Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) has released the first wave of its emergent findings in its independent review of New Zealand’s National Integrity Systems with a public forum at Victoria University, Wellington according to Voxy .
The article was picked up by Kiwis First where it is pointed out that “The New Zealand government has less of a problem getting TINZ’s ear than the public” this article is worth a read and the web site is worth repeated visits
Our research has revealed the reason behind this could be their connections with government which are listed in their latest news letter .
It is interesting that the very parties who are Paying Susan Snively’s wages are the very parties whose integrity she is reporting on . Also amongst the members are the very organsiations which we seek accountability from .
Our question is can you be part of a watchdog organization if you are the dog being watched ? IS this not a conflict of interest ? even bribery in another form ? If I am paying for a study , if I am funding it does that not sway the study to be favourable to me so that I can fund the next study? so TINZ in my opinion is using corrupt practices to show that New Zealand is NOT corrupt.
the national integrity survey sponsors according to the May 2013 Transparency Times May 2013 include
The Office of the Auditor General
School of Government, VUW
Ministry for Justice
Statistics New Zealand
The Human Rights Commission
NZ Public Service Association
The Gamma Foundation
The State Services Commission
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
The Civil Aviation Authority
The Department of Conservation
The Ministry of Social Development
The New Zealand Defence Force
The Ministry of Transport
Te Puni Kokori
UVW School of Government PwC
and members include
NZ Post Ltd
Office of the Auditor General
Serious Fraud Office
In the September 2012 Transparency Times the Office of the Ombudsmen is welcomed as a new member and the Human rights commission is thanked for their donations .
Transparency Times January 2013 new members
NZ Public Service Association
Ministry for Justice
Statistics New Zealand
partners Office of the Auditor General
new members Human Rights commission
Transparency Times April 2013 new members Ministry of Social Development
The May 2013 Transparency Times May 2013 issue the pillars of society are discussed with regards to integrity they are
Pillar 3 Judiciary
Sub-pillar 4a Fiscal Transparency
Sub-pillar 4b Procurement
Sub-pillar 4c Environmental Governance
Pillar 6 Electoral Management Body
Pillar 7 Ombudsman
Pillar 8 Supreme Audit Institution
Pillar 11 The Media
Fortunately for TINZ their members which number about 70 include representatives if not entire government departments for most of these sectors – therefore the internal in put will be vast and favorable to the perception of New Zealand being corruption free.
I for one believe that the resulting ” integrity survey “ wil not be worth the paper it is written on
If you wish to discuss this subject further you can do so on the new zealand justice forum
re charity number CC11235 The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand
I have phoned you and tried to talk to you but you always say that you are to busy .
You claim to be the chair person of a AWINZ which through a trustee, Neil Wells is trying to liquidate my company
You have taken this action despite the fact that there are proceedings before the court filed in March 2012 which show that the sums you are claiming were obtained by fraud.
Your Charity has never performed one charitable function it was set up to cover up the fact that Neil Wells wrote legislation for his own business plan and then advised on it. He then applied under the resulting legislation for ” approval” from the ministers as a law enforcement authority. he did this in the name of a trust which did not exist at that time.
Wyn I have gone through this with you before in an open letter Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC and I have questioned your fitness to be a barrister Is Wyn Hoadley fit to be a Lawyer, A trustee or a councillor?
You claim to be chair person of a trust which in its deed states that it will encourage promotion of humane attitudes in societies to people
Yet the way you are treating me is in the most in humane manner
Your husband Steve is a professor in Human rights , he is condoning you action with his silence Open letter to Stephen Hoadley Human Rights Professor
Wyn I just wanted to talk to you about the fact that every 2 months it costs me a small fortune to have the statutory demand which is fraudulently being pursued agaisnt me. I know your desire is to cause me as much financial harm as possible and your actions just prove it.
Wyn Charities are being struck off Family First finds unlikely ally in charitable status fight yet some how you and Neil Wells can run this sham and get away with it.
If you were at all half human and acted according to your alleged deed which you signed in December 2006 some five months after you claimed to be a trustee and made false claims to the court , then you would at least talk to me .
I told you I would send you an email and you said that you would not be checking your emails for a while .
I said I would come and stand outside your house with a placard until you did have time and you said that I was threatening you .
so what options are you going to leave me with.. Wyn every two months I get huge bills because of you , you have severely darkened my twilight years and you just want me to roll over and go away ?
Wyn you have got away with this too long , you are bleeding me dry you have had over $120,000 from me already to cover up for your lies , you know I have money sitting in a trust account to cover most of the rest of the debt which you obtained by fraud.
The court has been sitting on this for 9 months the papers were filed in March 2012 . Why is it that you can lie and cheat your way through justice ? I also suspect that you have influence on the court and again you will come out smelling like roses just as Terry Hay has done .. he managed to get all 22 of his fraud charges dropped , if you are a barrister or can afford to pay one it appears that you can get away with murder.
Your lawyers act agaisnt the rules and you condone this Brookfields Lawyers continue to act illegally Yet the law society does nothing.
Wyn you are older than me I will fight this so that the truth will come out even after you Die I will carry on and you will never rest in peace as I will ensure that like Jimmy Savile you will be exposed after you are gone .
Or you could prove that you are humane and do the decent thing and be prepared to sit and discus to resolve matters and to take the stress and financial hardship away from me
Perhaps one of your neighbours will volunteer to facilitate our civilized discussion over a cup of tea , I will put a leaflet round as follows to see if any one will help.
Dear Neighbour of Wyn and Steve Hoadley
Wyn is the chairperson of a trust called the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand , I am a licensed private investigator( former police sergeant and police prosecutor ) and got involved in 2006 when a dog control officer at Waitakere city council approached me and asked me to find out who or what the animal welfare institute of New Zealand was. (AWINZ )
AWINZ was one of two approved organisations (section 121 animal welfare act) the RNZSPCA is the other.
Approved organisations have coercive law enforcement powers and by virtue of section 171 of the act the proceeds of prosecution are returned to the organisation fines can be up to $350,000,this was the perfect fraud
The RNZSPCA is an incorporated society it fundraises and runs its operations from donations bequests etc.
AWINZ on the other hand had no legal existence , no trust deed was discoverable , it was nothing more than a pseudonym. It operated from Waitakere city council premises and required the council dog control officers to “volunteer “their council paid time. They used the council’s vehicles and infrastructure to prioritise work for AWINZ over that of the council.
The manager of dog and stock control Neil Wells was the only visible person of AWINZ.
He had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act and had advised as independent advisor to the select committee on the two bills as they were considered by the select committee.
When the bill passed in to law he made an application for “approved status” using a fictional name and by misleading the minister as to the nature and existence of AWINZ, which at the time of the application had no existence at all other than being an impressive name.
I asked 2 questions one of MAF- why was a non-existent organisation give law enforcement powers
The other of Waitakere why did their manager contract to himself for animal welfare services which were not the council’s core function.
He had changed the signage of the council dog control unit and cars so that AWINZ and the council premises looked like one and the same.
To prove categorically that AWINZ did not exist, I with others registered the name animal welfare institute of New Zealand as a charitable trust under the charitable trust act this was on 27 April 2006.
Wyn Hoadley became involved on 10 May 2006 After intimidating us to give up the name she and wells and Graeme Coutts took me to court for passing off breach of fair trade and defamation, Wyn Hoadley was part of this process even though she had no prior involvement and did not sign any documents which made her a trustee
Wells had applied for approved status on 22.11.99 allegedly on behalf of a trust In 2006 he produced a trust deed dated 1.3.2000, you don’t need to be an Einstein to work out that the trust could not have made the application . not one of the persons involved with this alleged trust was ever involved with the running of the law enforcement authority in any manner or means – they had not even formally met.
Hoadley became a trustee at a time when the trust deed is proved to be missing and without any formal procedure to bind her to the deed she became chairperson but would not discuss anything with me saying she was not the messenger ?
Her false claims alleging that she was a trustee of the trust brought costs of $ 12,200 against me.
I was given 2 weeks to pay Hoadley and her associated then dropped the false claims that had brought about the costs. – They had to, they could not prove them.. I have a truck load of evidence to prove she was misleading the court with false claims.
They used these costs to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion on the defamation claims
No evidence was ever produced and the matter went straight to the civil equivalent of sentencing the only evidence was the uncorroborated evidence of Wells for which I have truckloads of evidence to show it was perjury.
While they had me before the district court they also had me in the high court on bankruptcy application,
I was fined $57.500 and 41,000 court costs for pointing out serious corruption - writing legislation for his own business plan using insider information, misleading the crown and using council premises for private pecuniary gain
I Got a lawyer paid him a small fortune my marriage to broke down -23 years and a family in tatters all because I had stumbled on corruption . I should have stayed quite
My bank accounts were frozen and I had to represent myself again judge took 11 months to come out with a decision which went against me, don’t think he read anything except Judge Joyce decision in which Neil Wells makes me out to be a most disgusting person. …More costs
Met a lawyer who promised he could help me.. took $80,000 for my matrimonial split and another 30-40 for appeal and court of appeal. Made a real hash of it lost more money
2011 finally obtained crucial information which Wells had asked to be withheld, got this through the law society and the ombudsmen
Hoadley and Wells took liquidation and bankruptcy action against me
I filed a claim for obtaining a judgement by fraud.. Their lawyers are breaking the law in continuing to represent them in court but apparently the law society thinks it’s OK
Got rid of the bankruptcy have had to pay out nearly $120,000 they liquidated my company when I was not served, I caught them out and the proceedings were reversed.
They now have a statutory demand out which is being adjourned through lawyers and costing me 500 a pop every two months
This has been going on for 7 years now I HAVE HAD ENOUGH
I hope that one of the neighbours can make a pot of tea and host this event
I am a former long serving police sergeant and former police Prosecutor. I am the mother of three children, I believed in law and order and justice I am not violent. Wyn has nothing to fear from me but the truth.
CAN YOU HELP ME SIT DOWN AND TALK TO WYN TO TRY AND RESOLVE THIS , I would love your support.
Regards Grace Haden Ph 520 1815
Take it from me don’t ever question anything that looks tin the slightest way corrupt In New Zealand if you do your life will be in tatters. I speak from experience.
It appears to me that every one knows how useless the ombudsmen s office is so councils regularly refuse information.. why should they comply ? This way they can conceal corruption and buy time.
So here I go again
Request for Investigation by Ombudsmen 17/04/2013
I have recently made three requests to Auckland council for official information and one for a breach of privacy
I am being totally ignored.
I made the request via the FYI web site and can be seen on the site http://fyi.org.nz/request/adoption_of_cats_from_concourse#comment-245
and an earlier request http://fyi.org.nz/request/animal_welfare_instituteof_new_z
Having questioned this gross corruption many years ago and seeing new developments and questioning this I have found myself being harassed by the council and my information requests rejected.
Wendy Brandon Counsel for council saw to it that my emails were blocked this included an email which I had sent to the duly elected representatives complaining about her action
While there has been no apparent independent enquiry into the actions of Ms Brandon, the Ceo of council who has been at the centre of this had the privilege of investigating himself see http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/04/03/doug-mc-kay-investigates-himself-and-responds-to-councillors/
I now find that a block wall has been thrown up in my path and all my LGOIMA requests are being refused while I am being harassed by council.
I first wrote of the harassment in July last year http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/
When the council discovered that my neighbour had put a trellis up against my back fence. Rather than tell me, I found myself the subject of a revisit. I found it ironic that the officer was a Waitakere officer who should not have been inspecting in Epsom .. do I smell a rat yes a large one. Especially as this occured at he same time as my company was put in to liquidation when the papers were not served on me
I believe that this was deliberate harassment as it occurred simultaneously as the liquidation of my company though non service of documents.
I now have a debt collectors letter demanding $250 for that inspection when I have never seen an invoice for the inspection and only saw the inspector who re inspected and who had not bothered to tell me that my pool did not comply. I am a failure I don’t have x ray vision or esp. I simply did not know that my neighbours had put up a trellis on the other side of the fence.( which incidentally would not have supported a cat let alone a child )
It has been 7 years since I questioned the use of council facilities by a manager for private pecuniary gain, 7 years of shear HELL .No one cares a dam that people can write legislation for their own business plan and use council facilities to run the operation.. all we care about is concealing corruption.
The ombudsmen’s office has been singularly useless and the office of the auditor general likes wise. It comes as no surprise that both are members of Transparency International ( New Zealand ) and both the office of the auditor general and the ombudsmen appear to be condoning corruption rather than taking action on it.
Now the Mayor has written the matter off as historic and publicly stated that he will not investigate despite the fact that he knows nothing about the matter… see http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1
You will need to log in to see the video .
Counsel for council stopped me from reading from my script which is located here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013 and falsely advises the mayor that there is an injunction that prevents me from speaking about the fictional AWINZ , when there is no such injunction in place.
Ms Brandon has also sent out emails to Councillors in which I was the subject matter and the comments were wrong and defamatory, she is ignoring my requests for a copy of the email .
It is very hard to convince me that New Zealand is the least corrupt and I ask the Ombudsmen to investigate the following.
1. The conflict of interest in the ombudsmen’s office and the office of the auditor general being members of transparency International New Zealand an organisation which has only just after I prompted them listed a set of rules September 2012 Transparency Times
2. The harassment by Auckland council as set out in http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/ and the subsequent debt recovery action when no invoice has ever been sent to me.
3. The investigation of Doug Mc Kay into himself with regards to the withholding of emails and also with regards to his lack of action or even acknowledgment of my complaints with regards to Wendy Brandon being documents which will open from the following links
b) request 1
c) Request 2
d) Request 3
e) Request 4
f) Request 5
g) Request 6
h) Request 7
i) Request 8
j) Evidence 1
k) Evidence 2
l) Evidence 3
m) Evidence 4
n) Evidence 5
p) Note 1
q) Note 2
4. The manner in which Brandon appears to control council and has miss instructed the may with regards to any injunctions in place and the effect of them as shown in the video clip http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1
5. The lack of provision of information for the LGOIMAS as mentioned from FYI web site
6. an investigation by the ombudsmen into the 8 issues out lined in 3 above
Had the office of the Ombudsmen done its job properly in the first place I would not have had to endure all of this it appears that the ombudsmen’s office is doing little to prevent corruption in New Zealand. It has allowed MAF to get away with giving law enforcement authority to a fictional organisation and then allowed it to cover up.It has condoned Waitakere council in not acting when employees use their office for private pecuniary gain.
I find it amusing that your logo is fairness to all. I am a whistle-blower and you have proved to me that whistle-blowers do not even get the support of the ombudsmen in new Zealand.. its all about promoting the perception of us being the least corrupt.
So here goes another round of me banging my head against the proverbial brick wall I wonder how many years you will take this time to write this off.
But we can all rest easy the perception is that there is no corruption its just idiots like me who walk into the trap and have their lives ruined because they think New Zealand has a hard line on corruption when in reality we just sweep it under the carpet.
The truth will come out in the end.
copies of this is going to the international press I am sure with NZ in the news for tax havens they will be interested in seeing how NZ conceals corruption.
I have long been critical of Transparency International New Zealand mainly because they will not let me join and have never given me a valid reason for not allowing me to join.
I have not been given the opportunity for as much as an interview and I have to wonder why a person such as myself is not allowed to join transparency International which has a logo on their web site which says corruption ruins lives.
While Transparency International claims that they are there to assist those who have suffered at the hands of corruption Transparency International New Zealand treat me as Persona non grata.
I believed that this warranted a closer look into Transparency International New Zealand .
My first port of call was the companies office and I found that Transparency International ( NZ) did not have any rules filed there
Now this is significant as incorporated societies are unique in the manner in which they can govern .. the rules which the registrar has accepted are the only rules which apply.
Therefore we are at a bit of a loss to see what the rules are. I have inquired with the registrar and they advise me that those documents were lost in a fire .. strange I thought that such records could not be lost, the records after all are only duplicates and the originals can be copied again and the documents sent in. I have done a full OIA in the name of transparency to find out when and where the fire was.
The Registrar kindly directed me to the charities web site where indeed we find a copy of what is allegedly the rules. Except for the fact that I consider any constitutional document which has not been signed as being just a bit of paper with words on it. This is a copy of it it is called Charity Rules.
I note that there is a further copy of the rules on the transparency New Zealand web site. These rules Rules-Transparency-International-New-Zealand-Dec-2009 were allegedly passed in December 2009 and are different to the rules on the charities site they are again unsigned.
I took a trip down memory lane and dived into the internet archives to find yet a third set of rules 06 11-06 Transparency International (NZ) Inc Rules which referred to a fourth set of rules which may or may not have been the original rules. yes and each is different and due to the lack of filing with the registrar not one of the rules which Transparency International NZ operates by is valid.
I also note that on the incorporated societies registration the address for transparency International still shows as being Level 4 James Smith Cr Cuba & Manners Sts Wellington, we know that they have moved from there but they get around this by stating their post office address on the charities web site as their street address.
But what is funnier yet is that the registrar of incorporated societies has their address as PO BOX 5428 and the charities commission show it as Po Box 5248 Perhaps that is why I cannot join Transparency International, I pay attention to detail and they do not.
I comply with the law and they appear to be totally ignorant of the law for the running of their own incorporated society. with so many high ranking government officials on board you wonder if any one looks at basics ? If they cannot see the issues with their own organization how could they spot corruption if they fell over it.
the directors were states on one set of rules as
- David Macdonald, former Auditor General of New Zealand.
- Murray Petrie, public sector management consultant, former NZ diplomat and former IMF official.
- Trevor Roberts, senior lawyer.
- Dr Rodger Spiller, Mg. Dir. Money Matters; and, Director, Centre for Business Ethics and Sustainable Development, Auckland.
- The Hon. Hugh Templeton, former Minister of the Crown.
- Mel Smith, former Ombudsman.
- Marcus Pelto, development and governance advocacy consultant.
This brings me on to the subject of the obvious connection between Transparency International NZ and government .. as if that isn’t half obvious with the above.
According to the financial statements the office of the auditor general has given them $15,000 for research and the s office of the ombudsman is a member.
I also found two documents one stating advocating the strengthening of trust for the state service sector “TINZAGMflyer27-11-07v2”
and the other the power point presentation from Suzanne Snively tinz-suzanne-snively-fraud-survey-nov-2011 in which she states
- New Zealand is Perceived as a High Trust Society
- Transparency International is the Monitor
- Transparency International New Zealand (TI-NZ) Looks after New Zealand’s Reputation
- Reputation is a Driver of Prosperity
I now understand why I cannot join.
Suzanne Snively is protecting the reputation of New Zealand she is being positive about it. People like myself are seen as negative because I point out the corruption.
I have a strange notion that by pointing out corruption you can fix it , its like cancer lets ignore it and you will die. lets treat it early and you can live.. now that’s radical !
Corruption is like Cancer. the corruption I suffered was due to the illusion of a trust being thrown into the picture.. If transparency International cannot understand or even run their own organization legitimately how could they even begin to understand the corruption I am involved with.
Perhaps I should just take the IQ lowering pill and it will all go away.
People who think that pretending that new Zealand has no corruption and being positive about there being no corruption are not doing any one a favour . Its like a mother always saying” of course that’s Ok little Johnny “and then wondering why she has raised an axe murder.
I have never asked transparency International to investigate my matter , I do believe that through my experience I can help set systems in place which will assist New Zealand on the path away from becoming the corrupt country it is recessing into. Why should some one else go through what I have had to enure?
But instead lets just talk to the people who run the government departments and ignore the so called Customers who have had a raw deal… that is actually called customer feed back .. its what improves companies and societies alike.
it would be nice if Transparency International (NZ) lived up to its principles which were stated as March 2010 – TI(NZ) Guiding principles
- oppose bribery and corruption vigorously and openly but not investigate individual cases;
- work co-operatively with individuals, corporations ,governments and international organisations in the fight against corruption;
- operate on the basis of sound, objective research and analysis in a democratic, non partisan and non sectarian way;
- seek funding that supports and does not compromise our ability to address issues objectively and freely;
- cooperate in building, working with and supporting the work of the Transparency International Secretariat in Berlin and support other national chapters particularly in the Pacific region;
- maintain a balanced and diverse governing body. ( wouldn’t this mean that you also have victims of corruption on board ? )
But in the end If you cant joint them you have to beat them .. If those who have had their lives wrecked by corruption are not welcome on Transparency International because we point out corruption then we have to build Transparency New Zealand will you join me ..
I have received the copy of the report which Doug Mc Kay CEO of council sent through on the issue of diversion of emails it is located here Ms G Haden case management response
I have responded as follows
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
To the Mayor and all Councillors
Please find my response to Mr Mc Kays unsigned report re case management below
First I find it ironic that he has investigated himself, which is far from transparent or acceptable.
Secondly Mr Mckay is factually incorrect and I rather suspect that the whole thing has been written by Wendy Brandon general counsel for council whose actions I sought to complaint to councillors about . Due to her diversion you would not have received that email it is located on line at this link Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon. I believe that it is significant when such an email is diverted away from those it was addressed to .
There appears to have been a lack of consideration for the fact that the councillors are not employees of the council, they are the governing body. We have to wonder just who is making the decisions and who is calling the shots. It may be that we can dispense with councillors and just put the general counsel in charge, she does not appear not be accountable to anyone.
It is unfortunate that I stumbled upon serious corruption in Waitakere city council ,A life changing event . I was approached by a council officer Lyn Mc Donald QSM who wondered why she was “ volunteering her council paid time to what she believed to be the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand( AWINZ )
I am a licenced private investigator, ex-police Prosecuting sergeant; it is my place to ask questions. Lyn was dismissed for having spoken to me at least two others were similarly disposed of.
It is significant that I was approached recently by a council employee who agreed about what I had said about corruption but I was told that they dared not speak up due to the fear of losing their jobs.
Anyone who hears my story will take it as a strong message to keep quiet about the goings on in council.
Being a former police officer and foolishly thinking that council would act responsibly I checked AWINZ out and discovered
- That although the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )had law enforcement powers equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA , it did not exist in any independent form as a legal entity.
- The only identifiable person associated with was Mr Neil Wells , the council manager dog control, who had written and advised on the legislation which had enabled the fictional AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority .
- Prior to taking on his position as manager he had entered into a contract for the use of council facilities and staff with his accomplice ,the previous manager tom Didovich and when he left council Mr Wells took over the job without declaring the fact that he was entering into a situation of gross conflict of interest
- Wells re branded the council complex and the vehicles to Animal Welfare and used the same Logo with the words “institute of New Zealand” written below it , this ensured that no one really knew if the council premises were those of AWINZ or of council Please note the lack of colour in the AWINZ logo is due to it not having being printed in colour
- He had told the minister that AWINZ was going to take over the council facilities but council was never consulted and approval for the venture was given only by the division manager Mr Didovich and not the governance body. ( Didovich later became a trustee in the trust which was used to cover up the matter )
- Council officers using council vehicles spent as much as 40% of their time doing animal welfare work, offences under the animal welfare act were prosecuted By Wells as barrister and the money earned was banked into an account which only he administered. ( section 171 of the Animal welfare act allows fines to be returned to the “ approved organisation “ fines could be up to $350,000)
- Internationally this is known as form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain.
The reality is that AWINZ did not exist. When a person claims a degree or qualification they do not have we all decry it. Here we had a law enforcement authority which was in reality only the man who wrote and advised on the legislation making an application in a pseudonym and later constructing a trust to disguise this. Yet this is OK ?
I foolishly expected Waitakere city council to investigate the use of its premises for other than council business and I even more foolishly expected MAF to admit that they had been deceived as to the existence and structure of AWINZ and had given coercive law enforcement powers to an undefined trading name.
Instead both MAF and council have gone to great lengths to conceal this corruption.
I have not breached any injunctions and I have not defamed any one in making these statements I make them knowing that I have a truck load of evidence to support what I say . I am happy to present the evidence to any of you who are interested. Any issue of injunction is an issue for me not for council.
I am further concerned that the interpretation of events which have been conveyed to you by the CEO are so inaccurate that it means that he has no concept of the seriousness of my complaint and to that end I ask that I can work with councillors and appointed staff and step you through the evidence so that there are no misconceptions about what I am on about, that way the fraud can be exposed going forward it will not come back to haunt anyone who has from this point on turned a blind eye to it .
Mr Mc Kay States “There is also significant history relating to Ms. Haden and her correspondence with both the previous Waitakere City Council and the Auckland Council. “
Just after the amalgamation into the super city, the fictitious AWINZ lost its law enforcement authority and Mr Wells left the council. I was aware of Mr Wells’ relationship with Bob Harvey and hoped that a new council would ensure transparency and independence.
“This mainly relates to legal issues and the volume of correspondence received from Ms. Haden. Given the legal risk involved, it was decided that Ms. Haden would be case managed by Wendy Brandon General Counsel and this has been in place since last year.”
Mr Mc Kay doesn’t make it clear who decided that I should be case managed and he does not state where he gets his powers from to make decisions for councillors and affecting Governance. We appear to have lost sight of the structure of council Governance sits at the top. Governance that is the councillors hire a CEO who then employ the solicitor and the rest of the staff.
It is particularly serious when one of the emails diverted was one in which I made a formal complaint to governance with regards to Wendy Brandon. This email has apparently gone only to her, this is a wonderful way for employees to prevent accountability for their actions, this alone is a serious matter which should be looked at.
The” legal risk” is the risk which Wendy Brandon has identified as potential liability for the manner in which council have treated me a whistle blower on an issue of serious public corruption. In any real scenario and in a perfect world I would be eligible for compensation for the neglect of council to deal with corruption.
On the other hand I just want the 7 year nightmare to be over and have my name cleared. I am however not prepared to give council a waiver for liability as their actions or lack of actions has cost me an obscene amount.
I note that what I have said over the years has not fallen on deaf ears, the latest example being the rebranding of the Concourse facility from Animal Welfare to Animal management.
Because Council has failed to do the proper thing and investigate and stop a further four years of fraud I have had to endure 7 years of litigation , my family has been torn apart and a 23 year marriage came to an end due to the stress forced on me due to council apparently condoning corruption. If council can do this then there is a serious issue .
Had council acted in a responsible manner they would have investigated this and dealt with it as diligently as they do with swimming pool fencing and parking tickets. The evidence was there I know because I have it. It just takes someone to act but to do so would prove liability on the council and that is why I am a risk.
One has to ask if it is the job for counsel for council to conceal corruption when it is in reality her responsibility to ensure that the rule of law is followed. By allowing council to act in a corrupt manner she is acting according to law. The more that Ms Brandon has acted to conceal corruption the more she has to do to influence Councillors because by her own actions she is becoming an accessory after the fact and is acting in the concealment of crime.
Ms Brandon is therefore in a serious situation of conflict of interest. If you accept that corruption has occurred then she will lose her job, it is better to dump on me than for her lose her job she is does appear to be pulling all the strings.
The fact that the corruption has been allowed to be concealed since amalgamation proves that corruption is on-going as the same mentality persists.
“Since approximately 2006, Ms Haden has sought information from Waitakere City Council and subsequently the Auckland Council in relation to a Trust Animal Welfare of New Zealand (AWINZ), and its Trustees.”
This statement is incorrect . The questions I asked was with regards to the manager of dog and stock control running his own business from council premises, the two ran parallel so much so that MAF stated that they could not see where council ended and the private enterprise began.
Put simply Mr Wells was running an RNZSPCA equivalent from council premises, but unlike the RNZSPA which pays outgoings and receives income Mr wells did away with the outgoings by being a parasite off council resources using plant staff , infrastructure , the profit was for personal gain only he operated the bank account which was in the trading name of AWINZ, no trust deed was associated with it.
He concocted a trust which he claimed was AWINZ but there is no evidence that this trust was the law enforcement authority or even ran AWINZ , significantly there were two trusts, the first trust Tom Didovich collected the trustees signatures whilst manager of dog control and he became a trustee of the second trust when the holes in the argument for the first trust became too large to patch.
Mr Wells and the former Manager Tom Didovich are entwined in this project and deceived the minister and council alike. I have evidence that council funds were used to set up Mr Wells’s private business venture .
“ Ms Haden alleges ‘corruption’ on the part of the Trust, and its trustees.”
No the trust did not exist, hence there were no trustees involved with the running of the operation of the council premises the trust is a diversionary tactic a identify fraud used to confuse and deceive. The only persons involved in the actual corruption in council were the two managers of animal control Mr Didovich and Mr Wells. No one has ever bothered to interview the staff about what was going on. No one has ever quantified how much it cost the rate payers to run the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand from council premises.
No ordinary company would allow a manager to run his own business from the premises using the companies infrastructure staff an time.. so why is it Ok in council ?
Her allegations have been tested in both the District Court and the High Court and found to be baseless. Her campaign against the trustees persists in the face of an injunction prohibiting her from persisting with her ‘denigration’ of the trustees.
No my allegations have never been tested in the court. Mr Wells took me to court on defamation claims; he used false claims to drive up the costs, and then used these costs to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion. The matter went straight to sentencing and no evidence alleging that I made any statement or in which context I made the statement was ever produced and these were never tested against the truth.
The case is now back before the court as I have extensive evidence that the judgement was obtained by fraud and misleading the court.
The only matter which was appealed was the striking out of my defence. I was placed at a disadvantage as Mr Wells used Charitable dollars to fuel the proceedings I was going through a separation and had bank accounts frozen on me. Anyone who has been through our legal system will know that this places you at a disadvantage.
New Evidence came to hand only after the judgement was issued. Without funds I have been fighting teams of lawyer’s hell bent on keeping the lid on this corruption as several highly regarded persons would find themselves behind bars. It is better to destroy me than it is to make the true criminals accountable.
The court matter has nothing to do with the fact that council premises were being used for private pecuniary gain. The council has never gone through its own records to see how its animal control officers became warranted under the fictional AWINZ and why so many lost their jobs in “ confidential “ circumstances .
“ She has made numerous requests for information and over the years every piece of information that both councils have that relates to that issue, has been provided to her or she has been advised that it does not exist.”
Information was initially withheld from me, I had to get the ombudsman involved and after that I was allowed to access files at both MAF at Waitakere council. Interestingly enough large chunks of Waitakere’s documentation with regards to animal control were missing.
When I collated the two lots of information I found that there was much contradiction between what was being said to MAF and what appeared on the council files. This required LGOIMA requests to clarify. The Lgoima requests would come back vague and this would require a further request.
As I drilled down through the documents more and more discrepancies were revealed, I sent some documents to Wendy Brandon to evaluate and it was at about that time that I was told that I could not have any further information.
She no doubt saw how dangerous the information I was receiving was as it showed time and time again that MAF and council both had a different version of events.
Instead of using it for resolution she used this information of concealment as she realised that what I was saying was true.
I believe that her actions are those of concealing and condoning corruption.
“It is the view of General Counsel that the orders made by the District Court and the High Court forbid Ms Haden from publishing any material that repeats the various allegations examined and dismissed by the Courts. Any further publication in breach of those orders constitutes a contempt of court.”
Wendy Brandon has not interpreted the judgement correctly , the judgement is dated 2008 I have published many articles I have brought them to Mr Wells attention and not once has he claimed that I am breaching the injunction or claimed that I am denigrating him.
It is ultimately for no one else but the party who has the injunction, to enforce it, it is no concern to the council and if council is that concerned about past employees injunction then council should also be concerned with the actions of that employee and the corruption which surrounds his activities. The injunction is not against council.
I have documentary evidence on which I base all my statements and everything I state is truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.
In court I had fewer rights than a criminal and I have had a penalty of far greater proportion than any fraudster would receive.
You have to ask yourselves why Is Wendy Brandon going to these lengths to conceal corruption , this should be a case study at the very least to prevent further events of this nature an honest and diligent lawyer would ensure that council runs corruption free, that ultimately is in the best inters of the law which governs council.
Principles relating to local authorities
(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:
(a) a local authority should—
(i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;…etc
Since November 1st 2010, Ms Haden has sent nearly 500 emails to Auckland Council, nearly all of which have been sent or copied to General Counsel. All of Ms Haden’s emails to council have been read, assessed for action, and retained in council’s records.
Ordinary people and lawyers count differently, I send one email to 30 people I count it as 1 email. Lawyers count it as 30. I have not sent 500 emails and I believe that this is an attempt to vilify me. I am guilty of one thing.. Questioning corruption which appears to be the ultimate crime.
I did not include Wendy Brandon in my emails and the statement by Mr MC Kay therefore serves to prove that the management of my case was handed over from Waitakere city to Auckland council, it is therefore grounds for me to assume that Auckland council through the staff who were instructed by Waitakere have continued to conceal corruption.
“ Ms Haden has been advised that no further correspondence will be entered into in relation to her campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. “
I do not have a campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. AWINZ has never had any independent legal existence and there is now more than one trust called AWINZ plus several more groups who have used the trading name .
My issue with council at all times has been the corrupt use of council facilities by staff and the concealment and apparent condoning of corruption by staff.
“Ms Haden runs a number of websites and does communications and she publishes all correspondence on her websites.”
This almost sounds sinister, I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Ltd, I operate the web site Transparency.net.nz and anticorruption.co.nz you will find the evidence supporting my claims on those sites. I believe that corruption cannot flourish in a truly transparent society and I also believe that corruption ruins lives- it did to me and my family and all I did was question something which any rate payer should be able to question. In so doing I have become the villain in the piece.
I ask each and every one of you – Are you going to allow council to continue to conceal corruption or are you going to ensure that rate payer funds are used for a proper purpose .This is your opportunity as the governance body to draw a line in the sand and take a stand on corruption.
If you do nothing then you do not deserve to represent us the rate payers .No one said it would be easy but corruption should not be tolerated , our rates are too high and there has to be diligence in how council is governed.
In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on the transparency web site so that all rate payers can see how this is dealt with . I am happy to come and present on this matter to you to show how it occurred.
Suzanne Snively sent a reply on behalf of TINZ declining me once again. It appears that she does not like the comments which I make with regards to transparency International she has however never pointed which statements she is referring to and she has not told me which sites in particular she is looking at, it could well be that she is looking at some one else web site and attributing comments to me. Suzanne you are not being very transparent.
This led me to looking at the constitution of transparency International .An incorporated society only has one set of operative rules and those are the ones listed on the register of incorporated societies and those are the copies of the rules which the registrar has accepted.
Imagine then my surprise when I found that Transparency International New Zealand does not have any rules listed with the registrar.Does this make them unconstitutional ?
I phoned the societies registrar this morning and confirmed that they did not hold a copy of the rules…. see the page as it appeared 2nd April NZ Companies Office – View Details transparency international not very transparent I would have thought.
There is a copy available on the charities web site but it is not an official copy , not good enough we think for transparency International which has so much international clout.
Transparency International New Zealand are represented only by some 70 people 10 of whom are directors making 1 in 7 of them directors. http://www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/about/governance
Those listed on the governance site represent amongst them the large accountancy companies and appear to be well connected with Government and big business, the representation is mainly of the rich and famous , those of us who bang our heads against the corporate walls are not welcome. It is after all about perception and we bring too much reality and insist on accuracy.
By way of example today Transparency International Via Suzan Snively published a press release No+Complacency+for+Corruption-TINZ-PR.
In just the first three lines we at Transparency New Zealand struggle to find a verifiable comment
1. there is no such act as the Public Service Act
2. the state sector act is dated 1988 which is not 100 years ago
3.And to the best of our knowledge there have been no surveys done here or internationally with regards to the integrity of public sectors in a setting which allows comparisons to be made.
We have written to Suzanne and requested clarification we will update you when the reply is received.
Every charity needs to show their accounts and the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, formed 5.12.200 is no exception except its accounts went up on the charities web site in December with a annotation along side saying restricted.
Over the weekend they finally materialized. No real reason to see them withheld except for the fact that I know that I have paid well over $100,000 into what was claimed to be their coffers but which now appears to have gone somewhere else.
Apparently Mr Wells had asked for the accounts to be withheld.
I have gone through the accounts available on the charities web site and put together the following summary (click to down load ) AWINZ accounts summary
In the 2012 disclaimer they claim under the heading Contingent asset
On 30 July 2008 Judge Roderick Joyce QC made an order in the matter AWINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following :
Damages– $57 ,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
On 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal struck out an application by Haden to appeal the High Court decision.
Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
This statement is false in many ways and shows that the deception and corruption In Waitakere are still on going and shows that we do not have the staff with the necessary ability or ethics to deal with such corruption in either councils or Government department.
I must say to be fair that if some one was to do the right thing they would probably find themselves out of a job, corruption in New Zealand is that big. Corruption like this is actively concealed .
- The $57,500 was awarded in favour of Neil Wells only from litigation which did not involve the charity , or its trustees in their capacity of trustees of this charity .
- and although this litigation was commenced when the old trust deed was operative, the litigation was not undertaken by the trustees of the 2000 trust
- Neil Wells was the only person who could profit from the prosecution which misled the court as to who or what AWINZ was and treated AWINZ as though it was a legal person in its own right when this was not the case.
- It is untrue to say Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
- The charitable trust were not party to the litigation they allowed their charitable funds to be used for personal gain of one trustee which follows the fact that I have evidence that in Waitakere City he used public resources for private pecuniary gain .. so why would he not use charitable funds for private gain ?
- Not only have the costs been fixed they have calculated the interest and collected nearly $111,000 a further $30,000 is held in trust and they have a statutory demand for $70,000 which includes the sum held in trust .
- These claims have not been made in the name of the trust and have been made by Wells alone and not as trustee of AWINZ in fact I cannot recall any of the court documents for liquidation or bankruptcy referring to AWINZ or trust or trustee. .
- The high court matters were not against the trust they were against the individual persons and not the charity .
- This charity was set up as a trust 5.12.2006 is a different trust to the trust which allegedly existed from 1.3.2000
- The trust set up 5.12 .2006 became a charity. It did not exist when litigation commenced.
- Neither of these two trusts the trust deed 5/12/2006 or 1.3.2000 were the law enforcement authority as the application the minister relied upon was made 22.11.1999 some three months before the 2000 trust deed was allegedly signed and the trustees other than Neil Wells had no involvement in any way with the law enforcement authority
- The trustees of the 2000 trust had such little knowledge of the approved status ( law enforcement status) that it had to be explained to them at their one and only meeting which occurred 6 years after the deed was signed and without any evidence of the trustees being re appointed. after three years which is a requirement of the deed.
- Neither of these two trusts were the litigants in the court case. Although some of the trustees were litigants there has never been any proof that they were together trustees at the time as litigation commenced and they had no evidence that they had any legla capacity to act together as trustees prior to 5/12/2006 or together had responsibilities to the deed prior to 2/12/2006 and from that date they could only act with one other.
- Costs have been finalized for the court action which was taken by three people who called themselves AWINZ but had no proof of being a trust. ,
- Wells commenced liquidation proceedings on Verisure 22 December 2011 by attaching a statutory demand to my Christmas wreath.
- He had told MAF in September that he was going to bankrupt me. He was paid out some $91,000 in mid June 2012 this sum does not show in the accounts he appears to have used charitable funds for self-enrichment but no one appears to care.
- I was besieged by demands $7,090.48 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day , $17.244.26 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day, $23091.47 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day, a total of some 47426.21, to be found over night .
- 28 June , 82,987.43 to be found over night
- 10 July 76,000 demanded by Wells and wells and others to be paid within 7 days
- As soon as he was paid out Wyn Hoadley went after me for $16638 but no one bothered to tell me. I still cant see where that sum came from because nothing makes sense it certainly is not in the demand 28 June or in the July demand or the June amounts
- They succeeded in putting my company into liquidation when they failed to serve document on me, they were caught out and the liquidation was reversed.
- This all occurred while I had proceedings before the court to set the judgement aside because it had been obtained by fraud.
- They also attempted to bankrupt me but the court allowed the money to stay in a trust account while the setting aside of the judgement is considered.
- He succeeded in releasing most of this money through the liquidation proceedings.
- Neil Wells currently has a statutory demand out against the company
Evidence is available upon request
What the charities commission have done by allowing this matter to stand is to condone litigants for setting up a charitable trust so that litigation can be funded from charitable funds.
It opens the door to more corruption in New Zealand simply because many investigators dont understand the legal requirements of Trust .
The chronology speaks volumes any other interpretation of fact defies logic anc common sense. ther is no law or statute which supports any way that this chronology is invalid.
- 22/12/1999 application for approved status Neil wells tells minister of agriculture that AWINZ will be legally incorporated.
- 1.3.2000 trust deed signed this copy came to me in 2006 from Brookfields, this trust deed is different to the deed which is supplied by Wells to MAF they go this version
- The application 22/11/1999 is approved , not one of the persons who signed the trust deed ( apart from Wells) AWINZ despite not existing gets coercive law enforcement powers. Effectively Wells has coercive law enforcement powers in a pseudonym. the minister confirms to Wells that this was the application he relied upon
- Neil Wells lied in court on this point he said that the application had been made after the trust existed.
- 27.4.2006 a trust by the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand is formed and is legally incorporated, and obtains charitable status from IRD, this was done by myself and others to prove conclusively that no legal person by the nae of animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed. MAF had believed it existed and they needed to get the egg off their face because they simply did not check they had trusted Wells
- This threw a spanner in the works for Wells and he now had to cover up the fact that the law enforcement authority did not exist.
- 10.5.2006 the only recorded meeting of the trust 1.3.2000 which by its trust deed should meet no less than 4x per year , trustees said they had not met they did not even meet to sign the deed.! Wyn Hoadley becomes trustee by invisible means.
- 25 May 2006 Hoadley and Wells see lawyers to have the incorporated trust removed from the register. As proof of their existence they send a copy of the trust deed 1.3.200 for which trustees have resigned.
- 18.7.2006 despite being told by the registrar of incorporated societies to challenge the registration in the high court they decide to use the district court for intimidation and thereby get a quick way to force the name to be given up.
- 5.12.2006 After trying to get charitable status Wells is forced into a position where by he needs a new and current deed as the old deed does not qualify so with half the original trustees he changed the purpose of the trust and writes in clauses which allow the funds he has to be used for the litigation .
Its identity fraud 101 and just because they all share a name it does not mean that they are all the same.
All you need in New Zealand to commit charity fraud is a law degree standing as a barrister and the charities commission will like MAF accept any BS you put their way.
Every day people are locked up for minor matter but slick words manipulation of words and confusion allow you to get away with crime.
I am continually surprised at the lengths that Government departments and the Council have gone to condone this corruption shows that Corruption is not just condoned in New Zealand it is concealed.
See the Mayor of Auckland brush off the ” historic” Corruption of Neil Wells , he does so unilaterally and without allegedly knowing the facts Len Brown acts as judge and jury. http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1 you will need to log in it is free.
this is my presentation Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013
I have wondered why we actually bother electing our Councillors why not just have Wendy Brandon in charge. Today she pulled rank on the mayor andmisled him by alleging that I could not give my address to council because there was an injunction out to prevent me from speaking out.
Funny but I don’t recall an injunction with regards to AWINZ and there is certainly no injunction which stops me from referring to council documents and pointing out the discrepancies between them.
My address to council can be found here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013
As soon as I got the word AWINZ, Brandon jumped up and started talking to the Mayor. I was told that I could not continue because there was an injunction. I pointed out that AWINZ does not exist, it never has existed and there is no and can not be an injunction against something which is not a real.
There appeared to be considerable apathy with regards to corruption , the two ladies who gave an earlier address on the Mt Roskill buildings drew far more questions than serious corruption. Wendy had done her work well.
I later got an email purporting to come from her which said “HAHAHAHAHA Grace. I’ve told EVERYONE you are crazy and they believe me. In fact I’m getting you locked up HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…Tadpoles in small ponds get eaten up by big fish yum yum yum!”
This was the second such email I have received from what purports to be her the earlier one said “Crazy cow. Soon they will come to lock you up…” very professional if this is her . Guess to some people it is a crime to speak up about corruption.
I had sent Wendy the two documents which i later attached to my presentation , I had thought that if she was only half competent as a lawyer she would have seen alarm bells ringing lets look at the Memorandum of understanding and the job application for Neil Wells and I will show you what I mean.
As you will see the MOU is between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) and the Animal Welfare services of Waitakere ( “the linked organisation ” )
1. The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand did not exist in any real or identifiable form apart from being a trading name for Mr Wells alone and later a trust which he set up to cover up but got the dates all wrong.
2. The so called Linked organisation was Animal Welfare services of Waitakere
The agreement was for Animal Welfare services of Waitakere to provide inspectors and resources to AWINZ, this agreement had not been passed through Councillors or the council solicitor.
Neil Wells signs on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand, no mention of a trust or of him being a trustee. The council lawyer never had a trust deed on file, but then aparently he was not in the loop. Wells signed in the name of a fictitious organization a pseudonym for himself.
Lets look at the job application this application was made when Tom Didovich( the signatory sor the so called Linked organisation) had to leave the services of Waitakere.
In his application Wells states “ In animal welfare compliance, by successfully leading a pilot programme with MAF
and Waitakere City Council. This led to the formation in 1999 of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and established an alternative to the SPCA in animal welfare law enforcement, which is able to be extended nationally. The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “
Lets identify the spin This led to the formation in 1999
- In court Wells claimed that the ” oral trust had formed in 1998, but supplied a deed showing that the trust deed was signed in 2000 . I still have difficulty getting my head around the fact that the people who allegedly formed a trust in 2000 made an application for approved status the year before the deed was signed.but then do such time frames matter?……apparently not
- As to the argument of an oral trust the people came together in late 1998 when Wells was paid by Didovich with council funds, to set up a trust this is the concept he came up with: note that one of the trustees was the city itself.
- An email is sent 23/12/98 stating “Waitakere City Animal Welfare is setting the standard and to assist its future progress as an approved organisation it is proposing the Council should create a trust with which it will work in harness. An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. The Council’s final decision on the Trust will be in May”… You wont find any records of this in council minutes its all done without Councillors approval. Bit like the truck that was bought a few weeks ago… makes you wonder who runs the show
- Things change quickly and although we were told in December98 that the trust existed by 19 January 1999 Neil Wells tells MAF that “It has now been agreed that Waitakere will no longer be in the trust.”
- Neil Wells who had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act is also employed as ” independent adviser to the select committee to advise on the animal bill at this time and it appears that at this stage he has not declared his conflict of interest. Why should he he was after all writing and advising onlegislatin fro his business plan .. apparenlty that is quite acceptable here in the least corrupt country see territorial animal welfare authority
- While MAF lawyers were confused by the entire set up the council lawyers appear to have been completely oblivious to what was going on and the elected representatives even more so.
- MAF request a legal opinion on the involvement of Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
- On 14/2/99 or there about Wells writes To MAF stating that AWINZ will be a charitable trust, this indicates to me that AWINZ has not as yet been set up and therefore there is no oral trust.
- MAF ‘s legal adviser returns a negative response and the Maf staff become uncomfortable with the entire venture, in the mean time council has been left out of the loop entirely.
- MAF produces a document involvement of territorial authorities AWwith regards to the involvement of Territorial authority staff in animal welfare which if councillors had seen would have caused them to reject any proposal from wells, hence they were on my opinion left out of the loop.
- Tom Didovich the manager of animal welfare then seeks to have Wells complete the documents for animal welfare there by taking the council lawyer out of the loop and this set teh scene for Didovich to directly contract with Wells.
- When a trust emerged in 2006 , although back dated to 2000 , not one of the persons other than Wells had any involvement with the running of AWINZ, in fact they did not meetand significantly in the minutes of the only recorded meeting since the trust was allegedly set up , he explains to the trustees what an approved organisatin is . Despite the fact that their deed said they would meet 4 x per year they had never had a recorded meeting and allegedly last met two years earlier.
Lets identify the spin The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “
- we need to look back at the MOU it clearly states that the linked organization is Waitakere animal welfare.
- No definition is provided for AWINZ and AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
- therefore this statement is entirely false Wendy do you tolerate lies in job application? Perhaps I am pedantic about this because I do pre employment screening and to me truth in an application is essential, if an employee tells porkies in the application then he/she is not going to b honest with you further down the road
No where in his job application does Neil Wells refer to the MOU that he signed with the previous manager whose job he is now seeking. Wendy is this not a conflict of interest that you expect prospective employees to declare ?
Do you not care either Wendy that section 171 of the animal welfare act which Wells wrote and advised on, allows for the proceeds of prosecution to be returned to approved organizations? Fines are up to $350,000 Wells was using your staff to locate offenders which he then prosecuted himself and banked the proceeds in to a bank account only he had access to.
Wendy does it not concern you that all the correspondence for animal welfare went missing from 2000 – on, do you know what a red flag in fraud is ? or are you there to protect some council employees? I had rather hoped that you would be protecting the rights of the rate payers to open and transparent governance.
Wendy thsi is a perfect example of corruption in council , much can be learned from it, if you ignoe it it only serves to prove that you condone corruption ? If you condone corruption of teh past you will also condone corruption of the future.. as I said coruption is like cancer you can thave just a little bit .. once you have it it spreads.
To the Mayor and Councillors
Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon and full investigation of her conduct.
Please see the email exchange below the regards to my emails to councillors being Diverted.
This is particularly serious in that I have been questioning corruption in council for the past 7 years and my innocent questions to Waitakere city council about the use of the animal facility at the concourse by an organisation called AWINZ. ,( which in reality was a trading name undefined person or persons)
The then manager of dog and stock control ,who got his position without declaring his conflict of interest with regards to AWINZ sued me to silence me. I now have proceedings before the court to overturn the judgement which was obtained by fraud. The lawyers involved in these proceedings and whose actions are subject to the court decision are also one of the big five suppliers of legal services to council .(BROOKFIELDS)
I have been prevented from obtaining speaking rights and then when I complain about the actions of counsel for council I find that she has diverted my emails to her email address only.
I have a truck load of evidence on the corrupt use of council premises and Wendy Brandon is fobbing me off and claiming that I am contempt of court when the evidence I am presenting is in the words of MAF in their Audit report http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf and states
“it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC page 9 all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations”
Rate payers money was being used for a private enterprise and Counsel for council both past and present have covered this up.
I happen to think that this is serious .. what else is being covered up ?
Just this week I gave submissions to the local government electoral committee and asked why we bother with elections when it appears that the council lawyers run the place. We could actually save a lot of money.
If council was run as a business Ms Brandon would be placed on suspension while the investigation into the diversion of emails is investigated especially when these emails are complaints about her action. What else is she concealing from councillors ????
I know for a fact she is also blocking LGOIMA requests, not just mine but those of other people as well .
As a rate payer I like to think that the people we vote into council are the ones who are in control and not the hired help. I also have an expectation that the council which enforces laws on the residents also complies to the law with the same vigour and not by ignoring section 14 of the local government act 2002 by acting in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.
We should be encouraging whistle-blowers on council corruption my story is enough to ensure that any one will remain silent.. the cost has been too high and there are those who would rather discredit me than look at the fact. If you are not sure about me ask ALF , we worked together in the police he is aware of my ethical standing.
It is interesting that what I questioned years ago appears to be exactly what is going on today , council employees stepping out of line and acting as if they own the council.
I would love to address all of you on corruption in council , I am not defaming any one, I am speaking the truth and can present it as pure fact , I have no doubt that what I will reveal will be an eye opener and will enable you to will be able take action to prevent t rate payers money from haemorrhaging from the council coffers.