New Zealand Trusts and Companies .. our unsafe system hits a new low.

The reason that our company and trust structure is  so well liked  is  because  THERE IS NO DUE DILIGENCE DONE BY THE  REGISTRARS OF  NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES  AND  TRUSTS ARE NOT  RECORDED.

ADDITIONALLY

Few realize that  our trust and company structure is actually most abused through lawyers who in turn are  protected by  our courts .

I am a whistle blower on  the corrupt use of trusts , I   thought that in this country which at the time prided itself to be the least corrupt  that I could say   ” hey guess what  the law enforcement agency  The animal welfare institute of New Zealand  does not  exist at all ”  what happened? lawyers got together   sued me for  a ridiculous sum  tried to bankrupt me  and  tried to put my company out of business. they were protected by their own society   and the judges who were once members of that very society.

I have come to realize that the biggest gang in town  are the lawyers.    Its like complaining about  a gang  member and then being told to speak to the gang  leaders if   you feel there is a problem   . If it is some one they want to dispose of  it will be useful to them  but if the person is in the ” in crowd ” and their activities make the gang look bad  then there is a huge cover up.  I have even had instances where he judges  have gone  way out on a limb to  silence the entire matter  one of those instances was  with regards to a well published Russian lawyer  who was up  to his neck in  trust companies  such as those refereed to in the panama papers.

Just recently I assisted a young man who had had all of his  shares fraudulently transferred from him and  into the name of his business partner the minority share holder .Effectively  he had his business stolen from him . We managed to get a lawyer  appointed for the company who was taking instructions from the very person who  was involved in the theft of the shares.  I told the lawyer for the company that he had a duty to be independent  ie act for the company and  to act according to  the rules and could not condone the   illegal activities of the company.  The result  :-the lawyer  made false complaint  alleging  that I was in contempt of court and had committed  blackmail  when I  wrote to him and pointed out this section of the law  I was promptly taken to court for harassment In Wellington when I lived in Auckland . The date of the hearing was conveniently left off the papers I was served  and the evidence  is such that I am convinced that the court, the registrars and the lawyers  all  conspire together to   ensure that lawyers make a healthy living and no one dares question their activities.

As a result I now have a legal bill.. yes their fees   of over $6,000  . I have a solution  I will be  selling  an e book exposing their tactics of winning  and every cent that I raise will go settling this ” debt”  if there is interest  I will simply sell more copies . I suspect that   with the  publication of the panama papers this  e book  could be quite popular as the  companies  legislation abuse and the manner  in which some  law firms condone  unlawful transactions  is central to makign the company structure in NZ a mockery

New Zealand is far more corrupt than you  can imagine.

any one wishing to  receive a copy of the  e book    can pre order shortly

 

 

 

 

 

MOSSACK FONSECA the New Zealand connection

Hot off the press  we have  an article in the herald

Panama Papers: The celebrities, royals and world leaders exposed by tax leak

the story comes from  the  international consortium of investigative   journalists

they publish a video  as below

You will note that the video mentions “MOSSACK FONSECA”

New Zealand  appears to have its very own branch of this company   see here

the share holder of this company is 

BENTLEYS NZ TRUSTEE LIMITED  BENTLEYS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, Level 13 Dla Piper Tower, 205 Queen Street, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand. the ultimate owners of this 2014  trust company are its two directors
Nicolaas James DEN HEIJER
3 Centaur Close, Albany, Auckland, 0632 , New Zealand
Roger John THOMPSON
260 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
they were directors in Staples Rodway   but resigned on 8 august 2014 the  date  when Bentley was set up and became  share holder in the following companies

There are 101 companies registered to the address of  Bentley accountants see here   many appear to be trust companies  held on behalf of  foreigners.

among those   is the Orion Trust (New Zealand) Limited.  which is mentioned in this article  by Naked capitalism Mossack Fonseca: The New Zealand Connection

The Benley group of companies is not the only group involved in international trusts    the journalists at naked capitalism identified NZ’s role in UnaEnergy Trustees Limited

Naked Capatalism raised the point that

New Zealand-based “foreign trusts” have been actively marketed overseas for benefits including their exemption from New Zealand tax on foreign sourced income, minimal compliance and reporting requirements, and no requirement for public disclosure of the beneficial owners.

As Transparency NZ has noted the  apparent lack of  requirement to comply with he companies act must also be a benefit  s illustrated  with the Muse on Allen Saga

more on Mossack Fonseca

Tax havens explained

Giant leak exposes global array of crime, corruption        https://panamapapers.icij.org/

Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?

muse eateryMuse Restaurant  also known as Muse on  Allen is about to morph  into an alter ego  Muse eatery & Bar

The transition is  mainly due to the fact that the  shareholding  in Muse on Allen Limited  was unlawfully obtained by Samuel North  by simply accessing the the company register and transferring the shares to himself   and again here  the law is quite specific about this  process but  Samuel simply ignored the law  and  used a computer to  unlawfully transfer  the shares.

Samuel is quite  aware of what he has  done ,  there have been many admissions including repeatedly telling the court that   the shares were transferred  “in error’  despite the claim of ” error ” nothing has been done  to  correct  it in 3 years and the  accounts continue to show that  Samuel has no equity in the company  despite claiming to be the majority share holder

Muse eatery is now trying to get   a liquor licence for the new premises at 56 VICTORIA STREET.  the web site has been  linked to the new domain name museeatery.co.nz which opens to the   url http://museonallen.co.nz/.

The content of the web site is that of Muse on Allen  and the content is the same  Muse Eatery media.

Concrete evidence that  the new company  catering Limited has adopted the name Muse eatery  is in the application for liquor licence Alcohol Application – Muse Restaurant, Ground Floor, 56 Victoria Street, Wellington Central  which a number of persons have opposed .

so between the names Muse restaurant  and  Muse eatery the  public are being asked to accept the new restaurant as a continuation of the old  while Samuel North uses up the  money from the sale to ensure that the   person who put all his money  in the restaurant   is left totally out of  pocket .

we can only appeal to the public that if they believe in fairness and honesty then they should  give Muse Restaurant, Muse eatery& bar    or what ever it is called this week , a wide berth .

 

The right to live and the right to die

suicide1Should suicide be discouraged or enabled?

Our  view is  yes  to both  depending on who you   are

Please click on  the link above or here   to  make a submission  prior to  Monday  1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others

Submission of Grace Haden

I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator.  I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked   and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.

Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.

Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but  the years erode your strength and  you are repeatedly  portrayed as a  sinister being  when  in reality you are the opposite.

I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no   apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those  who drown  we have  bucket loads of  research  and we actively  strive to reduce the  road toll  and enforce all sorts of measure and throw   tons of money at  prevention.

The  annual road toll  and he  drownings   are far smaller than the annual suicide rate.  And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings   will be suicides .

On the one  hand  our society   is reckless with regards to suicide  and  encourages those who are healthy but stressed  commit suicide because of the apparent lack of  justice while those who have no hope of  ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied  this right  due to lack of  physical capacity.

In our current  civil litigation system  there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing  and is aimed to  ensure  their  entire  life collapse around their  ears  and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will   eventually feel that they  are just a very bad person ..  these are mind games

For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical  methods  which seek to bully and undermine  good people involved in the  judicial system  part of this is  giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be   sinister  and when the court supports  the opposition  few will  believe that   this person is a victim of   a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of  evidence.

If we   were to interview the relatives and friends of  a suicide victim I believe  that   a disproportionate number of  incidents would  show  some kind of legal issue in the  background.

Our primitive justice system does not consider  emotions   and the civil jurisdiction  does not have  to comply  with  the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.

On the other hand those who  live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life   but have the mental capacity to know that future life  is futile and will not improve  must sit and wait till  nature takes over.

If you have a pet and allow it  to continue to live  in those circumstances you would be prosecuted  under the animal welfare act

If you have a  pet and bully and torment it  so that it shys away from others   and finds itself unworthy  you could also  face prosecution  but these tactics are totally acceptable  if the victim is a human.

The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us

Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those  facing litigation should not be pushed into it

We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the   reducing drownings and road toll  and if the government  will not fund lifesaving medication  for  those suffering illness or if no remedy is available  they should not   be forced  to   die a slow agonising death

Amazingly such an approach will actually  reduce our suicide rate  by keeping healthy people alive  and allowing those terminally  ill  the right to die .

I wish to be heard  on my submissions

New Zealand corruption reality check

corruptionTransparency International  has just published the corruption index for 2016 and it would appear that  NZ is  on the downward slide

The herald reported in an article headlined

Stonewalling and strange deals: Has NZ become more corrupt?   that New Zealand’s public sector is the most corrupt it has been in almost 20 years

On the other hand we believe that    the  public sector is very corrupt  but   we are now getting more exposure on  that which has  previously been carefully  concealed.

Transparency Intentional New Zealand  published a Media Release Document  in which Susan Snively states

“Our government must act immediately to reestablish New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector”. says Transparency International New Zealand Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its corruption free reputation.”

Snively’s comment proves  the   short sighted focus of Transparency International New Zealand  inc of keeping   the  corruption free appearance alive.

We can only hope that    Transparency International NZ is encouraging  our government to take a hard line   and  enforce  the law against those who are corrupt rather than  pretend it is not happening.

We support Transparency internationals statement that ” Not one  single country anywhere in the  world  is corruption free ”  so why does Susan Snively   wish to give  New Zealand the apparition of  being corruption free?   As an economist  she apparently  sees this as a good move for the economy.  We  see her efforts as  encouraging the  concealment of  corruption  there by making the country  a very dangerous place to trade in .

There are two ways to improve the  corruption perception index

  1. convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who  are whistle blowers  or  show any hint of exposing corruption .
  2.  prosecute  those  who  engage in corrupt practices  so as to  discourage others.

From and economist point of view it is much cheaper to conceal corruption  and  in New Zealand              transparency International NZ incorporated in our opinion  appears to play  a vital role in the concealment of corruption  as  its members  include  the  very Public sector  agencies  whose performance is being rated.

We encourage the truth   and transparency when it comes to corruption   but Transparency International NZ ‘s Susan Snively  appears to have  a severe conflict of interst   see www.kiwisfirst.com

What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?

open letter to Malcom and Samuel North

Thank you for your letter Malcolm  alleging that  I  have been defaming you  . I am communicating with you through this site as I  have previously advised you that you are harassing and bullying us and that my only communication with you will be in an open transparent forum.  I had no desire to communicate with you  but your barrage of insulting   emails  and below the belt   communications leave this as the only viable option. it is quite clear that you are ignoring the police  warning email to muse restaurant 171115

Your dear son  let it slip that he had been  communicating with Neil Wells  who  years ago won a defamation case against  me by having my defence of truth and honest opinions struck out  when he ensured that so much shit was going down in my life that my marriage  fell to bits and my family was torn apart. I was unable to come up with a payment of 19,000  due to  the bank accounts being  frozen for the divorce .  Dirty tactics  and desperation run deep

Neil had a secret  one which I had stumbled on  and I had to be silenced at all costs.    He had  written legislation for his own business plan   and as ” independent adviser to the select committee he ensured that  this legislation became law.

He then made a fraudulent application under the act to the minister , falsely  stating that  AWINZ was a trust when the reality is that no such trust existed and AWINZ was in reality    a nothing .   ( it is fraud to make a false statement which people then act upon..  this is fact )

AWINZ became a law enforcement authority, because no one checked   that it existed , it  had  powers that equaled those of the RNZSPCA  search seizure .

Neil Wells used the staff at Waitakere city as AWINZ  animal welfare officers  and as their council boss he wore two hats and made them prioritize animal welfare over their council paid  duties.He rebranded the council premises so that no one knew  where AWINZ began and council  finished  all in all AWINZ appeared to exist  the reality it was funded through the public purse for private pecuniary gain. ( evidence is on this site and  on anticorruption.co.nz )

If an animal welfare prosecution eventuated Neil Wells performed in  his capacity as barrister  and  would offer diversion for a donation to the “charity”AWINZ   which  in reality did not exist other than the bank account which he had opened and was the sole operator of.

that was my  first experience of  civil litigation  ,Neil has  ensured that it would not  be my last and has been  stirring up any one  who I mention  on this site .

I was taken to court  last year by the lawyers who represented Muse on Allen .  Documents were filed which  claimed that Jozsefs share holding had been removed in error .   The lawyer  representing he company did not like me telling him  that if it was an error then  the error should be corrected. I pointed out that  when  new  annual reports are filed in the companies office  then  the error appears not to be an error.   there have  now been three  annual returns filed since  Jozsefs share holdings were claimed to have been  transferred in error .

The lawyer  also did not like me telling him that he  had a legal duty to act independently for his client which is the company and that  the company is a separate legal entity from the directors  who by all accounts had allowed Jozsefs shares to be transferred illegally

so the lawyers took me to court for  harassment  this is after having  falsely accused me of contempt of court and blackmail . Apparently it is harassment to tell a lawyer that he should not be going round making false allegations  and that  he has a duty to be independent and act according to the rule of law.

when the lawyer  made a song and dance about the unusualness of his name  I contacted his father who I had served with in the Police, I  stupidly thought that by speaking to the lawyers father   who I had known very well  I might be able to put an end to this madness   but instead every  innocent act  gets turned into something sinister and I am made out to be a beast

Documents were withheld from me including  the court hearing date .  When the papers were served there was an initial  court  date    given as usual . the matter was was set down for hearing and I thought it strange that  I had not been advised of the date but this often happens near the end of the year.   I  discovered the true date after a bit of game play by the lawyers  and  at 9 am on the morning of the hearing I was told  that I had to appear at 10.  slight problem the hearing was in Wellington and I live in Auckland .

I was later to find out that there were other documents  which the court had been given and  which had  conveniently not been  served on me. These documents were submissions which alleged  defamation of the lawyer .

So without  any  legal  defamation process  and without any right  to  defend myself or even  knowing that I had been accused of defamation, I became a serial defamer and harasser seething  which Malcolm North now uses to spout on about  to  defame me .  In the mean time his son  who has claimed the restaurant as his own  but has no equity in the place  slings below the belt   emails at me at christmas time telling me that I am hated  and  alleging that my former husband and children   are  among  those and that I don’t have any family to enjoy christmas with   .  I know this not to be true   and I resent   a kid younger than my children  bullying me in such a manner.

It turns out that Neil Wells has been in the back ground  following my every move and prompting every one   I have contact with to  make such allegations.  The same happened with my former lawyer   who was stuck off last year.  the court stepped in   and with a confidentiality clause  all was dealt with minute Judge Sargisson.

Neil Wells was also on the scene when I conducted an investigation into Fresh prepared  and he ensured that harassment proceeding were also commenced in that  matter.  The fact that one person Terry Hay had never seen me or been  contacted by me was beside the point . Mr Terry Hay was later charged with 22 counts of fraud  but skipped the country and  paid his way  out of a conviction

I’m getting a little bit over  this  use of he court by criminals  to  attack those  who have no ability to get the government to act on criminal matters. In this case the Registrar of companies  appears to do nothing to  control the use of  companies  and the police  are too busy reducing the road toll but driving more people to  suicide .

Malcolm and  Sam are no exception   we have had repeated admissions from them of their  crime

“Thanks for letting us know we have got away with theft fraud and a raft of companies act offences that is very reassuring “

malcolm North thank you for letting us know that we have got away

 

Malcolm has stated openly  that the police are not going to arrest them  , he is grossly derogatory and totally gets his facts wrong   as usual   which   his bosses at the MSD  don’t appear to mind .  But   Attack is the best form of defence   and  attack is the only defence these people have

malcolm North no arrest

yet on the other hand  he expresses in an email that he does not wish to spend the next christmas behind bars  due to my fraud complaint and would  like to negotiate a  settlement  with Jozsef. An innocent person would not   have  those worries

malcolm North prison

So far the settlement offers have been a total insult.   Is this the way of the future  a criminal rips you off  breaks a raft of laws then   says   hey  I will give  you  two and tuppence halfpenny  so that it can all go away .

Malcolm has asked me to publish the following

malcolm North

I have  amended the   publication he has complained of accordingly but  the other statement was made to the  link broker who is selling the business  Buy a Restaurant & Bar-too Good Opportunity To Miss For Sale, business for sale Wellington, New Zealand . We stand by our statements  they are true  and will defend   the truth . the police fraud file    is  151010/8943

Malcolm    could you please clarify  how you can take action against  Jozsef for being a 63.2% share holder    yet not  consult him  in the sale of the business  your own accounts show that he is the only person with equity in the business see here . Samuel  who unlawfully  transferred  all of Jozsefs shares to himself  acted with the consent  of the other directors  of which   you are one. You are all in it together .  

shae holder accounts

Malcolm I will send a copy of this    to the   business broker to clarify the statements which you mistakenly think are defamatory

Happy to respond  again to any further  emails  through this forum

Update

 

Update continuing  bullying and harassment   

it would appear that Malcolm is incapable of seeing  the  alterations made despite the fact that they are highlighted

the  latest abuse   from these  bullies  and an admission that Neil Wells is behind it all

will soon put up a post  with Trevor Morely  who asked them not to  divulge that they had contact him   if they are on about laughs  I can provide some good ones. when  some one calls some one a name  it usually means they are looking in a mirror .We are just after justice and   did not subscribe to this on going crap .

malcolm reply samuel malcolm reply 2

Abuse of company legislation

It is well worth watching this U tube clip   from fair  go  this was filmed in 2013  things are probably worse now

new-zealand-great-place-shady-business-video-5650808

 

NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption

At  Last  NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption  but  is this  an empty gesture or  will  corruption be dealt with seriously and not just  concealed  like it has been in the past  ?  Time will tell  .

We fear that  it will be  business as usual  in the Axminster   system operated in  NZ where corruption is habitually swept under the carpet.

News of the ratification  received  virtually no publicity at all instead we had a video and an article of  a South Auckland man finding a  live caterpillar in supermarket salad bag.   Those of us who  have grown up with  fresh vegetables know that this  a possibility   if you don’t like   bugs in your food  go for GE  .

So   what are we going to do  now that the necessary law changes have been made  are we  going to ignore them and continue to allow the courts to   silence those   who have asked lawyers to  act according to law ? ( more on that later ) .

We are still asking questions with regards to   the former crown law  lawyer  who is now acting in a situation of conflict of interest by turning a blind eye to  the corruption of the animal welfare institute  of New Zealand  a fictional organisation which was given wide law enforcement  powers   because no one checked.

And transparent International New Zealand  what  are you going to  do?  provide more  statistics  to show  how well we do  while  ignoring the elephant in the room ? we must keep the perception alive  imagine if people were   to  embrace reality ?  Disaster !

More to come   in the mean time here are some links   so that you can investigate what the  ratification of the UN convention against corruption   should  mean .

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a multilateral convention negotiated by members of the United Nations. It is the first global legally binding international anticorruptioninstrument.

read about the convention  here

Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption EnglishUNCAC English

STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
New York, 31 October 2003
Entry into force
:
14 December 2005, in accordance with article 68(1).
Registration :
14 December 2005, No. 42146
Status :
Signatories : 140. Parties : 178
Text :
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2349, p. 41; Doc. A/58/422.
Note :
The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 31 October 2003 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It shall be open to all States for signature from 9 to 11 December 2003 in Merida, Mexico, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 9 December 2005, in accordance with article 67 (1) of the Convention. The Convention shall also be open for signature by regional economic integration organizations provided that at least one member State of such organization has signed this Convention in accordance with its article 67 (2).
New Zealand 8 10 Dec 2003  1 Dec 2015
8.Upon ratification, the Government of New Zealand notified the Secretary-General of the following:
“… consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, [the ratification by New Zealand of this Convention] shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory…”

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (from this link)

The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (external link) requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.

New Zealand signed the convention in 2003. It creates:

  • arrangements to strengthen international co-operation
  • arrangements to prevent the transfer of funds obtained through corruption
  • ways of monitoring a country’s compliance with the convention.

The convention requires countries to criminalise corrupt behaviour such as:

  • bribery and embezzlement of public funds
  • trading in influence
  • concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption.

When dealing with the proceeds of corruption, a country must be able to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate those proceeds.

New Zealand is compliant with most of the convention’s provisions.  The Ministry of Justice is working on the final necessary steps to bring New Zealand into full compliance.

Beehive

Law  society 

Transparency International 

United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications:
Rules of Procedure for the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption

Rules of Procedure

UNCAC Legislative Guides

Legislative Guide

UNCAC Technical Guides

Technical Guide

Travaux Préparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Corruption

Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity

Self-assessment of the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption

 

Malcolm North responds and Lawyer gets his facts wrong

john lawOur post MUSE ON ALLEN we reveal the secret to Samuel North’s success. Has met with total acceptance of  Malcolm and Samuel North  but no  so of the  lawyer for Muse on Allen   XXXXXXXXXXof  Johnston Lawrence limited

XXXX immediately filed documents  in which he again made very serious and   incorrect  allegations . see  Third Urgent Memorandum of Counsel – 090715   and Affidavit of Judith Louella Jane Burge sworn 9 July 2015

 this response was sent to court people have the right to defend themselves against  false accusations.  

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:04 p.m.
To: xxxxxxxx’; ‘Stack, Michaela’
Cc: ‘Jozsef Szekely’; ‘malcolm north’; ‘Samuel North (samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz)’; ‘The Norths’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd

Good Morning Michaela

I refer you to    the latest post on  Transparency New Zealand  . Open letter to the minister of small business

I also advise the court that  Mr xxxxxxxxx is  willfully   misdirecting the court as per  His honour Justice Collins  minute  the documents  which were provided under rule 8.30 (4)   are held in the offices of Duncan Cotterill .  They have not  been made available to me .

The  documents on Transparency were provided by me  and as shown in the attachment that Mr xxxxxxxx attached to his legal secretaries  affidavit   the documents    came from the following sources

Page 1. Direct from the plaintiff he had this document in his possessing from the time he purchased  the assets.

Page 2  this is available on line  from the companies office   free of charge and available to the public

Page 3  this is a copy of  a document which Jozsef has had in his possession  from  a date prior to the court proceedings .

Page 4 -10 these are available on line  from the companies office   free of charge and available to the public

Page 11-54 . these are the documents  for  the district court proceedings in Which  Muse on Allen , whichis currently in liquidating court  took against Jozsef  for the losses which were incurred in the company based on  the 63.4% share holding which the  SOC alleged he has ,  being  the majority shares in Muse On Allen the very shares which were unlawfully transferred   by Samuel north  from Jozsef to himself.

Page 55    a document  available   through the land transport  register

I have repeatedly made Mr xxxxxxxxx aware  that   the documents did not  come  from discovery in the high court and indeed it is self evident that   they  were   served free of  confidentiality   By Malcolm North in the  district court .

I appreciate that this may not  be convenient for Mr Abricrossow  but he should not be using his office to  conceal fraud  and the evidence is obvious that a fraud has occurred  in that  Jozsefs shares  have been  deceitfully  removed and withheld  using the court.

I remind Mr xxxxxxxxxx that   he should be acting in accordance with Section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act.

We have not  breached   the  discovery in  the high court   and it is an abuse of process form Mr xxxxxxxxxx that allege that .

Regards

Grace Haden

From: malcolm north [mailto:malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 6:10 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd

Hello Grace

Thanks for the update you haven’t taken any notice of me at all about your grammar ,punctuation and spelling.

 

Response :Thank you Malcolm     did I mention that English is my second  language .

 

On 9 Jul 2015 9:19 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:

Thanks for that .Probably why you can’t understand Szekely walked out of the Restaurant after  eleven weeks .Funny how you haven’t told anyone this.

Response :Did he walk or was he pushed.  I suspect he walked just like pirate’s made their victims walk the plank.   Yes its all Jozsef’s  fault because he wouldn’t put up with the bullying.   Bullies always blame their victims.

On 9 Jul 2015 11:01 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:

He walked.

Response : Yes he walked….. Straight to his lawyers   see letter here letter from lawyer 16Jan

 

Note: Samuel did an interview in   Concrete Playground     these are extracts show how he started Muse on Allen    the reality is reflected in the fact that   he  transferred the share holding of shae holder accounts another  chef into his own name  and then  denied  Jozsef  any rights    .  The accounts  in 2014 show that there were two share holders in the accounts  although Samuel was  listed as the 100% share holder on the companies  office site .

Jozsef had $64,118   equity in the company  while  Samuel owed the company $6420     yet Samuel  went out a bought a 207 BMW SUV loaned against the company BMW

Remembering  this read the article below    and remember that Samuel is being acclaimed  as begin the youngest Chef in Wellington to OWN a restaurant .. He actually OWNS NOTHING  and OWES   it all to  Jozsef

The opening accounts  speak volumes    prizes fro those who spot the contributions by Samuel click to enlarge opeing accounts

This is the real secret to opening your very own  restaurant. its called other peoples money  .

In our professional opinion  it is  fraud when you get   a person to invest in a company   they are the majority share holder  and then you  move  all their shares into the name of a person who makes a living off the company .   At the same time   the  majority  share holder is excluded  and    is sued   for   the losses incurred by  the company.

to  put the icing on the cake  the losses  include the purchase of  a  2007 BMW which the person who has no share capital in the company but  who has claimed all the shares as his own, uses as his own .

Any way back to   Concrete playground 

Yup okay that was impressively disastrous. You’ve certainly picked up from there though, you established this place at 21, which is ridiculously young, what gave you the confidence to do that?

SN: My parents gave me really good support, they’ve supported me the whole way through it. Especially my dad, he’s been in business before and really wanted me to do this I think. Probably not so young though. I could have waited a few more years but I was just too keen, too eager to own my own place, even if it was going to be something else. This place actually wasn’t even supposed to be a restaurant – I just wanted to have a bar but it turned out completely differently.

What was behind that huge need to have your own place?

SN: I just really hated working for people to be honest. I hated getting told what to do all the time. It was driving me crazy. I was just like fuck, what am I doing? I just wanted to do my own thing.

Starting a business so young, was it kind of hard to get people to take you seriously?

SN: Yeah it was really hard, especially in the first year. I’d hired all these young people who were like fuck it, he’s 21 what the fuck does he know? It made me realise that I needed to be hiring the right people who were going to support me and who wanted to listen to me. I find that actually hiring older and more mature is better. I’ve got a lot of older staff now. They’re still in their like, thirties and twenties and stuff but they are passionate about the restaurant, the food and the service.

We also include  the  some real feed back  with Samuel’s responses   which  we captured before it was removed .. they
speak for themselves..click to enlarge they  originate from Trip advisor

group of 6group of 6 part 2Kiwi traveler 1Kiwi traveler