Private security Personnel Licensing authority – Ultra Vires?

Roger GillThe private security personnel licensing authority is a statutory body which   controls all  Investigator and  security guard licenses

I have raised the issue of the authority not being  qualified   and have requested an  OIA  to establish the legal basis on which the authority claims to legitimately hold office  no response has been received and it now appears that ” the authority ” is away on leave

The legislation states http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0115/latest/DLM1594620.html

No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing

I Checked the roll of lawyers and could not see Mr Gill’s name on it so I wrote  to the law society and got the response that  he had not had a practicing certificate since 30 June 2015

From: Registry Mailbox [mailto:registry@lawsociety.org.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:35 a.m.
To: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Subject: RE: registration of barrister

Dear Grace

Mr Roger Bernard William GILL does not hold a current practising certificate.

His last certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society expired on 30 June 2015.

Kind regards
REGISTRY ADMINISTRATOR

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | DD: +64 4 463 2919 | PH: 0800 22 30 30 | F: +64 4 463 2989

lawsociety.org.nz

26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
DX SP20202 | PO Box 5041, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

 

I again consulted legislation

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM364948.html

barrister means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under or by virtue of this Act and practising as a barrister, whether or not he or she also practises as a solicitor; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by barristers in New Zealand

solicitor means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under, or by virtue of, this Act and practising as a solicitor, whether or not he or she also practises as a barrister; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by solicitors in New Zealand

lawyer means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor

 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365726.html

 

21 Provision of legal services

(1)A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—

(a)provides legal services in New Zealand; and

(b)describes himself, herself, or itself as—

(i)a lawyer; or

(ii)a law practitioner; or

(iii)a legal practitioner; or

(iv)a barrister; or

(v)a solicitor; or

(vi)a barrister and solicitor; or

(vii)an attorney-at-law; or

(viii)counsel.

From the Law society web site

http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/new-zealand-law-society-guide-for-new-lawyers/becoming-a-lawyer

Who is a “lawyer”?

 A lawyer is a person who holds a current practising certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society. Lawyers practise either as a barrister and solicitor or as a barrister (sometimes called a “barrister sole”).

Anyone providing certain legal services who describes themselves as a “lawyer”, a “barrister”, or a “barrister and solicitor” but who doesn’t hold a current practising certificate commits an offence against the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the LCA”).

If you have been admitted as a barrister and solicitor but do not hold a current practising certificate, you may refer to yourself as an “enrolled barrister and solicitor of the High Court”.

Going back to the definition in the pspla  act

No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing.

Since Mr Gill is not a lawyer  he is not a barrister   he has no statutory obligations to the rule of law  and is also  not an officer of the court ,  statute states that he is to be a barrister or solicitor. so  what  implications does this have on  the enforcement of the Private security personnel licensing act ?

can some one  without  the legal standing to be the authority make decisions on the suitability of   Security guards and Private investigators suitability  to hold their  jobs ?

Are the  decisions Roger Gill  has made since  30  June 2015 a ultra vires ? and therefore void ?

Will we re write legislation to  cover this glaring  non compliance with statute ?

I Raised the issue with the ministers. I now note that Mr Gill is away until the end of the month.  strange that when so many  licences come up for renewal in August .

His deputy  Stevan Cole was  the deputy  he has since become a community magistrate   it would appear that no one has been appointed as deputy  therefore   it seems like there is no Legal “authority”

 

How the Authority is chosen

The Authority is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister of Justice. They must have at least 5 years’ experience as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court. Appointments to the position are for a term of 3 years, and a person may be reappointed.

The current Authority is Mr Roger Gill. source  ( note how the justice dept  gets their definition wrong  the operative word IS  is missing  )

 

Mr Gill is a qualified lawyer and has 16 years experience as a Chief Executive of four national organisations, including the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Stock Exchange. For the past 12 years Mr Gill was a Registrar and Manager of the Wellington High Court.

.  source 

 

Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.  source

more info on Roger Gill  

Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.

Ultra Vires   Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law.

New Zealand , how we facilitate sham trusts

This post is prompted by the  Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.

It is one which I will forward  along with  other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question  how  one of the worlds least corrupt countries  can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand

In 2006  I questioned the lack of existence of  trust , this trust just happened to be  one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust  the animal welfare institute of  New Zealand  (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ  trusts  and how loosely they operate

AWINZ operated  as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA  and enforced animal welfare law ,  It had  powers of search and  the ability to seize some ones prized pet .

I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing  but a sham  and  questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority  I was immediately sued,  denied a defence  and   was told to pay some $100,000  dollars to the  person who wrote the animal welfare bill and  was independent adviser to the select committee  in the process of making his business plan , law .

He then made an application , which in my days  as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that  AWINZ  was a trust was totally false  the application made 22 November 1999  predated  he formation of any organisation  by that name  the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was  dated 1.3.2000  and even those persons never met  or passed a resolution )

I have  for years  been beaten up   for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years  but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work

  1.  You need a trust deed  .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it  or who signs it  as  long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
  2. you can have various copies of the deed  they can all conflict and no one cares see here  and here 
  3. no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust  complies with its deed
  4. If you want a new deed  you simply  write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed  , Ird  does not care  I  rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons  being involved in a trust .
  5. there is more information on the deed with regards to the  identity of the  witnesses than  with regards to the  the trustees.  you can use generic names  and who could ever identify  the trustees
  6. if a trust does not  meet  or hold any assets  or pass  any resolutions it is still considered a trust  and its identity can be used  to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
  7. the charities commission  are happy to grant charity status to anything  whihc meets their criteria , the fact that  there are no resolutions for the trust and  big gaping holes in   their existence is but a technicality

 

Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ  trust

As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time  made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ  he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed

trust formed

 

 

 

 

 

 

No  executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together  or passed  any resolution

Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells

in 2006  Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked  the existence of AWINZ

when I proved that AWINZ did not exist  ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000  whihc brings about the question how can  you make an application before a trust is  formed. ?

I was to get evidence that these people had never met   never held any assets , never passed a resolution.

By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist  three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was  reappointed.

reappointment

 

 

 

 

Wells sought charitable status in 2006  when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed   so he simply wrote a new one  and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust 2006 deed

 

 

 

this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and  MAF ( and later the government )

AWINZ was finally removed as  approved Organisation in 2010  .  the fictional  law enforcemnt organisation  operated  for  10 years  re branding council property  and using the  Council staff under Neil Wells control  as AWINZ officers  .

Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions  strange  that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ

this is how what I considered to be a fraud  worked

 

I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council  and again here , here , here, again here ,    here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here  and here  , here, here.

I have written to the lawyers involved and again here  and here, here, here , the law society by way of  regarding the lawyers  , the charities commission  and again here   and here

Maf and  now the ministry of primary Industries  repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was  working for crown law  so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore    concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence  complaints to Maf Here  , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here

The people posing as trustees  here, and here,here, here

attorney general  here

I had questions asked in parliament  Here  wrote to ministers  here  and here 

notable blogs of the past   touching on the  corruption which  exist in New Zealand

NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts

Disparity in crime.. who you know matters

Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand

Questioning corruption in New Zealand.

Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers

The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain

Liquidation as a tool of oppression

shooting the messenger

Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption

Conclusion  :  Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust  administration was .

more to come   Court is used to   silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts

 

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