This morning I had yet another truck load of documents served on me on behalf of Stewart and associates equity law . These documents were the same as last time except that they have now been filed in the court prior to service.
I also received a notice seeking to change the fourth defendant from Equity law to equity law barristers Ltd. there is however no clarification of the first plaintiff Equity trust International and I am uncertain as to whether this is the tax agent or the company which is involved in international trusts which are regularly in the overseas press . for certainty the companies I refer to are
- EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED – 2136248 – NZBN: 9429032722697
(previously known as STAR CHAMBER LIMITED)
- EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL TAX AGENTS LIMITED – 3658153 – NZBN: 9429030881143
I note that you are the director of the former and the share holder is Evgeny Orlov’s wife Lilia Soboleva while the latter is owned and directed by SOBOLEVA
I also received a bankruptcy notice which is rather deficient in many ways and did not have a judgment attached.
The only sealed order which I received was fraudulently obtained see the detail under How to make an extra couple of grand and get the registrar to sign off on it
That debt was addressed through the Set-Off Act 1735 as per my communications with Mr Bogiatto .
Since communicating the set off to him, I have heard no more about this matter and have presumed that the debt was settled especially since the law society have found that Orlov over charged me b some $30,000.
I am rather accustomed to having a payment reminder or demand of some sort sent to me if there was still a sum outstanding. ESPECIALLY given that I believe it has been settled.
section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act makes it clear that you have to uphold the rule of law
It is therefore quite in appropriate for you to issue a bankruptcy demand for a debt that has been settled.
If there was an issue with the set off I woudl have thought that it woudl have been appropriate for some one to have communicated with me since the 25 February when I advised that the debt was settled by that means.
I also asked for a proper set of accounts as the sum which could be claimed was not $5038 . The judge awarded costs on a 1 A basis . work it out yourself the sealed order is a document which Bogiatto caused to be sealed knowing it to be false , ( please refer to my correspondence with him )
I wish to advise you that your practice is being used for fraud by continuing with the bankruptcy claim you are a party to the offence . You are taking this action on behalf of Orlov to cause me financial hardship and waste my time .
the action is an abuse of the process of the court because
- The debt has been settled by way of offset Act
- the sum is fraudulently obtained as it is greater than the court awarded
- No communication has been received to advise that the sum is still considered as outstanding.
- You are seeking to have it paid to EVGENCY ??
- the sealed order has not been attached sealed order
- the sealed order is fraudulent as 1A is 1 day allowance not three as I had pointed out in detail to Bogiatto both before and after the order was sealed. the difference being $2,640.
I again advise you to do due diligence with your directorship of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
It would appear that your wife Alice has taken over the directorship of EUROSTONE HOLDINGS LIMITED , the previous director was Evgeny’s receptionist who was uncomfortable with the three directorships which he had asked her to take on. an it was only when I saw the international connections that she realised she was being used.
Euro stone holdings is shareholder of
Director: Ulpiano Calderon MORENO
The Century Tower, Suite 713, Ave. Ricardo J. Alfaro, Panama City , Panama
Registered office: Suite 104, 184 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace,
Director :Edgardo MEDINA
Apartment 307, Bldg Los Alamos, Via Jose, Agustin Arango, Corregimiento Rio, Abajo , Panama
Director: Ulpiano Calderon MORENO
Calle 17 Plaza Amador, Casa El Vaticanito No.10, Ciudad De Panama , Panama
Director : Edgardo MEDINA
Apt 307, Bldg Los Alamos, Via Jose Agustin Arango, Corregimiento Rio Abajo , Panama
Notice how Moreno has two different addresses .
More info about these
Ulpiano Calderon MORENO
According to open corporates this man had the following directorships in
107 New Zealand
239 United Kingdom
Currently two active companies are registered in New Zealand both of them share the 44 Khyber pass address.
59 New Zealand
All New Zealand companies have been struck off except these two .
I am going through all of the companies registered to L 4, 44 Khyber pass and sharing my findings with the international press as this totally integrates with their work on money laundering . I will of course be sharing this with the authorities. Orlov Knows my investigation skills that is why he is attacking me , the more he attacks the more I discover and publish .
Please remember the rules something about a lawyer needing to remain independent and not using their office for fraud. Also look up section 66 Crimes act .
so in summary I cannot be bankrupted for a sum which is
- not owing
- based on a fraudulently sealed order
- abuse of process
Orlov wants me to get a lawyer so that I can be out of pocket even if the court orders costs in my favour he wont pay it , so I am not playing his game
Look forward to hearing from you very soon , if not then I will put all of this ( and more ) through to the court in the period prescribed .
regards Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014 12:26 p.m.
Subject: complaint with regards to Stewart and associates equity law
I wish to make a complaint with regards to a fictional law firm
Stewart and associates lawyers are an incorporated law firm director Greg Stewart . shareholders are himself and his non lawyer wife
Equity law barristers are another law firm sole director and shareholder is Eugine Orlov who was struck off last year
There is no person known as Stewart and associated equity law it is merely a concoction of an incorporated law firm and a firm belonging to s struck off lawyer .
In June this year Leenoh, Joo Yeon obtained a practicing certificate and is shown as being an employee of Stewart and associated equity law
I have established that this recent graduate is practicing from the premises of Equity law barristers limited at level 4 44 khyber pass Grafton
The letter head she uses has both law firms named on it . I note that on your roll she used the south Island practitioners phone number but she is not located there and by ringing that number you are given the Auckland number to ring which is the number for equity law.
Julia Leenoh has commenced proceedings on behalf of Orlov , I am a former client of his and he was directed to pay me $30,000 , he has appealed this to the LCRO and also chosen to take me to court for defamation for publishing items which relate to overseas directors who are involved in Money laundering and company fraud. He timed this to coincide with a notice of the LCRO advising that the matter will be dealt with soon.
• The directors whom I wrote about in particular Eric Vanagels and Inta bilder who through the company register trace back to New Zealand and directly to the premises of Equity law.
• Orlov has know that these articles have been there for a year since I drew his attention to them at the time .
• I have amended the posts since he has attacked me in this way to include greater detail of his connection .
Leenoh appears to be being used as a proxy for Orlov . The file is appalling and the statement of claim names Greg Stewart as solicitor on record. However I do not believe that he has seen the file at all . The statement of claim was served without being filed in court . It was served with a notice of proceedings which had not been filed in court and a bundle of irrelevant documents .
A few days later she sent a notice of proceedings by mail with the covering letter as above . We have no way of knowing if the documents filed in court are the same as those which were served on us . We have brought this matter to their attention but it is apparently being ignored .
The proceedings are vexatious and intent to force us to incur a cost in hiring a solicitor due to the matter being high court and their objection to the company being represented by a lay litigant / director .
My complaint is about the manner in which Leenoh is being used as a proxy by Orlov and working under the name of a fictional law firm which uses and Auckland address and an Alexandra phone number
Name: Stewart & Associates Equity Law
Postal Address: PO Box 8333
Locate on Google Maps
Tel: 03 440 4011
Fax: 03 440 4012
please find the relevant documents attached and a photo taken last week of the board in the foyer of 44 Khyber pass road .
In the interest of transparency I am keeping the public up to speed on this matter on the transparency Web site
Open letter / OIA to Minister of Justice
This letter has been published on www.Transparency.net.nz and broadcasted via social media
On that site I am also publicly showing the process as it unfolds it has everything to do with people associated with the Russian Mafia and the setting up of trusts for foreigners through companies associates to struck off lawyer Evgeny Orlov. I have started a page called Legal bullying and will show the players and their actions as they unfold. You may also wish to see the associated article Trusts the greatest vehicle for fraud
This is a very public way of providing you with the insight as to how the wheels have dropped off our legal system- there is nothing like an example and I have to thank Evgeny Orlov, Greg Stewart, George Bogiatto and Julia Leeno for providing you with this example
I also refer to a previous open letter to you “What justice system “ and statement you made in this news article where you stated “it’s a court of law not a court of justice”.
I have become aware through being sued in our courts for speaking the truth and for exposing serious corruption that our courts are on a par with our casinos.Except that our casinos have more security issues in place to prevent abuse.
We apparently fare no better than the Wild West it appears to be a free for all in our courts with no ENFORCEABLE systems or processes to give those taken to court any protection .
When truth and evidence are not factors we cannot have justice. The justice sector by not providing prosecutions for perjury is failing the people
It appears to me, that the course of justice has been averted. Those in the middle income group who own their own houses are a very good target. Their houses are now worth going after and what better way than to bring a massive financial burden on to them, costs which no one can possibly budget for.
This means that those with means and those who are lawyers themselves can totally abuse the court system for their own advantage and write the costs off as a tax advantage while forcing the other party to hire a lawyer .
If you do not hire a lawyer and defend yourself you become prey to the dirty legal tricks which deny justice and which is apparently allowed in our Legal system .
Our Justice sector fails in its task to “to make society safer and provide accessible justice services.”
Court has become a tool of oppression , why use a baseball bat to steal some ones wallet when you can use a lawyer and get their house and anything done through a lawyer is apparently legal .
Truth, evidence and integrity have no place in our courts and it appears that you can bring civil claims based on nothing but hogwash . Once the papers are served it is for your opponent to spend funds on lawyers, money which they cannot recover due to the oppressor cleverly hiding all their assets before they start.
I have experienced instances where the civil jurisdiction is being used to pervert the course of justice.
Police simply won’t act if a matter is before the court and without evidence the civil jurisdiction supported by the total lack of rights to the Universal Declaration of Human rights
Some Lawyers appear to use the court to pervert the cause of justice by using the civil jurisdiction to conceal criminal offending.While it is a crime to beat someone up with a baseball bat it appears to be sanctioned if done with a lawyer and legal tactics.
The fact that immense stress and bullying has health repercussions is not even considered a factor and neither must the person being beaten up show any emotion because that is another black mark against them.
I am a former police prosecutor and through my involvement in the Civil court have found that our bill of rights in New Zealand does not afford the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court to those in the civil jurisdiction this is totally out of step with the Universal declaring of Human rights .
I would By way of OIA request further Documentation and discussion papers which examine
1. Why criminal judgements confidential when all civil judgements are published, are both not equally accountable to the public records act.
2. Why convictions in the criminal jurisdiction are not a matter of public record and accessible to all yet civil matters gets full and permanent publicity
3. Criminals have advantage of the clean slate act yet those in the civil jurisdiction are accountable to the decisions for ever , this appears to be a disparity has this been considered and discussed if not why not
4. What the threshold for perjury is and to what degree that drifting from the truth is acceptable before any one is prosecuted, and who prosecutes when the police are under resourced and overburdened?
5. What consideration the minister of justice has given to the use of the civil jurisdiction to pervert the course of justice in the criminal jurisdiction? – To this end, those engaged in crime tend to have more funds than whistle-blowers. Any one coming across a crime has a choice of becoming an accessory by concealing it or speaking up. When they speak up they find themselves under attack from the “would be” criminal and legal tactics rather than truth and evidence are used to financially cripple them. Law is not affordable to the average person and the costs of being taken to court is crippling it is a tool by which the rich and the corrupt can beat up those who are trying to survive. An hour for a lawyer is a weeks wages for the average New Zealander . Law has got out of hand.
6. If the minister of Justice has no way of delivering justice has the minister considered ways to put justice in place or otherwise renaming the ministry.
Our courts need to give protection to the citizens of this country. To allow the courts to be used in appropriately is an abuse of process which I believe the Minister of Justice should seek to prevent.
I look forward to your response.
I am standing as an Independent for Epsom and will make this an election issue.
Update see response from Judith Collins re justice
the web site www.equitytrust.co.nz is owned by Equity law . Equity Law or equity law barristers Limited is an incorporated law firm whose only director and share holder is Evgenie Orlov a struck off lawyer
see full law society judgements at the bottom of this post
I reported on the same email last year when it had not been titivated by graphic artists, I guess the enhancement means that business is doing well see my item here and also what their charges are News Flash EQUITY TRUST solicits new clients
Any one intending to do business with Equity trust needs to read this international fraud connection with Equity Law .
The equity trust web site is owned by equity law see this Whois Search _ .nz Domain Name Commission
Offshore Director(s) – provided from your side – Offshore Shareholder(s) – provided from your side and apparently you dont even need to know them .
One such director was Mr Erik Vanagels this is apparently how it works
Vanagels was a director of many of the companies associated with equity law and Equity trust ( well over 2000) . The offices of Equity law are the address for registration of the companies here in New Zealand .
By way of illustration one such company BERGSTONE LIMITED is shown on the companies register as having its registered office at Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton,
the director is Erik VANAGELS Buzon 1987, Zone 9a, Carrasquilla & Via Espana, Panama City, Panama , ( hang on wasn’t Vanangles latvian ?? ) the address used cant be located on google but I did find this EURIMEX CORP. – Business Located in New York no doubt there will be more but I know this all done by smoke screens and mirrors . Bizapaedia claims ” There are 3 companies that have an address matching Buzon 1987 Zone 9a Carrasquilla & Via Espana Panama City, Panama 00000. The companies are Continenta Corp, Finmarket Corp, and Centroform Inc.”
The above flyer sent out by Equity trust International states that they set up companies in Panama
the shareholder of the company is UNIHOLD LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1150 , New Zealand director since 10 Aug 2011 Manti EFFROSYNI 11 Stavrou Stylianidi Street, Flat 3, Level 2, Nicosia, 2024 , Cyprus , prior to that Humberto Gregorio BARRERA MOJICA ,Ed Villas De Bonanza, Tower D, Apt. 3c, Panama City , Panama and before that Erik VANAGELS
UNIHOLD’S share holder is GENHOLD LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1150 , New Zealand
GENHOLD LIMITED has as its director Fernando Enrique MONTERO DE GRACIA,Calle Primera, Panama Viejo, House 496, Panama City, Republic Of Panama , the share holder is TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023 , New Zealand
Google Eric Vanagles for more details which include links such as
together with Latvian colleagues such as Juri Vitman, Elmar Zallapa and Inta Bilder – preside over a sprawling network of companies with Baltic bank accounts that have extensive dealings with the Ukrainian state, covering everything from arms exports to machinery imports.
Erik Vanagels offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/21975
During the same year, another company from New Zealand, Dominus Limited, also transferred about $6 million to Nomirex. These transactions by three seemingly different companies from New Zealand and Panama all have one thing in common: they all have the same directors and owners – Latvian citizens Sten Gorin and Erik Vanagels, who became known as part of controversies involving weapons sales and the supply of swine flu vaccines to Ukraine.
For more on this kind of activity try these links
It would appear that Orlov is seeking to use the court to beat me into silence. Today ( 14 July ) he had two massive bundles of documents served on me not a sworn statement amongst them and also roping in an associate of mine who is totally not involved .
I see this as harassment this is the statement of claim which has been very badly prepared I have written to Greg Stewart firstname.lastname@example.org as below will keep you posted on the page tab Legal bullying I have identified the lawyers involved and have detailed their involvement. noting like transparency.
- will keep you posted .
From: Grace Haden [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, 14 July 2014 3:17 p.m.
Subject: Proceedings by Orlov and co
Good afternoon Greg
I have been served with two very large bundles of documents and a claim for a ridiculous sum by Eugene Orlov.
Strangely enough these came right after the LCRO advised that they were going to be dealing with the matters between us on the papers.
These proceedings are the first that I have known that your client was unhappy with the posts on the web sites
He has been made aware of the posts in the past and he has been invited to suggest changes .
Could You please indicate what changes your client wishes to have made I have amended the anticorruption pages but presently cant log into Transparency to edit it.
If you get him to produce evidence as to why statements made are incorrect and tell me what needs changing I will gladly do so .
The file is not very comprehensible and also lacks affidavits .
Also a friend has been named she is not associated in any way and I wonder why she has been brought into it
I am aware that your client has known about these posts substantially longer than 5 days ago but despite that am happy to make the changes in accordance with section 25 of the defamation act.
I look forward to your prompt response so that this matter can be put right.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Recent decisons re Orlov
Companies currently registered at 4/44 Khyber pass
4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered NZ Company
The former director was the receptionist at equity law when she became uncomfortable and saw what was going on the directorship was transfered to Leah TOURELEO, B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu the shareholder is TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED owned and directed by Orlov’s wife
ARGOSTAR LIMITED (2038680) Registered NZ Company director Anastasia KOUMIDOU Persefonis 8, Flat 301, Aglandjia, Nicosia, 2102 , Cyprus shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands – I have been unable to verify the existence of Bridgepoint AG but it apparently has a human signature .. whose I wonder ?
BERGSTONE LIMITED (1871327) Registered NZ Company as mentioned above Director Erik VANAGELS
BEXLEY RISK ADVISORS LIMITED (1875420) Registered NZ Company- Director Manti EFFROSYNI shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands – I have been unable to verify the existence of Bridgepoint AG but it apparently has a human signature .. whose I wonder ?
BLACKWILL TRADE LIMITED (3330391) Registered NZ Company director Uatay KABLAN,189 Muratbayeva Street, Apt 18, Almaty , Kazakhstan, shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands a company which cannot be located but has a very real looking signature so it must be real.
BORGCAMP LIMITED (2175747) Registered NZ Company director Manti EFFROSYNI share holder Nordwell as above
CARGOTEX LIMITED (2084625) Registered NZ Company Inta BILDER shareholder Maxhold as above in BENTLEX LIMITED
CARGOTRADE LIMITED (3330373) Registered NZ Company director Petr ZIKA this time with shareholder shareholder Nordwell through Mr Green to the unlocatable BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands
CASS ESTATE LIMITED (2362248) Registered NZ Company Manti EFFROSYNI and the Nordwell progression as above
CLOVER MANAGEMENT LIMITED (2102957) Registered NZ Company Yippy a new name Iosif FRANGOS 57 Spyrou Kyprianou, M Frangos Court 501, 6051 Larnaca, Cyprus who is also the shareholder how unique
More on an attachment coming soon the whole lot will be sent off to the MED for their input.
I am grossly concerned that an alleged company in the Marshall islands can be a shareholder based on an anonymous signature .. more on this later .
I recently did an official information act request to Judith Collins seeking her source of information for being consistently quoted as stating that New Zealand is the least corrupt .
In the response she states that this is the perception index yet far too often she makes the statement as though it is fact and not a mere illusion One such instance is in her address to parliament where she erroneously interprets this to mean ” Corruption free ”
“New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is one of its biggest assets internationally. People who do business and invest in New Zealand know they can trust our laws and our Government to protect their rights and freedoms. New Zealand’s ranking by Forbes as the best country for doing business is in part due to the high trust in our public sector. Well done, New Zealand.”
If the ‘corruption free ” statement was made by a company it would be held accountable under the fair trading act.
National are slapping themselves on the back for the low levels of corruption by actively concealing corruption and preventing people from speaking about it as is evident in this question by MP Grant Robertson 29 May 2014:
I would ask why it is that I am unable to ask a question that is legitimately to the Minister of Justice about the question of corruption and bribery—and I quoted from a Ministry of Justice fact sheet, which describes that as abuse of one’s position of power—and I am not allowed to ask questions about Ministers who bullied somebody—
Ross Robertson will retire for Government this year without seeing his bill Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill [PDF 148k] being passed.
Current chair of GOPAC (Global organisation of parliamentarians agaisnt corruption ) is Andrew Little , he has a hard job a head of him when our minister of justice states that we are corruption free and also states ( at 1.05 )that in New Zealand there is no court of justice . To me this is a contradiction of terms .
My petition for a commission agaisnt corruption was presented this week . I have little doubt that it will be viewed seriously for as long as we do not label or define corruption we wont have any .
I have still to hear form John Key with regards to my request to him, I suspect that this has been filed in his drawer until one day he needs to pull it out in a tit for tat trade off against an opposition minister .
National appears to thrive on corruption and to act in the name of corruption would be to clip their own wings .
I have come to the conclusion that a government which will not let you question corruption must be corrupt . Time for a change me thinks.
Last week I was in Brisbane at a conference and work shop co hosted by Griffith University and transparency International -Using Anti-Corruption to Protect Growth and Development in the G20 and Beyond.
Much of the focus of the work shop was to explore the national integrity system ( NIS ) and how various countries had interpreted the guidelines and come out with their reports.
While it was clear that Transparency International saw corruption as the key element it transpired that TINZ ( Transparency International New Zealand ) had not included this in their assessment .
Suzanne Snively made two presentations at one she pointed out that TINZ is not funded and they have trouble getting members, I guess this is evident when new members sign up and immediately become directors . She made no mention of the Members who were leaving because they were so overwhelmed out being outnumbered by the Government agencies which appear to control TINZ and hence the resulting finding that New Zealand has the least corrupt public sector in the world. see the NIS report here
We all do well if we blow our own trumpet , any way Suzanne’s presentations are
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – A national perspective
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – Adapting the NIS to a ‘developed’ country: environment, business and the Treaty of Waitangi
When referring to the presentation of Finn Heinrich - Where does it come from? How does it work? What is needed for the future? you can see that he refers to two Crucial Ingredients to provide Momentum for Anti-Corruption Reform they are
- Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
- Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
Lets evaluate these criteria against the current New Zealand Climate
Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
Currently we have a spat going on pre election between our two main parties. It is a Tit for tat and we are slinging mud to repel corruption allegations, this is basically our anti corruption system at work, name calling at school play ground level.
The latest spat has occurred after our minister of justice took time out on her ministerial trip to promote milk for a Chinese company of which her husband has been made director, I have reported on the matter in full at this link
The next blow came to National when Maurice Williamson was discovered to have been supporting the citizenship of Donghua Liu against official advice .
Last year the Mayor of Auckland was caught with his pants down and at the time Mr key had this to say “I’ve had plenty of people who’ve rung me up with information about Labour MPs,” he said.
“And I’ve done the same thing to every person that’s rung me. I’ve written it down, put it in my top drawer and kept it to myself. I’m just not interested in engaging in it.”
It is very obvious that the top drawer has now been opened and they have had to dig deep to find the dirt which they can throw back at labour.
The reality is that the Prime ministers act of keeping dirt in his top drawer is in itself a corrupt act as each and every incident reported to him should be passed on for independent investigation at the time the issue arises and not held on to until a blackmail-able opportunity arises
There simply is no integrity in stockpiling dirt on the opposition – this allows corruption to be traded off with corruption , each act should be independently evaluated and the perpetrators charged if evidence is sufficient.
Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
While Whistleblowers are seen as essential any where else in the world (Grzegorz Makowski – Cross-cutting problems in the NIS: corruption of anti-corruption policies; whistleblower protection; human rights protection) TINZ prefers to ignore us. this is like doing a report on the operations of a company and leaving out the shoppers .
There are two sides to any system, the one looking out and the one looking in. the systems my look in place but if they are not user friendly or are designed to be counter productive against corruption then the system has no integrity .
I would have thought that it would be a serious matter for some one to make an application for law enforcement powers using false information, after all people are taken to task for benefit fraud and the like every day , but it appears that the bigger it is the more people that are implicated and the more systems that are shown to be unsafe then more reasons exist to deny what has happened and simply carry on. look no issue .. too hard lets move on .
The key stake holders on the other hand who were engaged with were the members of TINZ, and the funders , these include Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
TINZ appears to be too closely aligned with government so much so that those ministers who are engaging on corrupt practices rely on the NIS to refute any claims e.g.
Not bad since her ministry paid to get the report done .
I have again asked Suzanne Snively if I can join TINZ see my email here email application jun 2014 .. will keep you posted
PRESS RELEASE: Epsom Independent candidate ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden
“I have decided to stand as an ‘Independent’ candidate in my home electorate of Epsom. I am seeking accountability from government and to achieve this I will be campaigning for an Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)”), says ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden. (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/)
“I believe that a by-election in Epsom is essential to keep the public spotlight on the corrupt practices surrounding the resignation of ACT MP John Banks, but also shine it on the reality of the widespread corruption which is becoming more and more evident in New Zealand.
“The harsh reality is that New Zealand’s “least corrupt country in the world “tag line is not reality but a perception and as such ,the perception is a false illusion a façade . The perception index (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/) is frequently misquoted and does not correlate with the fact that we are one of a small handful of countries which have not ratified the United Nations convention against corruption. “(https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html)
“Despite New Zealand claiming to be “the least corrupt “ , I , a former long-serving Police officer, (and Police prosecutor), now a licensed Private Investigator, have found it impossible to get corruption investigated in New Zealand by any of the so called public watch dogs. I have discovered that we do not have corruption because we do not define it and turn a wilful blind eye to it, as occurred in the John Banks case. “
“8 years ago, I questioned serious public corruption, provided facts and evidence to support my allegations, but so far, to no avail.” I have discovered that Corruption does ruin lives – It tore my family apart.”
“Enough is enough. No one else should have to go through what I have had to endure. Lessons need to be learned from the past and solutions found for the future. Cancer cannot be treated without a diagnosis and this is also true with corruption. Ignore corruption and like cancer it will consume us.
“New Zealand desperately needs an Independent Commission Against Corruption, and I am pleased to report that I now have an MP who will present a petition which I initiated, seeking
“That the House legislate to set up an independent Commission against Corruption, tasked with the prevention, education, detection and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.”
I have a well-established background in fighting and exposing corruption in New Zealand, these are documented on the following web sites http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/, http://www.transparency.net.nz/, http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Convict 1. Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
Convict 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:
con•vict verb (used with object)
1.to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial: to convict a prisoner of a felony.
2. to impress with a sense of guilt.
Why it matters
Electoral Act 1993 55 How vacancies created
The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice;
The offence with which Banks was charged is an offence punishable with imprisonment of 2 years .
It is interesting that currently our legislation does not have a definition for convicted but up until 1 July 2013 the crimes act 1961 carried such a definition which was repealed on that date this definition read.
3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment’‘—For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—
(a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
(b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
(c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44 or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
(d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation
The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.
Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced.. Yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this.
The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty.
Since our legislation no longer defines Convicted we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning
There are many examples in legislation which point to the fact that convicted still means guilty e.g.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 section 147
4) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—
• (a) the prosecutor has not offered evidence at trial; or
• (b) in relation to a charge for which the trial procedure is the Judge-alone procedure, the court is satisfied that there is no case to answer; or
• (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.
So how could a jury convict any one if this is something that is only in the realm of a judge and done after being found guilty?
The reality is that this makes sense only if to convict and to find guilty are one and the same thing.
The plot thickens when you read the judgement R v BANKS  Paragraph 6
 The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.
The crimes act definition of convicted still existed at that time as it was not repealed until 1.July 2013
The criteria for section 3 crimes act Print/Download PDF (5.5MB)or see it on it own Crimes Act 1961 S 3 are therefore the criteria which apply to this decision and he question is was he found guilty on indictment.
The answers to that are again in the decision
 The indictment reads as follows…
 I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge
The only possible outcome in that case is that John Archibald banks is convicted
We have brought this to the attention of the court by way of memorandum, this was filed at about 3.15 pm Friday 6 June 2006
memorandum for registrar.
We will keep you posted.
Perhaps the government in the meantime would like to attend to the definition of Convicted.
Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand
This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.
In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.
The charities commission directed my complaint to you .
This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.
I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .
“In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.
Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”
In 2001 the then minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton gave approval for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act 1999.
Section 122 of the act requires that the minister must be satisfied “by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence” that the “organisation “complied with the criteria as set out in sections 122 (1) (a) – (e).
It has transpired that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no legal existence, It had no members, structure or existence beyond that of only one man. There was no Organisation, no body of persons had held a meeting or made a decision to make an application for the coercive law enforcement powers.
I have over the years made a number of OIA requests from the MPI and have conclusively established that.
1. The application for approved status for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was fraudulent
a. Mr Neil Wells made the application on behalf of an alleged trust knowing that no trust existed .
b. The statement with regards to the trust having been formed by way of trust deed was false and known to be false by Mr Wells a statement he was to attempt to retrospectively cover up in 2006.
c. The persons named as the alleged trustees had never formally met together as a trust, signed a trust deed, or discussed the application for approved status under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
d. Section 10 of the application, the institute’s compliance with section 122, sought to mislead and deceive the minister as an organisation which does not exist cannot comply with the criteria.
2. The minister relied on MAF advising him with regards to the trust deed, the reality was that there was no trust deed and no signed deed was ever considered or sighted. This ensured that the ministry staff evaluated the application on a worthless and meaningless document which had not been consented or agreed to by any persons.
3. Mr Neil Edward Wells who had appointed himself as Manager (10.4 of the application) was the former Head of the RNZSPCA, in 1996 he wrote a business plan for his own personal ambition to integrate council’s dog and stock control with Animal welfare which was a central government concern. He called the service Territorial animal welfare service .
4. Mr Wells was well connected with the MPI (MAF at the time) and through this and his party connections (Labour) came to write the No 1 Bill for the new animal welfare legislation this bill was written with his personal business aspirations in mind.
5. Mr Wells served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills but no record has ever been located of any declaration of his conflict of interest.
6. During 2000 Mr Wells and his associate Tom Didovich provided the minister and the ministry with information which appeared to be legitimate, however neither the minister not the ministry verified
a. The legal status or existence of AWINZ
b. The consent and knowledge of Waitakere council in providing funding, staff resources and infrastructure for the venture.
c. The knowledge and consent for the alleged trustees named on the fraudulent application
7. Records show that the policy advisors for the ministry of Agriculture were opposed to the granting of the application despite having previously assisted Mr Wells. MAF officials had voiced their concerns with regards to Mr Wells’s undeclared conflict of interest.
8. Consent was finally given after the application went to the labour caucus after Neil Wells was able to comment on and amend the caucus papers and allegedly briefed his former work colleague, Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the labour party and Mayor of Waitakere City Council.
9. In 2006 as a result of an enquiry from a Waitakere dog control officer I established conclusively that
a. There was no legal person by the name of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand
b. Neither MAF nor Waitakere council who both contracted to AWINZ held a signed trust deed.
c. The law enforcement authority AWINZ was not identifiable.
10. Despite AWINZ not existing the then Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not consider that AWINZ no longer complied with section 122 and did not revoke the approved status, he too was deceived as to the existence of AWINZ due to a group of persons posing as AWINZ and despite lacking evidence claiming to be the law enforcement authority . These persons were Tom Didovich, Neil Wells, Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley. Not one of these persons (other than Wells) had been a party to the application process or consented to it.
11. This deception continued through the next minister’s term off office and David Carter was similarly deceived.
12. In a series Official information act requests I have established that MPI do not know who the legal persons were who represented the law enforcement authority and it would appear from the latest response ,that they did nothing to investigate the consequences of having a fictional law enforcement authority .
I have recently discovered submissions by Mr Wells for the Animal Welfare Amendment Act , curiously he does not mention his involvement with AWINZ at all but in these he points out the seriousness of this situation by pointing out that New Zealand is only one of two countries to have a private law enforcement authority (the other is Australia).
Mr Wells in his submissions states “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.”
He goes on to state “There are (in NZ) three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations. “
And “MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.”
AWINZ was an approved organisation yet it did not exist, no one knew who comprised it, ran it, apart from Mr Wells who was not given law enforcement powers in his own name but obtained it fraudulently in a fictional name and then acted on behalf of that fictional body.
The act, section 122, requires that the Minister must be satisfied – by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence – before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act.
For the decision of several Ministers to have been lawful evidence must exist which shows
1. Who the legal persons were who applied for the law enforcement powers and
2. The legal basis upon which the ministers granted law enforcement powers to a trading name for person or persons unknown and had belief that there was accountability to the public.
If that evidence does not exist then there is another option and that is that successive ministers were deceived.
If this is the case the government has two options
1. To condone fraudulent applications to the crown for law enforcement authority or
2. Instigate a full ministerial enquiry into the matter and hold all those who played a part in the deception accountable to the full force of the law.
The current Minister, Nathan Guy appears to have distanced himself from this matter despite repeated requests for him to conduct a ministerial enquiry into this deception. Every request I write to him is routinely handed over to the MPI. The MPI do not hold the evidence and quite clearly under the act it is for the minister to be in possession of the suitable evidence which satisfies him, it is therefore clear that if there is any evidence as to the legitimacy of the application of AWINZ and the existence of AWINZ then it must be held by the minister.
If the minister does not hold that information then the minister cannot condone a fraudulent act of this magnitude. It is also not a responsible action just to ignore the issue. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse Crimes act 1961)
Fraud is a crime and obtaining law enforcement powers for one of only two approved organisations is serious, it is even more serious when the law was enforced through this fraud and I have evidence that it was.
I did not intend to be a Whistle blower, I simply raised issues which I believed were in the public interest to raise in what was reported to be the world’s least corrupt country. I asked
1. Why did the minister give law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation
2. Why was the manager of a council dog and stock control unit contracting to himself in a fictional name
Those two questions have devastated my life and that of my family, I have had a total cold shoulder from the government for 8 years now. I have been treated like the villain in a tactic which I now recognise as classic Darvo where the roles of villain and victim are reversed.
I have been persecuted thought the courts on defamation claims for which I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, skipped formal proof and went straight to sentencing.
My crime has been to speak the truth and speak up on a matter of serious public corruption, it has been 8 years I have had every bit of spin and every bit of avoidance, it is painfully obvious that no one knows who the law enforcement authority was and there was no accountability to the public.
I should not be the scape goat. If New Zealand wished to strive to be the least corrupt country in the world then it would instigate a full investigation into this matter and see that whistle blowers are compensated as intended by the United Nations convention against corruption.
While New Zealand is still covering up corruption it will never be able to ratify the convention. We cannot continue to pretend that there is no corruption the only way to deal with it is to meet it head on.
I therefore ask for you Mr Key to direct that the minister for MPI conduct a full investigation into this matter together with lawyers versed in criminal law and Trusts.
I am happy to assist I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant and am currently a licenced Private investigator, the matter is already well investigated and researched.
Additionally I request financial assistance to relieve the financial hardship which I am experiencing due to having blown the whistle. I would not be in the position that I find myself in today if the government had acted responsibly and relied on evidence rather than hearsay.
I will soon be attending an international anti-corruption conference and hope that I can report that NZ is taking corruption seriously. I will also send a copy of this to the United Nations for their reference and also publish this on www.transparency.net.nz
I see this as a true test of the ethics of our current government.