that you were happy to put your name and signature to the proceedings you stated that “The statement of claim was prepared in consultation with me as the senior litigation partner of the firm and I was satisfied with its contents.”

Most of your response relied on input of Nick Wright who had prosecuted the matter a resource management lawyer who was a committed patient in 2009 and left the firm taking the files with him and then returning the files to you to finish off the job with bankruptcy proceedings when he ceased being a lawyer

You relied on the court decision to prove the allegations in the statement of claim despite the fact that there was never any evidence in support of the claim and the strategy saw my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out . The only evidence given was that Neil Wells who has since been proved to be this corrupt barrister , swore the statement of claim as True, this is perjury in my book .

After you responded to the law society Wells wrote another letter to law society which set out the alleged background of the so called trust .

Despite the fact that we should not speak ill of the dead, I can only bluntly put it this way that Neil Wells was untrustworthy in addition to him ripping off his life time friend and charging her to find the money he had embezzled I will also show where he has been less than honest with you and the law society.

In 2001 the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  was given coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act   section 122 . The legislation was drafted and advised on By Neil Wells who had his own business plan for setting up in competition to the RNZSPCA .  The RNZSPCA is an incorporated society  but AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form

Wells posed as a trustee of a fictional trust when he made the application on 22 November 1999 and attached an unexecuted deed . He reassured the minister in March 2000 and said

full letter at this link

Neither MAF nor the minister ever saw a trust deed  and none was on file before June 2006 when this copy was sent to me by Wells if you down load a copy and click on the properties you will note that the document was created by Neil Wells on 27 june 2006 a day after the threatening letter which you sent to us .. proving conclusively that you had never seen a trust deed before you signed the letter to the trustees of the legitimately registered trust

In the letter dated 26 June 2006 you state “We act for Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand…. ” how could you act for the animal welfare institute of new zealand it was not a legal person in its own right and the only legal entity by that name was the one which I was a trustee of , incorporated on 27 April 2006 . the whole purpose of the exercise was to force us to give up our incorporated name so that a massive public fraud could be concealed.

Proof that ” your client ” AWINZ did not exist as a legal person can be found in the minutes of 10 May 2006 when Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graeme coutts met at the very first meeting of the alleged trust , not surprisingly the trust deed was missing and the minutes state ” AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. “ Its also strange that people who have allegedly been operating an approved organisation need to be told what one is six years after allegedly taking on the public responsibility .

As a commercial Litigant I hope that I don’t have to explain to you what the effect of incorporation is , however if you are in any doubt please refer to section 13 of the charitable trust act

This also means that Wells Lied to the minister in the letter at this link , he also knew what his options were he had been told by the registrar of incorporated trusts

http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ministry-of-economic-developments.pdf 21 june 2006

MAF was also aware that AWINZ had not been incorporated , this is because we drew attention to this with our successful registration proving that the approved organisation was nothing more than a fiction with real public powers . this is recorded in the audit report which Wells fought hard to conceal from me

The audit report records that ” AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected” and

The trust deed , which was missing in March 2000 , was also missing in May 2006 the deed then reappears by magic and Maf are supplied with a different version to the one which I was supplied with . the MAF version has been tampered with to correct the errors made in haste.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is trust-documentation.jpg

Obvious errors are that section 20(a) does not exist in either copy of he deed ,Wells incorporated two other trusts in 1999 the ark angel trust and the national animal welfare trust and knew that you did not send originals , if there were two originals as later claimed by Wright, why not send another copy ?

and another big one was that the deed by its own terms expired three years after being signed, we know there were no meetings and so the following clause could not have been invoked

The deed by its own terms expired 1.3.2003

David you are more experienced than I am at this but what would you say to two conflicting original deeds one with signatures missing, a trust which had never met never passed a resolution and had never held assets . is this not a sham trust .. so why do me for defamation and destroy my life for making that statement ?

The statement of claim was in the name of Wells Hoadley and Coutts. If they came together without any formal deed documentation on 10 may 2006, with no evidence of any legal appointment of Hoadley( as required by section 4 charitable trust act ) and acknowledging that they were not incorporated .. how could they possibly allege that we, a legal entity with the name animal welfare institute of new zealand were passing ourselves off as three people who had not functioned at anything and had formed after us with no other intention but to use charitable funds to pursue us through court to fice us to give up the name

David a 5 year old will tell you that none of this makes sense . You went on to take an active roll in attempting to bankrupt me forcing me to sell the family home, guess that was not significant as you had destroyed my family and marriage any way with the serious miscarriage of justice which could have been prevented if you had done some simple due diligence.

So what are you going to do about it , it has not gone away for me there are still members of your staff pursuing me seeking to silence me because their conscience cannot cope with it ..

To me this very much fits into conspiring to defeat justice , but since your name is all over this I thought I would give you an opportunity to help resolve it .

Its been 14 years David this is over the top, if you were negligent in trusting those you perhaps should not have trusted then it could be a vry good time for you to say lets sort it and put it right, just like you did when you found out that my company had been put into liquidation on a false affidavit . Please help put the wrongs right I know that a man of integrity would do that . I am sick of being under attack being a whistleblower should not come at the price I have paid

I am sending this to your email and posting it to the members of brookfields for transparency reasons , I am sure you have nothing to hide and will realise the error that you have made .

The SPCA .. wolves in sheep’s clothing ? Who has taken control , who pulls the strings ?

Christmas is always an interesting time of the year, it is the time that everyone goes off on their holidays and those who are wishing to do something less than transparent makes their move .

Traditionally the SPCAs throughout New Zealand were run by volunteers, they were incorporated societies consisting of locals who were concerned about the needs of animals in their region . These societies were united through the membership to the RNZSPCA which was the only organisation to have law enforcement powers , The reality is that the RNZSPCA is the only private law enforcement organisation .. do it corruptly it is a licence to print money

In recent years local SPCA’S were taken over and closed down, many great volunteers got a kick in the teeth and were left at the road side. The ambitions of those who had taken over the helm, was to corporatised this voluntary organisation , the wolves had taken over the hen house .

From an organisation which had millions tucked away in trusts and pleading poverty we now have a corporate structure which supports executives Ceos, in house lawyers, animal welfare inspectors and their supervisors and full time vets .

You do not set up such an organisation if there is no prospect of $$$$ , the voluntary system is not what these people are after they are promoting the inspectorate and the system they have for prosecution is pretty much fool proof .. like lambs to the slaughter.

A while ago I mentioned the SPCA aotearoa LTD which was set up by Gordon Trainer the former Ernst and Young partner and now Chair of the RNZSPCA . It appears that Andrea Midgen and Tony Lemmens became the directors of this company which is now owned by the RNZSPCA and filed its new constitution just a few short weeks ago , there is no longer a desire to prevent cruelty the desire is to give animals a better life .

The SPCA now employs its own vets and has its own legal team but things are not as transparent as one would want and there appears to be a massive conflict of interest

Action under the animal welfare act is commenced on the opinion of an inspector, who can seize and animal or animals . The animal is seen by a vet at some stage and later charges are laid and the person who being charged is prosecuted by one of a team of lawyers who volunteer their services to the spca .

The prosecution is passed on to the crown as a crown prosecution and the penalties are very serious . The odds of winning a animal welfare prosecution are very low part of the reason is that the evidence is trumped up and stacked against you and a private law enforcement authority has no interest in justice only in $$$. it is for this reason that the Ontario SPCA lost its powers ( see earlier posts )

lets look at some of the players

Brett Lahman was a board member of SAFE save animals from exploitation , he was also a Wellington SPCA animal welfare inspector  and is now the in house lawyer for the RNZSPCA

Jess BEER according to her linked in profile has been a vet for the SPCA since 2016 her web site https://www.kiwivetbehaviour.net/ “I am affiliated with …………. Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE)”

The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated.. The New Zealand Animal Law Association is a coalition of lawyers, law students and law graduates working to improve the welfare and lives of animals through the legal system. Arnja Dale of the RNZSPCA is the honorary patron .

Saar Cohen-Ronen is the current president he is also a board member of SAFE and just to take it to a further degree of conflict this was his role until recently . https://www.adls.org.nz/cpd/cpd-events/2412/in-house-counsel-who-is-your-new-client-on-demand

Although he is no longer in this position he is currently still employed by the government and members of the The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated are currently crown prosecutors e.g Natalie Walker

Natalie Walker is the daughter in Law of former chief justice Sian Elias and Hugh Fletcher . the Fletcher in the law firm , for which she holds the crown warrant , is her husband, their son Ned is another partner of the law firm for which Natalie now holds the crown warrant . http://www.kfw.co.nz/our-people

Natalie was one of the lawyers to go on Anita Killeen’s pro-bono panel of prosecutors14 of NZ’s finest litigators join the fight against animal cruelty”

What we find so intriguing about this is that the lawyer takes on the work Pro bono and then being a crown prosecutor there is an illusion to the court that the prosecution is being taken by the crown. where as it is simply a pro bono exercise and the prosecution may or may not have gone through the proper channels for prosecution .

Another member of the The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated is Justine Dearsley who is now auckland council in house lawyer but was according to her linked in profile Principal Advisor at Ministry of Justice – New Zealand since 2016 these are her submissions to the animal welfare bill

Gretel Fairbrother another lawyer states on her web siteGretel has also been involved with the SPCA, SAFE, Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network, The New Zealand Animal Law Association and Oil Free Wellington“. others are not so open about it

There is a very clear connection between the animal law association members, safe and SPCA is a tight one and any one requiring to defend themselves against malicious SPCA charges is up against a legal system which makes the assumption that the SPCA acts lawfully and legally

We are not alone suggested further reading https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/activists-hijack-worthy-groups-like-the-ama-rspca/news-story/aa1e71c8807393ba757a11cf98fae767

Open letter to Paula Bennett and Jacinda Ardern: it appears that you actively conceal corruption !

The Ontario SPCA has lost his law enforcement powers due to being unconstitutional why was a fictional organisation allowed to exist in New Zealand with the same powers

There appears to be a lot of fuss about a comparatively minor matter of the pay out for a sexual abuse while a large and very serious matter has been totally ignored by both parties for some 13 years .

Jacinda is aware of this matter as I spoke in her presence and that of
Julie Anne Genter at a pre election function two elections ago.

I have written to the government copious times and have been fobbed off , I can only come to the conclusion that you are totally ignoring this matter so as to condone corruption .

In the early 1990s Neil Wells, a barrister who has now been proved to be corrupt , volunteered his services to a Labour Minister to write the animal welfare bill , his volunteering transpired to be to facilitate his own business plan .

He never declared his gross conflict of interest and became ” independent advisor to the select committee” and made an application for a fictional organisation to receive coercive Law enforcement powers under the new legislation which resulted from the process in which this corrupt barrister was an integral part of .

It has been 13 years since I raised the concern and although AWINZ ceased being a law enforcement a law enforcement authority in 2010 , I have suffered on going repercussions which are massive compared to one unwanted sexual encounter .

The simple evidence which proves my veracity is in the fact that we successfully incorporated the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand there by proving that no other organisation by that name legally existed .

Had MAF checked the existence of AWINZ in 1999 they would not have accepted the application or Wells Word for anything, not only did he make a false application he continually lied about it then used the court to conceal his criminal behaviour.

In January this year a decision came out of the Ontario Supreme court this decision resulted in the Ontario SPCA giving up its law enforcement powers It was held by the court that a private law enforcement authority did not and could not have proper accountability to the public

If this is the case for a legally incorporated organisation then how could a fiction organisation have any possible accountability when there is no evidence of it existing and as it transpired there was never any one else involved in running it other than Mr Wells .

The significance of private law enforcement becomes significant through Well”s own words in the submission to the the select committee in 2013 he states

I have linked my affidavit which sets out the background in full starting at point 14

Why has this issue not been important , why has it been condoned and fobbed off ?

When you have finished with the side show on minor matters could you please take some time to have this investigated as there are massive implications as the the lawfulness, transparency and lack of accountability of the remaining Private law enforcement authority the RNZSPCA , especially in view of the Ontario decision .

There is great significant that Ontario had the same powers as our RNZSPCA , There is a very close connection with Ontario through the chairman & CEO of the canadian humane society who lives in Ontario and which the Ontario SPCA was part of . The ontario SPCA had these powers from 1990 and it appears that this was inspiration for Wells to create the legislation which we now have .

Please see hyperlinks for the full evidence

You are what you believe.. something to ponder at Easter

Here we are on Easter Sunday , celebrating a pagan festival which is simply not relevant to us here in the southern Hemisphere . This clip is very interesting and puts things into a perspective. this is also why Easter always shifts it is always the first full moon after the equinox

The reality of the sun “dying ” on the cross enjoy

So much of what we have been told becomes a different reality when put into perspective , never before have people been able to share information like they do now. This is why Bloggers are deemed dangerous they open peoples minds and make them question

Enjoy and remember always put things into perspective

“Change your diet or you’ll die” the words which saw a Doctor censured

This week I was sent a link to a video which was a real eye opener on many levels and it proves that the old world ways are slowly succumbing to the new era due to the access to information and the ability to communicate with others over the internet.

The link to the video is here it is significant on both the legal and medical fronts and it is extremely thought provoking. The questions the video raises are massive. Here was a doctor who tried to do the best for his patients and was dealt to very severely because he advocated a low carbohydrate diet.

His wife Belinda took on some research as to what was behind it and what she found surprised me and will no doubt surprise you .

Here in New Zealand Sanitarium has a massive hold on the market. as a child I remember coming home from school and eating a whole bowl of weet-bix , I attribute this to my life long battle with weight and now at a ripe old age I have discovered the truth about this product and it has nothing to do with health and every thing to do with Religion.

Sanitarium the trading name of the ”
NEW ZEALAND HEALTH ASSOCIATION LIMITED ” gets its name from ” sanitorium” and in this particular instance ( according to wikipedia )Battle Creek Sanitarium  the emphasis there was on a low fat,low protein
with an emphasis on whole grains, fiber-rich foods, and most importantly, nuts.  and was founded on Genesis 1:29 rather than any scientific or properly researched data

According to its own web siteSanitarium Health & Wellbeing Company was established by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in New Zealand in 1898 to promote and produce plant-based health foods. This is based on the Church’s belief that plant-based diets are designated by God, our Creator, for the health of the human race.1 Worldwide, the Church operates health food industries and health-care services based on this philosophy.”

Sanitarium’s stated mission is to “share with our community health and hope for a better life”. As such the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Sanitarium continue to share an explicit common reason and purpose of existence.
Sanitarium is often invited by government and the food industry for advice in developing food and industry policy and consumer education.

So what happened in Australia why was such harsh action taken against a doctor who had his patients welfare in mind . It really does bring about questions of who influences what why did he get a ” government-imposed lifetime ban on discussing nutrition

The reality is that Gary’s story , which was resolved just late last year with an apology and the lifting of the ban , reflects on who influences government , the health sector and the legal sector .

Once again it just proves that those with a conflict of interest should not have any input .The NEW ZEALAND HEALTH ASSOCIATION LIMITED is a registered charity its funds go overseas according to this news item
some 84 million dollars of tax free New Zealand revenue found its way into the combined group 1 church coffers in 2012

Its all rather fascinating and thought provoking … Further reading

Bullying, mobbing and victimization”: Gary Fettke says “enough is enough”

A doctor can’t give nutrition advice to his patients? The absurd case of Dr. Gary Fettke

“You can’t handle the truth” – Dr. Gary Fettke censored for recommending low carb

Open letter to Monique Esplin Senior Solicitor MBIE


Hi Monique this is an open letter seeking your assistance as solicitor for the ministry of Business Innovation and employment .

The reason I am writing to you is because of your position at MBIE and the fact that you have now witnessed two affirmations for Vivienne Holm lawyer for the FMA. a full detailed copy of my sworn affidavit is here ..it is important to note that she has never disputed this evidence or proved anything to the contrary. the only issue appears to be as to her not having a practicing certificate in june 2006 which has been proved conclusively by by her

this is the signature on the document supporting the application for a restraining order in Auckland signed while your solicitor at MBIE

Last year when you were senior solicitor for ministry of culture and heritage you signed the affirmed file of documents for the defamation proceedings which Vivienne Holm initiated against me in the Wellington Court

The court action in Auckland was commenced on the day when Vivienne who lives in Wellington was declined the right to transfer the Wellington proceedings to Auckland . Vivienne has been very uncomplimentary about me and appears to need help in sorting out what a legal entity is and what constitutes a trust . It is therefore fortuitous that you have come into play and have a position with the government department which should know a thing or two about legal entities.

I have never met Vivienne she phoned me late at night on 2 june 2006 and threatened my professional licence if I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust , to me and by definition this is intimidation .

Vivienne claimed to be acting for AWINZ , an organisation which through our successful incorporation of our trust (also called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand) was proved to be fictitious. Our trust was incorporated on 27-APR-2006 . AWINZ in the case of her ” client” was just a undefined name for person or persons unknown yet was referred to in the proceedings as though it was a legal entity in its own right. The first recorded meeting of this ” trust “was 10 may 2006

In 2006 it was not easy to search the register and by being successful we proved that no other trust could exist by that name as no two legal entities can be registered under the same name.

Our reason for doing this was to establish who or what the approved organisation AWINZ was . AWINZ had coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA but unlike the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society , AWINZ was proved to have no legal existence at all and no trust deed was held by MPI who contracted to it or by Waitakere city council who’s facilities and infrastructure “AWINZ ” through the guise of Neil Wells ,was using to obtain a private income from public resources.

Our concern was that an Organisation which had no legal standing could not possibly be identified and be held accountable to the provisions of the animal welfare act , as only legal persons can sue or be sued and who ever AWINZ was was effectively invisible.

A recent court decision from Canada shows the importance of this accountability see here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Decision-19-01-02-Ontario.pdf

MBIE at the time was the ministry of economic development and the then registrar of trusts sent this letter which basically stated that we had a legal right to the name and Neil Wells did not.

Not being content with this, a letter was sent by brookfields solicitors see here and we believe that it was who Vivienne drafted a statement of claim for her husband to prosecute so as to force us into abandoning the name .

MPI, in collusion with Wells withheld vital information from me and only after having the ombudsmen intervene and 5 years having passed, I obtained information which is significant .
the audit report from MPI here showed

The reality was that the very first meeting was three weeks after we had incorporated and had proved its lack of existence this was serious cover up .

From the affidavit of Tom Didovich we learned that he had allegedly driven to the trustees in 2000 and obtained their respective signatures, they therefore did not meet at inception , the deed itself had a termination clause after three years, since no meetings were held the trust could not have survived, we have evidence that the trustees did not hold a bank account and never passed a resolution .

The first meeting was recorded as seen here  There is no legal appointment of Wyn Hoadley ,the trust deed was missing and the so called trustees had to be briefed on the purpose of the trust , one would have thought that trustees of a legitimate trust would have known this .

There was also no connection of this ” trust” to the approved organisation as it allegedly formed months after the application for approved status was made and had no proven connection with the application other than an unsigned trust deed. It is our opinion that Vivienne does not appear to be very good on time frames and you may wish to explain why legally it is impossible for a trust allegedly formed on 1.3.2000 to make an application for law enforcement powers on 22.11.1999.. how would a resolution to apply for such powers be possible if the people have not met and consented to their individual responsibility of accountability which was required in this instance.

Monique I hope that you can explain to Vivienne that the people who she claimed to have instructed her (at a time when the law society claimed she was a law clerk) , had no standing as a trust as they did not have a trust deed, had no evidence of being appointed to the trust and had no evidence of ever having worked or functioned as a trust or even a law enforcement authority and that she had a legal duty to ensure that these finer details were confirmed before taking legal action .

It was therefore impossible for the legally incorporated AWINZ to pass ourselves off as a group of three people who together had no legal identity and had never functioned as a group under any name , they certainly had no legal right to force us to give up the name . The legally incorporated AWINZ was a legal entity, a body corporate but the people whose names appear on the statement of claim, Wyn Hoadley , Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts were not a legal entity by any legally provable means and could not have legally called themselves AWINZ, they could , if they had a trust deed or proof of appointment call them selves Hoadley, Coutts and wells as trustees in the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. Their responsibilities were as individuals and their trust had no legal standing separate from the alleged trustees jointly

I was taken me to court for defamation for saying that the AWINZ trust(as in the law enforcement body ) was a sham, I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and my life , my family and my marriage was destroyed. It has been proved conclusively that AWINZ was a sham now Vivienne has come out of nowhere taking me to court for harassment for getting the discovery documents to her .. its absurd.Its in my opinion all to cover up conscience does make cowards of us all .. and its at my expense that is why I speak up 13 years is too long.

If any one with the paperwork which “AWINZ” produced to obtain law enforcement powers , had gone to a bank they would have been laughed out of the place.

Vivienne’s father David Holm transpires to be a community board member in Auckland I wonder if he condones the use of council resources for private enrichment ?

Vivienne has all the evidence and it is additionally all set out in full in my
copy of my sworn affidavit is here , I don’t know if she has a mental block or just cant see it or refuses to see it but it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that a trust which has never met cannot be a law enforcement authority especially when there is no evidence of a trust existing prior to the application and when trustees are not appointed or reappointed then the trust ceases to exist, and in any case a trust without assets is not a trust its a sham .

The only evidence which was sent to me to support the claim to the name was this deed as you can see they are different people to those named on the statement of claim . Without a connection and proof of continuity Tom Dick and Harry cannot claim to be the same trust as Mary, Joan and Edward

It is important that you sort her out on the legal entity issue and trusts as she is now a lawyer for the FMA and heaven forbid if she continues to think that any one with a piece of paper or speaking convincingly can be a trust or a legal person, its the stuff that fraud is made of

Looking forward to your help .

The RNZSPCA and a groundbreaking decision from the Canadian courts .. will it impact on us ?

Today I received the attached court decision from the Superior court of Justice  Ontario    Decision-19-01-02 Ontario

It was reported in the Ontario press https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-judge-strikes-down-enforcement-powers-of-ospca-as-unconstitutional-1.4239169.

I see this  decision as impacting  on the Approved organisations  which  currently enforce the animal welfare law in New Zealand, the ontarion SPC has a lot in common with the  RNZSPCA  and  their legislation  is  pretty similar to ours ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

By way of back ground

I am a former police prosecutor and became a mother then a private investigator . In my role as Mother  I stumbled across  a fictional “Approved organisation”  being the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) .

MPI’s own  documents record that  this “ organisation “ was never incorporated under any legislation, this actually means that the application for approved status was fraudulent , it was compounded with  false and misleading statements to the minister . I discovered he fraud and on blowing the whistle was immediately crucified , 12 years later I am still suffering the fall out,  this time at the hands of a Financial markets authority Lawyer  *.see foot note

What makes the impact of this even more significant is the fact that  the only person to  operate this “ approved organisation “ was none other than Neil Edward Wells the barrister who had written the No bill for the legislation  and  then become  “ independent advisor” to the select committee when the bills became Law . see his cv here

His purpose for writing the  bill was   his own business plan see the a copy of which you have on your files here   and  a copy which I have forwarded to your staff many times here   , it has to be noted that these  were dated 1996   an predate his  drafting of the legislation  He inserted the approved organisations into the bill to facilitate his business plan .

IN 2006  I raised Questions  with regards to  AWINZ   and found that this was totally covered up by  MPI  officials  who were  on friendly terms with  Wells. The  current MPI  chief   legal officer Peter  McCarthy was the  crown law solicitor  who  gave advice  in the approval stages  and failed to pick up the  lack of any  legal existence of AWINZ see  document here ,  His own conflict  has  in my opinion  jeopardised any investigation into the  public fraud which existed for  some 10 years.

I raised question with regards to accountability  as in my mind a fictional organisation cannot have accountability .

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

 The Ontario decision impacts on  the only two   Approved organisation  which have existed   in   different ways

  1. AWINZ    .. was MPI  negligent in allowing AWINZ   to continue as an approved organisation   until 2010 despite a whistle blower.. (me) correctly  identifying that the organisation had no legal existence ,this  point  was  recognised by MPI  in 2007 see here    . MPI  met with people claiming to be  the AWINZ trust but these people informally came together in   may 2006 a  month after we had proved that AWINZ the approved organisation was a fiction .  the gazette notices with regards to  AWINZ are here
  2. RNZSPCA   I see that the case with the RNZSPCA  reflects the same issues as the  judge identified with the Ontario SPCA.  Ours  however is compounded by the fact that  the RNZSPCA  has never been given approved status  but was given approved status under  Transitional provisions. Mr Wells was a former  director of the  RNZSPCA  , his law degree had been paid for  by the RNZSPCA   and  he  continued to have associations with the RNZSPCA  after   AWINZ lost its approved status.

Wells was proved to be a   corrupt barrister  the organisation he misappropriated funds for the RNZSPCA.

When the RNZSPCA  was given  provisional approval  in the legislation  it had a constitution  1995 constitution which was  very different to its current constitution 2017 constitution . There is also reference to branches, but  there is  a move to  remove branches and the entire structure and integrity of the RNZSPCA has changed  with the  Auckland SPCA ( a member society ) effectively taking over the RNZSPCA

The  Ontario decision   in particular paragraph 84  to 91 impacts on the AWINZ matter  specifically  i the fact that the application  for   approved status for AWINZ   was fraudulent in that it  claimed to be an organisation when  the  only person applying for approved status  an  involved in running the approved organisation under the fictional name  AWINZ was the author of the legislation

There was no transparency then  and those involved in the  cover up     being  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts  ,  Tom Didovich , the FMA lawyer and MPI staff  whose actions    sought to conceal the fact that AWINZ , the approved organisation ,had no legal existence as determined  by  the ministry of economic development  see here  . have  continued to be fine upstanding persons  while I hve had to endure 12 years of  orchestrated attacks on my reputation    so as to discredit me and the facts of the substantive issue   ignored.

Itis time that  MPI  takes steps to  ensure  transparency , integrity to protect itself  from  fraud and  demonstrates that such  falsehoods will not be condoned,  this is particularly serious as it involved law enforcement   through fraud

With regards to the RNZSPCA   in light of the Ontario decision mPI must  review the search and seizure powers Section 21 Bill of rights  and section s 127 -130 Animal welfare act  as discussed in paragraph 12 of the Ontario decision  paragraph 31  to 61

In particular  it needs to be considered that Paragraph 24 of the decision  refers to distress,  the definition in the   Ontario act is distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect; (“détresse”)24 ,

 Our  legislation does not define  distress which means it takes on dictionary meaning and  can  include “ discomfort , despair, worry  anxiety’ My cat suffers from this  frequently when she doesn’t get a hit of “treats”   and with  the RNZSPCA constitution change incorporating  the requirement to “create a better life for animals “  I am  in danger of causing distress to my cat .. she certainly puts up a convincing show

  • this means that inspectors subjective  opinion could determine that  I am causing my cat  distress  when she does not get her fix of her favourite treat on time

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

“By granting police and other investigative powers {including search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act  )to a private organization? In the alternative, if it can be constitutional to grant such powers to a private organization does the animal welfare  Act never the less breach sections 21   25   and 27  of the bill of rights by granting these powers to the RNZSPCA, specifically, without any or adequate, legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?”

Ontario decision . Just like the  Canadian legislation our animal welfare act carries  imprisonment  penalties (section25  37 AWA) and therefore  are “ criminal in nature “  people  who are charged with animal welfare offences  are liable to lose their employment  such as in the case of nurses  and  teachers.

Many of the offences are strict liability  and the   “unreasonableness” in compliance or noncompliance is  only evaluated  subjectively “ in the opinion” of the  Inspector of the private  enforcement organisation which  co incidentally  appears to have changed its constitution to   target  enforcement as a means of income and is  involved in significant   recruitment and training of new inspectors   see here

Like the Canadian provisions  many of our criminal acts require  intent ,  however intent is not an ingredient in the animal welfare  act  and a person acting in accordance with their  traditional  standards  could well become guilty under the act. If suffering is in” the opinion” of any party  it is the opinion of the  RNZSPCA that counts. The RNZSPCA  is targeting fines as a source of income

It is of specific note that  you are automatically guilty  of an offence under the animal welfare act unless you file a defence  under  restricted terms , within 7 days . section 13 animal welfare act.

It is also of note that the legislation was  written and advised on by a Barrister who   was closely associated with the RNZSPCA  under its old constitution  and one who was  intent on using this  very legislation to derive an income for himself.

The discussion  Paragraph 62 onward   in the Ontario decision is  very relevant

we require an urgent  review of the RNZSPCA and the  animal welfare Acts’ compliance with the  bill of rights  and Official information  act

    • section 21 BORA   given that all it requires for an  search and seizure is the opinion of an inspector  who  is  employed by a charity whose  purpose is to “taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.’
    • Section 25 C Bora  “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”   and section13 Animal welfare act  , there was a case where a nurse had  horse which contracted  a  disease distributed by pukeko’s, her horse rapidly deteriorated and  died.   The laboratory tests  were not back within 7 days  and her defence  failed because the SPCA proved that her horse died in her care .
    • Section 27  does the ability of the RNZSPCA  to enter and search without warrant impact on  the right to justice
    • Unlike the police  or government body  prosecution  the RNZSPCA is not subject to the  official information act  and therefore lacks transparency

It is further of note that the  RNZSPCA   trades as the SPCA  , the  staff and directors of the former  Auckland SPCA which was a separate legal entity appear to have taken over the  RNZSPCA which was the only body to have  approved status.  Their  new  constitution allows for other names , this    brings about confusion and  opens the ability of any one to pass themselves off as an approved organisation  and  gives scope for another  fraudulent  law enforcement organisation  such as AWINZ.

I  sincerely hope that  the Ontario decision provides clarity and direction for our own animal welfare legislation

*the lawyer, (who despite working for the FMA , apparently  cannot discern a fake trust  from a real one ) ,    is taking me to court for defamation for saying  that it appeared odd that two barristers should instruct a  law clerk  and for saying that I  felt intimidated when she rang  me late at night and  make threats against my private investigators licence if  I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust :-The Incorporation of our trust  proved conclusively that the approved organisation AWINZ  was fictional   , to me her  threats against my licence was intimidation  However   she cannot understand that this is intimidation and now claims its defamation   for me to say that I felt intimidated  .

Another point of contention is whether or not she was a lawyer, I have lots of  evidence that she  did not have a practicing certificate and could therefore not be lawyer  she has evidence that she did not have  a practicing certificate   but apparently  does not  let a good document stand in the way of a bad argument ..she is currently a lawyer working for the FMA 

Corruption concealed with lies and deceit

The following  article was written in response to an email from Tatsuhiko Koyama   and Paul Gee …

There  appears to be something inherent in NZ about  covering up   , its all about saving  $$$   and saving face  so  we  unjustly  leave  citizens with the cost  and the  degradation    which comes with being a whistle-blower .. no wonder there are so many suicides  we just  give some one a pill  and tell them to go away .

Our legal system is totally out of whack  it does not deliver justice  and our public servants have a massive rug under which  anything  suspected  of being  even   slightly rotten is swept.

Our systems are broken  I petitioned for an independent commission against corruption  it was thrown out by a man who left parliament under a cloud , the reason it was thrown out.. it disclose fraud and corruption… go figure read  about it here 

I was charged and  found guilty  for breaching an order  which cannot be shown to exist  for an un name person  the  Lawyers disciplinary tribunal decision   makes no reference to any orders  nor does it caution  the existence of one , the decision was one where the  tribunal effectively condoned  criminal behaviour of one of its own  have a read…. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016-NZLCDT-24-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-v-Mr-M.pdf. I believe that this is  the same man who wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act for his  own  business plan  and  then made a fraudulent application which gave him statutory law enforcement powers and no accountability , the court has protected him and  MPI has protected him because they never checked the facts  they were reckless and its easier to make some one else’s life hell than show that they system is not working .

The ombudsmen’s office provides a document 130 pages long  http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/463/original/managing_unreasonable_complainant_conduct_manual_october_2012.pdf?1351456121    which  allows  a person who  uses CAPITALS , underlines words , uses a different Colour or Highlights  a word to be  declared an “ unreasonable complainant .

To complain about  being an unreasonable complainant makes you even more unreasonable

The ombudsmen  do have a book on how  to deal with complaints  its only 32 pages long  of which only 5 pages deal with  the  actual guidance of dealing with complaints

This culture of treating any   complainant  whether whistle-blower or some one pointing out a flaw in the system ,as a villain  only serves to make New Zealand more corrupt.

I had a first hand  demonstration   of how effective this system is   Ian Holyoake  who has been a rotarian for many years  totally defamed me with his  opinion which was so skewed  that logic was totally absent   ,

Ian  is of such standing that  his word is  gospel    and all he needs to say is   that he is a fine upstanding person  and that is sufficient for his opinion to hold against any one.  When I asked for a retraction and an apology  he could not possibly do that   and when I mentioned the possibility of defamation action  he went round  telling  people that  I had already served him with papers . The local assistant Governor  told me that an apology from Ian would  be unlikely   the pattern in my opinion  appears to resemble the rules  shown here

When you are the innocent party   every reasonable  thing you do to set things right  is turned into  a sinister act it is a real art form  all perpetrated with  fallacies  but more on that later .

Whether that society is  your  local rotary club the  Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, Law society or  our government,when facts and evidence  don’t matter   the society you are involved in corrupt  but it appears that it is also a crime to expose the corruption.. that is what the   real problem is .

 

 

why a fair trial is a fallacy in New Zealand

When the headlines read ” Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial ” they got my attention . Fair trial  here in New Zealand   No way !!! so how could   the breach of the suppression order  which is implied to exist   possibly damage the fair trial of a murderer  when many others  who have not been associated with  murder do not get a fair trial .

Any one   who has been fortunate enough  not to have   entangled with the law is  of the mistaken belief that our  justice system is robust and works like a well oiled machine..  don’t be fooled  there are many things which   impact on natural justice here in New Zealand

Suppression  . By suppressing the name of the offender  the  chances  of a material witness coming forward is laos reduced , if the  offender was named   someone who knows him  is more likely to remember a relevant fact a week out from the murder  rather than  upon hearing his name a month or so later .. and what could have been relevant evidence is diminished  by doubt and confusion which occurs  with time.

How do we know that there is a suppression order, well you wont find anything from our court stating that there is a suppression order   , the judge in this case refused  one  but he mere fact that the lawyer for he accused  said he would file for one was sufficient  for  suppression  until the next appearance to be available .  But the court did not  make any statement that this is the case for that you have to search the statutes or  wait for a  reporter to write an article .

But  can you  believe the press  , one report states  that this was  court ordered suppression    when another explains that   it a statutory obligation .. why nothing  from the courts   directing what the situation is,   Despite there not being any firm direction and the name being freely available on any search of Graces name .

The police  are talking about prosecuting those who breach suppression this is done in  a flash and they  don’t even need evidence as the court supports their   prosecution.

Evidence is not required

I read  a publication by the law society which was so detailed that from my own  experience I could speculate as to the identity of the lawyer who  had  defrauded his client.     He   had been given name suppression by the  law tribunal  to conceal this corruption .   I was prosecuted, no evidence of  a suppression orders existence was required , the court merely said the tribunal had a right to make one.. when actually there is no scope for a suppression order under that legislation but they can make an order for non publication. No evidence existed as to the identity of the lawyer who appeared before the tribunal  or if an order under  the non publication  criteria was ever  made .  basically the question I still have   is   whatif I had said Mickey mouse would I have been similarly guilty  as there is about  much evidence that Mickey mouse was the lawyer  as there was for Neil Wells.

I have learned that    evidence is ignored all it takes is for a lawyer to say  I  have it on good authority your honour  that the sky is green  then the judge will say   it must be right as he must not knowingly mislead me

Perjury

perjury happens all the time       but  it is too difficult for the  police to prosecute it  so people  perjure all the time. In a recent case a  forensic accountant gave evidence   to support his  client despite the fact that he had sworn an oath that  as an expert witness he was obliged to   act in accordance with the code of conduct

An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness

The  client was very pleased    and sent an email  to the  forensic accountant  thank you I could not have done it without you  a complaint made to the police  will not be investigated as it is not a priority

Denial of a defence 

I  discovered corruption and  questioned how  a law enforcement body  which undertook public prosecutions could have  been given  that  authority when it did not exist  and the application was based on fraud.  I was taken to court    for defamation and I was not allowed to put my defence of truth  and honest opinion .

Lawyers acting in appropriately 

Nick wright who was the lawyer taking the case was during the course of the events a committed patient  , he  grossly misled the  court as did his seniour  lawyer David Neutze  who never checked the facts  and was  happy to  rely on his  own  reputation to  succeed in court .

The judges  believe that they have  a duty to believe lawyers  as a lawyer is an officer of he court and must not mislead the court.  However it is  apparently impossible to hold a lawyer accountable to the rule of law .

The Judges

the judges  can do their own research  and obtain material which has not seen the light of day in court  , they write their decisions accordingly  . Judge joyce  used his 92 page  judgement as a  attack on my character and reputation  .

Judges are not held accountable   for their decision , many  judges are husband and wife teams   and no  conflict of interest is declared

No trials fake documents 

see the experience of  Tatsuhiko Koyama   here

Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc, DipGrad

Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand

The new zealand law firms

Law firms  are  a group of persons in a partnership, no partnering  documents are ever  visible  or discoverable  and   mist contracting is done  under the  trading name which is not registerd.  so the law firm  can never be sued  they are   a grey area  undefined  entity  which  is described in walis v sutton 

Litigation involving unincorporated associations is notoriously difficult when it is not done by way of representative action.
Unincorporated bodies are lawful but legally nonexistent. As Fletcher, in The Law Relating to Non-profit Associations in Australia and New Zealand
p.187 puts it:
“Legal issues arising from their activities are justiciable provided they can be presented without attributing a corporate character to the association.”

At p.190 Fletcher concludes that:
“The prohibition on assuming a corporate character does not prevent the members collectively from asserting their rights either by all joining as parties to the suit or by representative
action.”
Fletcher quotes an article by Lloyd, Actions Instituted By or Against Unincorporated Bodies (1949) 12 Mod. LR 409 at 411 on the subject of collective action by all members:
“Under this procedure, every member would, of course, have to be individually named and would have the full status of plaintiff or defendant, entitled to appear and be separately
represented, and liable to incur separate sets of costs.”

“There seems to be no doubt upon the authorities that a voluntary association, such as the plaintiff, which has never been incorporated in any way, cannot sue except in the name
of all the members unless advantage is taken of rule 20 and an order is made by a Judge that one or more of the members may sue for the benefit of all persons interested.”

thus  it is very  clear that   prawn pickle and herring  cannot  sue or be sued, therefore how could they enter into a contract least of all claim to   represent their clients  when in fact  they could nto be lawyers

the New Zealand justice system  is a farce 

we  do not  have the privy council

the supreme court is our highest court

Our highest judge   Sian Elais is married to Hugh  Fletcher 

Judges  are appointed by the  governor general  , Sian elias  has held the position of  Administrator of the Government when the Governor-General is unable to fulfil their duties

the  governor general  appoint   based on the recommendation  by the attorney general  who is generally a  member of he law society and  chooses members of the law society to be judges

there is a judicial complaints officer  The first Commissioner was Ian Haynes, ONZM, BA, LLB. He served from 2005 until 2009, he is now a member of the law society

Sir David Gascoigne KNZM, CBE, LLM served from 3 August 2009 until 30 August 2015 he is married to our Governor-General Patsy Reddy

Alan Ritchie, LLB became the first Deputy Commissioner in 2011 and took office as Commissioner on 31 August 2015, Mr Ritchie was also Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society from 1985 to 2008. which was the former law society  which did not have a requirement for lawyers to have an obligation to the rule of law.

the  new law society  is both the disciplinary body and the   development  body for  lawyers , it is thus grossly conflicted

the law society is a statutory body  but  works with law societies which are incorporated societies set up after  the inception of the new lawyers and conveyancers act.

the law society has committees which review complaints  depending on whether you are foreign educated or local the results may well vary  some are protected some are crucified

the law complaints  review office is  funded by the law society  it is under funded and under resourced to such an extent that it   makes the wheels drop off . the persons who are appointed LCRO  are frequently  former lawyers

Lawyers hold top positions every where and are the advisors to  government. New Zealand is a small country  but   there are probably  more close  knit relationships in the judiciary   and legal system  than that would be  good for the health of the country and true justice    I would hate to think how many deals are done in the Northern club and other related clubs.