Submissions to Auckland Council

Delegation, calculation of penalties and applying penalties to Rates  A dogs Breakfast

By Grace Haden

I ask for these notes and the attachments to be appended to the minutes.

I have been assisting Penny Bright in making sense of her rates demand, this has given me cause to look at the processes involved and the manner in which the penalty regime has been approached. In doing so I have noted a number of issues which require resolution.

Serious issues arise with the delegation of the powers under the Rating act

The annual plan in 2013 & 14 both state

Delegation of decision-making
Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.

The legislation Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 however states

132 Delegation
(1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—
(a) its chief executive officer; or
(b) any other specified officer of the local authority.
(2) A local authority must not delegate—
(a) the power to delegate; or
(b) a function, power, or duty conferred by subpart 2 of Part 1 or subpart 1 of Part 5.

The question therefore is who ultimately has the delegated powers and who can lawfully make decisions with regards to the rates and consequently the penalty regime.

It is important to resolve the matter of delegation before we consider whether or not rating polices are legal

Applying penalties to Rates

The sequence of events is also crucial
1. The person who holds the delegated powers or powers has to be identified.

a. I have been unsuccessful in getting this information Mr Town responded this morning Rates and their setting is not delegated but is adopted by the Governing Body as required by law. Therefore no staff member has this delegation. However, delegations for different parts of the implementation of the rating system rest with different staff members depending on what is required.

b. It appears to me that what we have in the annual report and what is required by law is not expressed clearly also the act makes it clear that responsibilities can be delegated to A specified officer not “different staff members depending on what is required”

2. A resolution must be made to authorise penalties to be added to rates no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year, It follows logically that this resolution must be available to be produced and one would think in this day an age available for public inspection on the internet. And

a. It has to stipulate how the penalty is calculated
b. the date that the penalty is to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates
c. and must not exceed 10% of the unpaid rates.

3. Section 58 sets out the various types of penalties which the council can impose and it would follow that these are the only penalties which can be imposed .

4. This penalty regime MUST be conveyed in the assessment notice.  see  assessment notice 

There is much confusion as to who really holds the responsibilities as to setting the penalty regime and there is also confusion as to the regime itself.

The annual plans all state: The council must use the special consultative procedure set out in the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt and amend the rates related policies.

The act on the other hand is specific in that it states that the policy must be set “By resolution no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year “

This implies that this policy must be set or adopted by resolution annually

In the annual plan 2013-2014  states

The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2013/2014 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

and 2014-2015

The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.

The words applied to do not necessarily mean that the penalty will become part of the rates and incorporated into the rates. The wording is not specific as to how the rates and penalties are calculated.

Further :The act requires the invoices to show the amount of the penalty on any unpaid rates for the rating unit and the amount of any unpaid rates owing from a previous financial year for the rating unit. The connotation is therefore that the rates and the penalties are two separate amounts and not one.

This brings about the question of whether or not penalties can be applied to penalties, if there is no resolution that penalties are added to the previous year’s rates then the next lot of penalties applied can only be applied to rates and not rates plus penalties.

The next issue which arises is the rates due for the financial year.
The invoices tates Total rates payable for 2014-2015.

Unless the resolutions to set dates for instalments can be shown to have been made legally and with the proper consultation they cannot be enforced.

The invoice shows the sum due for the year but nowhere on the invoice is there a date by which that sum is due .

There an ability to pay a reduced sum in one payment and getting a hefty 1.1% discount if the payment is made by the first instalment date, the other options available are to be penalised or to pay instalments.

Every one paying their rates on time effectively pays a full month prior to the end of the financial year. Nowhere does it state that the full rates are due by that date.

Penalties are not equal

People living in higher priced areas pay higher penalties as can be seen by the two different invoices I have produced. The penalty for late payment in Epsom is $112.70 per quarter and In Kingsland $58.10 per quarter. This is significant and a flat penalty fee should be considered due to the ever increasing property prices.
calculation of penalties
Unlawful penalties
The act allows penalties of up to 10% of the rates to be added, it does not say per annum and this allows the council to continually add 10% the rates at 6 monthly intervals if an amount is a year old. This is in excess 20% and makes loan sharks look good.

While 10 % is legal the e reality is that a penalty in excess of 10% is added.

10 % is being added to the GST inclusive price, this price is already 15% more than the set rate.

While council through legally set penalty regimes can charge up to 10% penalty on rates they have no legal ability to charge 10% penalty on GST.

This also raises the question of the GST which the council then declares to IRD as having been received but that is a matter for you.

Taking Penny’s rate bill for example the rates instalment is $581 of which $75.78 is GST by charging 10% on the GST inclusive sum a further $7.57 of unlawful penalties is charged per quitter.

In the Epsom example the sum is an extra $14.70 per quarter
It would appear that the rates are a dogs breakfast , they are hap hazard and not done according to the legislative requirements.

While Council appear to ignore the law which they have to comply with, they enforce penalties which have been imposed without any legal basis and against the rule of law.

Council is required to act according to section 14 Of the local government act
a) a local authority should—
• (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;

I have not even been able to get questions answered let alone find relevant documents on the council web sites which would enable me to follow the tail of consultation, delegation, resolutions and implementation.

If this is what happens in the process of collecting rates, then we really do have to wonder about the process of spending them.

I have personal experience of seeing the council allow council officers use council resources infrastructure for self-enrichment. There is a deliberate turning of a blind eye to his while rate payers are seen as a bottomless pit of revenue. Questioning this has cost me  more than $300,000   . we have persons in council on wages of $600,000 per year  what are they being paid for.  I would hope   it is to get this kind of thing  right.

This will also be posted on

Grace Haden

Council rates- Is the council delegating authority legally – part 4.

In this  the  final instalment of the Auckland council rates investigation we explore  delegation.

The  Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 states

132 Delegation
  • (1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—

    • (a) its chief executive officer; or

    • (b) any other specified officer of the local authority.

    (2) A local authority must not delegate

    • (a) the power to delegate; or

Now lets look at the annual  plan again, it states

Delegation of decision-making

Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.

The question  we  need to explorer here is whether  “council officers.”   is   the same as specified as required by the act.  .

There appears to be no definition for Council officer  in any  legislation

Is the lady on the  front desk  there is a receptionist, she is a council officer  , the guy  who overseas the council car park  he is a council officer , I guess you could say that any council employee is a council officer.

Further the annual plan states  that it is  “Decisions relating to applying the rate”  that is delegated to “Council officers ” but the act is specific that   Council cannot delegate the power to delegate  . So without a specific person  being handed the responsibility  the  delegation is  left  rather wide open . There is only one thing for certain and that is that the responsibility still rests with the governing body .

The slack  wording of the annual   plan   and the lack of specificness brings about  the question whether or not the  penalty regime set  by council is even legal in the remotest sense.

But wait there is more

The rates assessment is  sent out at the  beginning of the financial year and  is a document  which is  produced to comply with section sets out the  details as required by legislation , in this case section 45

So we have gone back to the rates assessment notice  that we have before us   and start ticking off the requirements as set out by the legislation.


(k) the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year:

we have already seen that  the total amount payable is  $4510.81 .

But if the payment is  made by instalments and each instalment is one day late  then  the  amount paid by the end of the financial  year  ( paid up  by 28 May 2015  when due date is 30 June  2015 )  will be  $4961.61  , an extra $450.81  under the councils  penalty scheme which is not supported by legislation .

On top of that   the $450.81  includes   a total of $58.80 penalties on GST

(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:

There is nothing on  our notice which  refers to this at all .

(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:

There is nothing on the rates assessment notice which states when the rates must be paid by , the  installment dates are given but there is no indication that  the payments must be made by those dates  it simply states ” amount payable by “.

(n) if applicable,—

(i) the penalty regime of the local authority; and

(ii) a warning that, if rates are not paid on time, a penalty may be added under that regime:

There is nothing on the rates assessment notice with regards  to penalty regimes   and there are no warnings with regards to failing to pay by any due date .

(o) if an early payment of rates has been made in accordance with a policy adopted under section 56(1),—

(i) the rates paid and any balance remaining to be paid; and

(ii) the amount of any discount allowed for the early payment of the rates; and

(iii) any credit balance remaining after payment of all rates due, adjusted for any discount allowed:

None of the above are shown on the rates assessment notice  .

(p) the right of ratepayers to—

(i) inspect the rating information database and rates records; and

(ii) object to any of the information included in the rating information database and rates records.

There is no mention  of these details either .

The Rates assessment notice  which we have before us  does not comply with the legislation Contents of rates assessment.

Perhaps the  council should  tidy up its act with regard to rates

  1. Have penalties which are fair and reasonable  based on the   ever increasing value  and ever  rising rates   of our homes
  2. Have a rates penalty regime which makes sense and  can be interpreted in the same way by every one reading it.
  3. Apply   Penalties legally and only to the portions  which   penalties can legally be applied to
  4. Live by the law which  council so strictly imposes on the rate Payers.

I would  like  to Acknowledge Penny Bright  . It is because we looked at  the rates bill she had that  these issues have been raised.    Her  penalty bill is now  significantly larger than   her   rates demands . While Auckland council wants to sell her house for effectively $13,000  in   arrears rates and more than  $20,000  in penalties.

Auckland council the time to be open and transparent with your rates  penalty regime is now.

Council rates- How legal are council penalties – part 3.

As if the past two days have not given you enough  to think about,  here is another major issue for council

The  Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at section 58   provides for the ability to impose penalties

(2) The amount of unpaid rates to which a penalty may be added includes—

 (a) a penalty previously added to unpaid rates under this section; or
(b) additional charges added to unpaid rates under section 132 of the Rating Powers Act 1988; or
(c) rates levied under the Rating Powers Act 1988 that remain unpaid.

Going back to section 57

(1) A local authority may, by resolution, authorise penalties to be added to rates that are not paid by the due date.

(2) A resolution made under subsection (1) must—

 (a) be made not later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year; and
(b) state—

 (i) how the penalty is calculated; and
(ii) the date that the penalty is to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates.

In the 2014-15  resolution in the annual plan   there is no mention  f penalties being cumulative or added on to the rates  so as to attract penalties on penalties. it simply states .

Penalties on rates not paid by the due date
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.

The  resolution is actually quite specific  it states that “A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears” it does not  say including penalties , and rates has not been redefined to mean rates plus penalties.

In going through this exercise we have  come to realize several things.

  1. the rates penalty  policy is not very clear  and the average person   will struggle to sort it out, We did, and we are not even sure if we got it right.
  2. Give it to  half a dozen accountants and we are sure that you will get as many  variants  in calculations
  3. Give it to a dozen lawyers and you will get a dozen interpretations possibly more  depending on case law
  4. The legislation is 12 years old , House prices  in Auckland have gone up  massively  yet council has not reconsidered   its rating penalties either percentage  wise or  in line with the legal provisions. 10%  on or  rates when we paid $1,000 per year is very different to 10%   when you are paying $4,000.
  5. Just because   we allow  the world to buy up Auckland to  get rich quick , launder money, land bank  etc  does not mean that the  residents need to be  bankrupted so that their houses  can be put on the market.
  6. You would  do better going to a loan shark than to  default on rates.
  7. Live alone pensioners based on the   rates demand referred to above  ( receiving live alone  super  of $21,931.52 would  be parting with nearly 25% of their super  to live in the  family  home .  We are being forced out of our homes  by rates and penalties .

It is therefore most important that rates  and penalties are applied in a open transparent democratic manner and above all  Compliant with the law.

Dare I say it .. yes there are other issues.. more tomorrow


Auckland Council Rates.. does the law apply to Council as it does to you ? part 2

Yesterday we discussed the ability  for council to   charge penalties on  installments  today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge  penalties on GST which they are collecting for the  government ?   We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all  below is  how we come to  that.

Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a  GST content of  $147

The rates notice states

Pay on time to avoid penalties

“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.

You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”

The operative words are  any part of your rates.  The Gst is the GST  portion of your rates. The rates  is what is set and  what the GST is payable on .

The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10%   therefore they can only charge  a penalty of 10% on the rates  being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980  being $98 .

By charging penalty of $112.70 they are  charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case )  which is   and $14.70 over charge  per instalment  and  not  made lawfully .

This is of course  also subject to   the ability  for council to  charge penalties on   instalments as discussed previously

If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due  being 30 June 2015  then   by imposing  penalties on rates which are inclusive of  GST  ,they will be collecting a further  $58.80  per year ( presuming that you then pay  just prior to  the 30th June )*

Strangely enough  this  sum is more than  the sum which they  give you for early payment .

Where this really gets tricky  is in compounding penalties on the  Gst  of previous payments/ years .

Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the  penalty  or  is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?

We will put that  to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable  and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this  kind of thing does not happen ???


*based on  instalments being  29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that   even by instalments  all rates due are paid a month  early .

Auckland council rates – Are you being ripped off ? Part 1

A leaked drawing of the State House Sculpture by artist Michael Parekowhai.

On the one hand we have a sculpture of a house   now scaled down to cost  a mere $1.5 million, a mere ornament which the council intends to  buy

On the  Other  hand we have a real house , a home  to at least three people  and two cats  worth less than  $700,000.Which the council is going to forcibly sell .

Then there is a rates bill  of  some 13,000 which was not paid  out of protest  to a very  one sided contract where by  Council was not keeping up their end of  the agreement where by they  were to engage in  open transparent and democratically accountable governance.

While the council  are prepared to pay over the top  for  one they are willing to sell the other because  a pittance is owed. Ironically this is exactly why  Penny    withheld her rates.

Penny Bright   withheld her rates  until the books were opened  just as Auckland transport has managed to do  see here

So the  $13,000  in arrears  rates  have attracted over $20,000 in penalties.  this prompted us to have a closer look at  what is going on with our rates  and it appears that Auckland rate payers are held accountable to  rate penalties in a very strict manner , pay a day late on any instalment  and you pay  10% more ,On the other hand  Auckland council  is manipulating the law and   in  other instances  being totally non compliant.

In going through the  law and the  detail we have discovered a number of things   which are worthy of  question , especially when  the houses which we  once bought  for   tens of thousands are now worth hundreds of thousands  and wages have remained static.

Let   us you  through it , this is the way we see it .

The applicable legislation  is  the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and  the ability to  include  penalties comes from  a two step process  by council .

  1. There needs to be a decision by council , this may  be delegated but has to me made before the rates are set
  2. The decision made must comply with the law  and
    1. Must not exceed 10% of the amount of unpaid rates on the date when the penalty is added
  3. may be of the types of penalties as  set out in  section  58  being
    • a) a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment (or after a later date if so specified):

    • (b) a further penalty on rates assessed in any financial year and that are unpaid on whichever day is the later of—

      • (i) the first day of the financial year for which the resolution is made; or

      • (ii) 5 working days after the date on which the resolution is made:

    • (c) a further penalty on rates to which a penalty has been added under paragraph (b), if the rates are unpaid 6 months after that penalty was added.

The way  that we interpret this   is that these options are available and are the only legal options available  IF it is  contained in the decision by council.

We went in search of the  decision which  Auckland council had made and found it in the  2014-15  annual Plan Volume 1 – Our Plan for 2014/2015  for ease we have isolated the pages concerned they are found here rates related policies

Penalties on rates not paid by the due date
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.

A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.

Spot the difference ?

Auckland council  imposes penalties  on each installment where as the act  applies it to the rates assessed in  the  financial year and does not  speak of penalties for parts of rates  .

The rates are set for a financial year in this case being  1 July 2014  to 30 June 2015   in the rate assessment which we have before us is for  $4510.81.

There is an  ability to  pay it  by instalment  ,  or pay the lump sum which gives  a  saving of a whole 1.1% . $4461.18. a saving of a whopping $46.63

Relevant here is Section 24 Due date or dates for payment,  in the interpretation section due date, is defined as : in relation to a rate or part of a rate, means the last day for payment of the rate, or part of the rate, that is set out in the rates assessment

The question has to be   : can “ a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment” be interpreted to mean a part rate ?

The assessment  notice reads  total rates payable  2014/2015 is $4510.81  to us this means that  by 30 June 2015, $4510.81 needs to  have been paid  being the financial year as   determined by  45 (1) (j).  and most importantly  45 (1) (k)  which states “the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year”

while Auckland council asks for  the  payments to be made by four equal installments , the overall obligation is to clear the rates due  in that financial year .

The regime  should be more in line   with retail  being

  1.  the price which is due  on the due date  .. in this case  $4510.81 by 30 June 2015
  2. the  discounted price if paid  in its entirety early, this is usually heavily discounted
  3. The price if paid by installments which should be equal to  or  as an incentive less than the  demanded price

At all times the  right to pay the full  rates demand   by the  30th June  in one payment should  remain an option  as that  way you are  payign your entire rates in the year that it is due.

If you were to  pay it in a lump sum  under the  Auckland council regime , and still be complying with legislation you would  incur  penalties  of $338.10 ( being as stated on the notice  $122.70 per installment ). Compare the  extra  penalties  for being complaint with the law  to  the savings  for paying  early  one gives you a penalty of $33.10 the other a saving of just $46.63 a difference  of   $291.47, so why   is the money in Auckland councils pocket worth more than in yur pocket.. should it not be at least equal ?

more in part 2  the juiciest is yet to come.

Open letter to Greg Stewart Lawyer and director of Equity trust International

Open letter to Greg Stewart


Dear Greg


I respond to your letter sent by email on the 22 September but dated 4 September 2014

  1. I am uncertain as to what you mean by the comment “ my behavior” I have at all times promised Transparency , is that what you are objecting to ?
  1. I am unaware of any “damage” and no one has provided any evidence of damage, which Transparency NZ or I have caused. If there is any damage caused by reporting facts it is purely unintentional.
  1. your client/ business partner was a Human Rights lawyer and your client  law firm  promoted Human Rights. Even recently your client  used the Bill of Rights to defend his own right to express his opinion of High Court Judges.
  • He cannot possibly promote the concept, and you could not support the concept, that there is one law for him and that we cannot be afforded the same rights.
  1. You allege that there are many web sites which are connected, you are being vague   and we have no idea which web sites you are referring to, if you make allegations please be specific.
    1. If you or your client considers out material to be offensive please tell us where it is, what it is called and what makes the article guilty of any offending.
    2. There has at all times bene an offer on the table to you and your clients to make corrections/ alterations and state why the   matters are wrong , you have never availed yourselves of this but want a blanket take it down.
  1.  We have tried to appease your clients and yourself, ( you are a director of one of one of your clients, Equity trust International ) and   in an attempt to   resolve the matter we took down  everything which we had control over , however this gesture of good faith and assurances from us that we would not put   anything back up if we had finality , did not appear to satisfy your client who singularly   appears to have the ability to   negotiate for all parties including the company which you are director of.
  1.  Negotiations require gestures of good faith from both sides and there was none forth coming and no resolutions in sight by the dead line we set, we have been true to our word and reposted all materials as we stand by the truth which is contained in them and the honest opinions expressed. As you would be aware truth and honest opinion are never defamatory.
  1. Your clients   solution offered in your letter is not acceptable to us   because
    1. You are attempting to obtain undertakings from legal entities which are not involved in the proceedings in favour of your clients as well as yourself, your wife and the   proxy lawyer Julia Leenoh who acting out ofyour clients  office and as indicated by your letter working from the premises of yourthe  client  law firm.
    2. The fact that you are seeking to cover yourself in the undertaking   shows that there is no independence on your part and that you are acting in gross conflict of interest and you must cease acting on all matters before the court where you are conflicted.
    3. We hereby give notice that in all proceedings we will be calling on you and Ms. Leenoh to give evidence, by affidavit will be sufficient.
      1. From your self -that you wrote the letter
      2. By Ms Leenoh that she is employed by you and asked you to ask for those conditions on her behalf, attaching the employment contract.
      3. We will also require your wife to   give evidence that she instructed you to include her in the request. – You might wish to add what   right she has to do this.. Why not include the world oops you have “about our clients or any structures or persons associated with the Plaintiffs, nor myself, Ms. Leenoh or my wife.”- Wee bit wide and non-descript don’t you think?
  1. A public retraction and apology which we are happy to give is “sorry for speaking the truth we are truly sorry that truth is inconvenient to you. We had no control over the fact that  UNIHOLD Limited which was involved in international money laundering was ultimately owned by y0ur clients  wife,Liliya Soboleva,. In tracing UNIHOLD back to its origins through public record we had no control over the outcome.
    1. We also apologize to your wife Alice Marjorie Steward previously known as Alice Marjorie Murrell   for the connections we have made between the company she is director of ,to the renowned Money laundering facilitators GT group and company Net ( 69 Ridge road ) as posted on   Transparency International Finally uses the C word. She should read the news item about a previous Proxy director Lu Zhang.   She has to know what she is getting herself into.
  1. There will be no liquidated damages clause, we have given an agreement which we are prepared to sign and we have acted in good faith and kept our word at the deadline.
  1. Evgeny drafted a document it is here Deed of Settlement , it   appears to us to be too much of an attempt to hog tie us than beat us up , it is a total gaging order one which persons who know they are engaged in dodgy activities would use.
  1. Your statement “We do however require some discussion with you about the damages you have caused to our clients” confuses us   the claims in the statement of claim are pretty wide   and we cannot see how any truthful comment   by us could have made a difference given that your clients are mentioned in a massive number of publications un related to us and in court action unrelated to us.
  1. We removed all material as a gesture of good faith   but as mentioned earlier it appeared to be a tactic of impairing our freedom of speech and there was no reciprocation.
  1. The entire matter could have been resolved but it appears that your client does not trust me for my word , those who know me well will tell you that I am true to my word.
  1. We consider your settlement   offer to be bullying and oppressive and as such   cannot   accept it. we will be filing papers   to   object to the restraining order. This letter will form part of the evidence.
    1. To that end please advise who the new instructing solicitor is to be, it is also not appropriate for Mr. Bogiatto to be involved   as he has been part of the issue and will also be called on to give evidence with regards to the   court order which he failed to serve and he one he had sealed despite knowing it was wrong.
    2. It may as such be appropriate for me to deal with the newly appointed solicitor as   by not being personally involved they may have a better and Independent view of the issue and he she may be able to act independently and as an officer of the court as the law requires.
  1. You also included in your “ settlement offer “ that we provide “a full description of all the parties you have written to about the Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, government organisations, government agencies, international press, etc. so that the Plaintiffs are fully aware of the complaints, emails and campaigns you have engaged in.”
    1. Please provide a legal basis for this?
    2. Now that we know that this is your clients fear we will initiate enquiries far and wide to establish why this is.
    3. BTW a complaint will be forwarded to the companies register   with regard to fraudulent signatures of proxy director’s associates to the plaintiffs and in the interest of transparency we have included a distribution list at the bottom of this letter.
  1. On the issue of costs, we have not instructed a solicitor as we are aware that your client has his house on the market and the indication on the advertising was that “ owner is moving overseas “ he is already indebted to me due to the false invoices , he is just trying to make me incur costs and   hardship . My way of fighting back is by doing it in a way which counts. We are all allowed to defend ourselves and I do it publicly.
    1. All of your clients assets are owned by his wife and in court this week he spoke of the need for the Law society to bankrupt him if they wanted their costs further in court documents he claims to be impecunious and has asked for legal aid. He also advised the court that he is   leaving the country in November.
    2. We also notice that under his former name  that he went missing from Fiji in   2003 and 2004   when discussion of debts   that he had the arose.   You can find the relevant   judgments on the internet. here and here
    3. According to our chronology his name change   came into effect at about the same time when a court noted “The company attempts to shoulder its responsibility onto one Eugene Narodertsky who may well be a person living in some remote part of the world.” Little did they know that he was right here in NZ living under his new name  and practicing law.
  1. We hope that by our response, you have a better understanding of our perspective. It is nothing personal with your client, we are transparency and anticorruption lobbyists and I have just had my petition for a commission against corruption presented in parliament.
    1. The fact that New Zealand companies are involved in international money laundering is a serious matter which affects us all.
  1. The manner in which your company and your clients have been involved indicates that they are well aware of their involvement in the international money laundering business and I will not become party to such a plot by concealing it as to me that makes me complicit to international crime.
  1. It is your choice to use the very same proxy directors as those who have been proved to have been used by the money launderers and Russian Mafia.
  1. Those who run a legitimate operation would make certain that they would steer clear of such associations. The services which my company Verisure supplies is due diligence , you may wish to avail yourself of our services to prevent such embarrassing connections.
  1. I  wrote a letter to your client along a similar vein , his lack of concern would indicate that he knows who and what he is dealing with and does so   willingly but   would probably not like the spotlight shone on it .
  1. I similarly bring the connections of your company and the companies which   your wife is associated with   to your attention. If you were not aware of what has happened then I suggest you read New Zealand: The Shell Company Incorporation Franchises: Round-Up and look at the news items relating to those companies by way of indication this is what your wife is tied up with .. does she know ?


  1. We trust that this clarifies our concerns , if you are concerned   with what we have provided you with and was unaware of the implications before now then you will no doubt act in a manner which   does not bring any adverse comment on your profession.
  2. If you are asking me to conceal such serious matters you need to take a good hard look at yourself.
  3. We will agree to the   offer we have made to your client or welcome negotiations. While the matters are before the court we will continue to investigate for our defence and anything obtained from the public realm will be published.

Grace Haden For defendants

Copy to law society, company’s office, OFCANZ, international press, local press

Copy posted on www.transparency

Transparency International Finally uses the C word

launderwideTransparency International New Zealand has tried so hard to ignore the corruption in New Zealand  but has finally  conceded that    we have it.  In their latest news letter they mention  no less than three items .

New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation

New Zealand shell companies may have played a part in the biggest money-laundering operation in Eastern Europe. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed an enormous US$20 billion ($24.4 billion) transfer of dirty Russian funds, dubbed ‘the Laundromat’. Read the story by Richard Meadows in

Evidence of corruption a National scandal – Harre

Internet Party leader Laila Harre will take evidence of corruption to international forums if there is not a full Royal Commission to investigate the growing evidence of the systematic use and abuse of democratic institutions and processes for political gain

Money, politics and scandal in New Zealand’s election

Post election, Washington based Lisa Rosenburg of the Sunlight Foundation, and former legislative assistant to Senator John Kerry, suggested that New Zealand will need to address weaknesses in its political finance system to retain “its squeaky clean reputation and its first place as the least corrupt nation…”

On the  subject first  item  New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation . we reported exactly that last year  and published these articles   International fraud connection with Equity Law and  News Flash EQUITY TRUST solicits new clients

The article by Richard Meadow refers to web site Naked Capitalism.  In a recent article   on that  site  Richard Smith   states

GT Group was linked to the biggest money-laundering operation in US history.

It does not  take much searching to  find that a variety of   GT group companies  which survived being struck off  have found  a new registered office at  the EQUITY GROUP , others have been registered  again using the names of the struck off companies as shown below.

Companies registered to the premises of Equity group  frequently use the very same  directors  identified as  proxy directors  in  international press   . In this case we look at Leah Toureleo  of  B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu  who is as is mentioned in the  Richard meadows story NZ firm named in huge European scam

Leah Toureleo has the following  active companies

Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company   about to be struck off the address 24b Moorefield Road

Seems to be another busy little  office   it is a medical center  see this interesting post


GOLDAGE GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934658) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012   overseas registered company   about to be struck off reg office Room 4, 221a Dominion Road, Auckland, only two companies registered here and both about to  be struck off


IRVINESTON LIMITED (3239028) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road, for more on this address see naked capitalism

DORNOCK LIMITED (3239007) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office

the director   of tropic alliance  lives in Inga 9a-31 Zaubes, Riga, LV1013 , Latvia

Now these next four companies have something in common they all had  the receptionist at Equity law barristers as their  director , she resigned last year when I warned her about  the dangers of being a proxy director ( see news links  below )   these companies   continue to exist with Leah Toureleo as  their director

WELKIN BUSINESS LIMITED (3665631) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director  Liliya Soboleva wife of Evgeny Orlov

SELBY LIMITED (3665671) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director  Liliya Soboleva wife of Evgeny Orlov

This is a phoenix company  of  SELBY LIMITED(2466848) (NZBN: 9429031562881) Struck off NZ Limited Company it was  registered to 1504 B, 363 Queen Street, Auckland, New Zealand which was pat of  the Taylor group.  the new company was incorporated  by EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED just a few months after the  companies office struck the other off

4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings   –  director  Liliya Soboleva wife of Evgeny Orlov

MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (3589616) Registered Company
Leah Toureleo  appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013  owned by Club property (Liliya Soboleva)  this company is a phoenix  company for

MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (2454570) (NZBN: 9429031578738) Struck off NZ Limited Company Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand,  this company was  originally set up by the Gt Group

the receptionist had one further  company  that she was director of this company  now has Alice Marjorie Stewart , wife of the  director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED  Greg Stewart   who is the  lawyer providing the proxy director for  Equity law and taking the legal action for his client/associate to  stop us from  exposing the truth .  this company is Eurostone Holdings Limited

for News   items on   Glenn Smith  69 Ridge Road, Lucas Heights, North Shore  ( Company Net ) see

Web of intrigue – crime – national |

New Zealand as a rogue financial state

NZ shell companies in Kyrgyz corruption |

New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords

Complaint – Securities and Exchange Commission

Traseks Ltd., is a corporation incorporated under the laws ofPanama on
February 9, 2009, with its principal place of business located at 69 Ridge Road, Albany,
Auckland, New Zealand. Traseks, Ltd. received $976,302, wired during April through
July 2009 from Rockford’s Bank ofAmerica and Banco Popular Bank Accountsto an
account in its name at JSC Multibanka in Riga, Latvia.

Reserve Bank warns public – money – business |

RBNZ warns on dodgy ‘Bancorp’ pyramid scheme claiming

Reserve Bank warns public – Stuff

1766 defunct New Zealand companies at 69, Ridge Road, Albany,

News items  re proxy directors and activities of companies  of  Leah Toureleo  see below and  at this link click here

Sep 2, 2010 Lu Zhang, 28, is accused of 75 offences of making false statements in company registration forms after she declared her office address was her ……/Company-director-with-alleged-arms-links-in-court
Sep 3, 2010 Lu Zhang, 28, is charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms – by the seemingly minor act of declaring her …
May 29, 2011 Lu Zhang, below, is its director. launder2 . launder3. Stella Port-Louis, of the Seychelles, is director of four Queen St companies linked to illegal ……/Web-of-intrigue
Jan 11, 2010 The signature over it has no resemblance to the signature of Lu Zhang in the New Zealand incorporation documents. The cost of the charter is …
Nov 5, 2010 Former fast-food worker Lu Zhang, 28, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at ……/Chinese-warning-on-court-case-angers-judge
Feb 13, 2010 Police National Headquarters in Wellington said it was still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals, including Lu Zhang.
Oct 20, 2010 SP Trading former director Lu Zhang was later charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms, and appeared ……/NZ-a-target-for-arms-traders-Oxfam
Jan 15, 2010 SP’s director is Lu Zhang whose registered residential address is 369 Queen … that on December 21 detectives here interviewed Lu Zhang.
Feb 12, 2010 Police National Headquarters in Wellington said they were still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals including Lu Zhang.
Jan 13, 2010 SP Trading Ltd – formed last year with a woman, Lu Zhang, who cannot be located, as its director – is part of a web of hundreds of companies ……/Director-breach-punishable-by-jail

Vault Compliance Systems- where is its registered office ?

I have just been alclear watererted  to a post   on Kiwis first  entitled  International Players

The article is  about Suzanne Snively and Victor Cattermole

Susan Snively  of transparency International fame is  the chair person of  Vault compliance systems .

She  works along side  Victor Cattermole sole director and share holder of the company.

Thomas Victor Henry Ronald CATTERMOLE
382 Wairakei Road, Burnside, Christchurch, 8053 , New Zealand

According to Whale Oil Victor Cattermole is one such dodgy ratbag standing for public office. Amongst other things he has been censured by Securities  and Commerce Commissions for running a (likely) ponzi scheme.

Despite this  the company registered to 3/38 Clearwater Drive, Belfast, Christchurch, 8011 , New Zealand   gives its address   on the web site as Level 19, Two International Finance Centre,8 Finance Street,Central, Hong Kong .

This is also the address   for

I personally find that funny as Suzanne used to work for Jarden and co which became credit Suisse.

It would appear that   Clearwater Avenue is a new development on the golf club  Zoodle is the only   site which locates it , we still need to check it out  perhaps Suzanne  can help us out on this one.

It is not clear where  Mr Cattermole, who uses both Victor and Thomas as his first name , lives  as  the company records on 5 August show him using the  address of 25 Northcote Road,Northcote Christchurch 8052 which is the address he used as Thomas Cattermole on the vault shareholder application  form   but  at the same time as Director Thomas victor Henry Ronald Catermole and using the same signature claimed to live at 382 Wairakei Road, Burnside,vault compliance

I find this   all very confusing   Suzanne   do you work from Hong Kong  or do you work from Christchurch.

what is the registered office of   the  company  and who exactly  works  in Hong Kong.

And what about the transparency of  your business partner   what standards  do you have  .. what can we expect?

TINZ Integirty systems in question

LochinvarTransparency international New Zealand was funded by the  government  to  do an integrity report on our public service.

We  found that the finding  that we  had  ” the least corrupt public sector ” came about   due to a number of factors.

  1. Corruption was not defined or looked at – due to the assumption that  as”the least corrupt country ” we must be doing things right .
  2. Transparency Internationals New Zealand  itself having  given NZ the status of being  perceived to be the least corrupt so as to encourage business growth in NZ
  3. Transparency International New Zealand funded by government departments

see  correspondence with the minister Judith Collins  Please provide the evidence to support that New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world.

and the response from  the companies office

the  following is  a news  release

We repeatedly hear that Shanghai Pengxin has purchased land in New Zealand previously the Crafar farms and now poised to buy the Lochinver Station.

It is time that we got our facts right as to who actually owns the property and just a tiny bit of research brings massive concerns.

There is no company in New Zealand called Shanghai Pengxin and no land in New Zealand owned by a company of that name

There is however an entity called PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED which owns some 76 titles according to Terranet .

PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED has one director, Chinese billionaire Zhaobai JIANG, the company’s sole shareholder is MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED which in turn is also directed by Mr Jiang.

But look at the shareholding of MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED and it is allegedly owned by Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central.

Strangely enough Milk New Zealand investment does not exist on the New Zealand company register.

The question is how can a non-existent company make an application to be a shareholder?

According to the lawyers for the company’s registrar takes applications on face value, this is the reality of the integrity systems which Transparency New Zealand reported on recently .

It was these very same integrity systems which Judith Collins attributed to New Zealand being perceived as the least corrupt.

If we don’t look we don’t see
If we don’t define it we cannot have it

Will there be an enquiry into the company structure of PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED ?

Grace Haden Independent candidate for Epsom.


Open letter to Greg Stewart of Stewart and associates Law.

lady justiceGood afternoon Greg.

This morning I had yet another    truck load of documents served on me    on behalf of    Stewart and associates equity law .  These documents were the same as  last  time  except that they have now been filed in the  court prior to service.

I also  received a notice   seeking to  change the   fourth defendant from Equity law  to equity law barristers Ltd.  there is however no clarification  of the   first plaintiff Equity trust International and I am  uncertain as to whether this is  the tax agent   or the   company which is involved in  international   trusts  which are regularly in the  overseas press .  for certainty the  companies I refer to are

I note that you are the  director  of the    former   and the share holder is Evgeny Orlov’s  wife Lilia Soboleva   while the latter   is owned and directed by  SOBOLEVA

I also received a bankruptcy notice  which   is rather deficient   in many ways and did not have a  judgment  attached.

The only  sealed order which I received  was  fraudulently obtained  see  the detail under How to make an extra  couple of  grand and get the  registrar to sign off on it

That debt was addressed through   the   Set-Off Act 1735  as  per my communications with Mr Bogiatto .

Since communicating  the set off to him, I have heard no more about this matter  and have presumed that   the debt was settled   especially since the law society have    found that Orlov over charged  me by some $30,000.

I am rather accustomed to  having a  payment reminder  or demand of  some sort  sent to me  if there was  still a sum outstanding. ESPECIALLY  given that  I   believe it has been settled.

section 4  of the lawyers and conveyancers act  makes it clear that you have to uphold the  rule of  law

It is therefore   quite in appropriate  for you to issue a bankruptcy demand for a   debt that has been  settled.

If there was an issue with the set off I woudl have thought that it woudl have been   appropriate for some one to have communicated  with me  since the   25 February when I  advised that the debt  was settled by that means.

I also asked for a proper set  of accounts  as  the sum which could be claimed  was not  $5038 .  The judge awarded costs on a 1 A basis  . work it out yourself    the  sealed order is a document  which Bogiatto caused to be sealed knowing it to be  false , ( please refer to my correspondence with him   )

I wish to advise you that your practice is being used for  fraud by continuing with the bankruptcy claim you are  a party to the offence . You  are taking this action  on  behalf of your client to  cause me   financial hardship and  waste my time .

the  action is an abuse of the process of the court   because

  1. The debt has been settled by way of offset  Act
  2.  the sum is fraudulently  obtained as it is greater than the  court awarded
  3. No communication has been received to advise that the  sum  is still considered as outstanding.
  4. You are  seeking to have it   paid to  EVGENCY  ??
  5. the sealed order has not been attached sealed order
  6. the sealed order is fraudulent as  1A   is  1 day allowance   not three   as I had pointed out in detail to  Bogiatto  both before and after the  order  was sealed.  the difference being $2,640.

I again advise you to do  due diligence  with your  directorship  of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

It would appear that your  wife Alice has taken over the directorship of EUROSTONE HOLDINGS LIMITED , the previous director  was  Evgeny’s  receptionist  who was uncomfortable  with the three directorships which  he had asked her to take on.  an it was only when I saw the international  connections  that she realised she was being used.

Euro stone holdings   is shareholder of


Director: Ulpiano Calderon MORENO
The Century Tower, Suite 713, Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro, Panama City , Panama

Registered office: Suite 104, 184 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace,


Director :Edgardo MEDINA
Apartment 307, Bldg Los Alamos, Via Jose, Agustin Arango, Corregimiento Rio, Abajo , Panama


Director: Ulpiano Calderon MORENO
Calle 17 Plaza Amador, Casa El Vaticanito No.10, Ciudad De Panama , Panama


Director : Edgardo MEDINA
Apt 307, Bldg Los Alamos, Via Jose Agustin Arango, Corregimiento Rio Abajo , Panama

Notice how Moreno has two different addresses .

More info about these

Ulpiano Calderon MORENO

 According to open corporates this man had the  following directorships in

107 New Zealand

239 United Kingdom

3 Washington

 Currently two active companies are registered in New Zealand both of them   share the 44 Khyber pass address.

 see:  which stated

  “Ulpiano Calderon MORENO, director of four live NZ companies and 106 companies struck off in the NZ registrar’s Great Deregistration Frenzy.”

Edgardo MEDINA

Company directorships

4 Florida (US)

59 New Zealand

1 Washington (US)

 All New Zealand companies have been struck off except these two .

I am going through all of the companies registered to  L 4, 44 Khyber pass  and sharing my findings with the international press  as  this   totally  integrates  with their work on  money laundering .  I will of course  be sharing this   with   the authorities.  Orlov Knows my investigation  skills that is why  he is attacking me , the more he attacks the more I  discover and publish  .

Please remember   the rules   something about a lawyer needing to remain independent and not using their office for fraud.  Also  look up  section 66 Crimes act .

so in summary  I cannot be bankrupted for  a sum which is

  1. not owing
  2. based on a fraudulently sealed order
  3. abuse of process

Orlov wants me to get a lawyer  so that I  can   be out of pocket  even if the court  orders costs in my favour he wont pay it  , so I am not playing his game

Look forward  to hearing from you very soon , if not then I will  put all of this ( and more )  through to the  court   in the period prescribed .

regards Grace Haden