RSPCA Activist Or Welfare Organisation – Not Both

This is an article which has been sent on to me by the The SHG – for Rspca problems their face book link is here

The same problem applies to NZ , the SPCA is no longer about abuse it is about giving animals a better life , Hands up ay one who wouldn’t want a better life . The organisation is riddles with animal activists and it is no longer the caring nurturing volunteer organisation which once existed now it is about $$$$$$$

This is from the SHG “In our system of government, we have over generations learnt the lesson of the importance of the separation of powers, we keep the police separate from the courts, the legislature from the bureaucracy. We ensure all range of government inspectors from work safety, health and environment are under the control of the government and not private industry, but for some reason we have let the fox into the hen house when it comes to the RSPCA overseeing an industry they oppose.

In simple terms the RSPCA is seriously conflicted as they continue to expect to play the role of a political activist organisation, lobbying against various forms of commercial animal production – while also acting as the industry police officer. It’s an untenable situation which government needs to address.”

this is the original post

RSPCA Activist Or Welfare Organisation – Not Both

In the October 1, 2020 edition of the Farm Weekly the RSPCA published two articles commenting on live exports and WAFarmers one by their CEO Richard Mussell titled ‘Winding back reforms is short-sighted,’ and the second by their President Lyn Bradshaw “Animal Welfare Views’.

Both articles attempted to portray the RSPCA as the reasoned voice of animal welfare, a trusted agency of experienced, knowledgeable, professional health inspectors who are only interested in the welfare of animals.

And so they largely are, but they are also a professional lobbying outfit that uses donated money to attempt to change government policy and one of those policies is to ban the live export trade. 

In our system of government, we have over generations learnt the lesson of the importance of the separation of powers, we keep the police separate from the courts, the legislature from the bureaucracy.   We ensure all range of government inspectors from work safety, health and environment are under the control of the government and not private industry, but for some reason we have let the fox into the hen house when it comes to the RSPCA overseeing an industry they oppose.

In simple terms the RSPCA is seriously conflicted as they continue to expect to play the role of a political activist organisation, lobbying against various forms of commercial animal production – while also acting as the industry police officer.  It’s an untenable situation which government needs to address.

The RSPCA can’t have it both ways, they can’t act as a political organisation similar to Greenpeace working to shut down commercial activities, all the while being funded by the government to undertake contracted inspection services.  It’s like giving Greenpeace powers to enforce compliance in our commercial fisheries, or the Wilderness Society inspection powers of landholders.  That is not how western democracies operate.  

In this modern world no government would consider handing over statutory powers and responsibilities for animal welfare to an organisation that is run by a board of passionate but also  politically motivated volunteers who have strong views at odds with the government that funds them, a government which claims it supports the live export trade (albeit with ever increasing regulatory restrictions).

Just as no government would today consider giving responsibilities for the inspection and enforcement of standards for children, the aged, the sick, the incarcerated, the fish or the environment to a society of passionate people with no authority other than being badged by the Queen as Royal. 

These responsibilities sit with the Crown – that is the State Government and its public servants not with Her Majesties loyal subjects.  That’s the basis of the separation of powers, we vote in governments to regulate the affairs of the state not sub them out to non-elected and unaccountable groups of people.

So why does the RSPCA have the powers to investigate animal welfare breeches, in short it’s a relic of the past from the days when the churches and welfare organisations looked after the sick and the elderly, ran schools and orphanages free from any state based rules or regulations. 

But those days are long gone, now government retains the sole power to ensure standards and compliance.

WAFarmers has argued that the RSPCA is so conflicted and so underfunded and so out of step with modern governance practices of independent compliance and enforcement that their future role should be reviewed and wound back to focus on offering shelter not policing.

If the RSPCA really cared about animals it would welcome a no holds bared inquiry into its role and responsibilities with a special focus on its future ability to adequately fund and administer best practise animal welfare support across the state.

With a budget of just $8 – $10m a year almost all of which is heavily reliant on donations it knows it is woefully underfunded and worse has been racking up a rolling series of cash deficits, with last years a record $1.8m.

But despite its desperate financial position it has failed to gain the government funding needed to fill the gap, and worse faces serious future funding shortfalls as the economy goes into recession.

A new animal welfare compliance structure is needed. One that can provide a world class service from one end of the state to the other something that the RSPCA is clearly unable to do as its cash crisis has left it with a city centric focus and a clear reluctance to investigate and invest resources into animal welfare issues in some of our more remote communities.

The RSPCA needs to refocus and invest its commendable care efforts into shelters leaving government to undertake all the inspection and compliance work. This in turn will free the RSPCA to focus its limited resources on shelters and allow it to peruse its political campaigns without being at risk of being accused of a conflict of interest.

To be clear WAFarmers has no problem with the RSPCA being a strong advocate for animal welfare and continuing its vital work caring for neglected animals.  It has every right to continue as an active political organisation competing for the communities and politician’s attention alongside of all the other animal rights organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front and Direct Action Everywhere.

What they can’t do is continue to use the governments stamp of approval via its government powers and contracts for fund raising campaigns which in turn support their lobbying campaigns against Live Exports and other commercial farming activities.

If they really cared about animal welfare they would join with WAFarmers and sit down with government and map out a plan to hand back their compliance powers to government in return for a substantial increase in taxpayer funding of the government’s own animal welfare inspectors, and more support for the RSPCAs shelter work. 

All government inspectors be it in health education or animal welfare need to be professional public servants, working free of any perception of conflicts of interests and appropriately paid with appropriate resources to do the job properly.

The RSPCA will need to acknowledge that its long term plan of waiting and hoping for more donations or govt funding is not a viable way forward, neither are its attempts to claim it can manage its conflicts of interests. It’s time to trade their powers for the government to do more.

The organisation also needs to stop running the argument that the powers need to stay with the RSPCA because they could never trust a future Liberal minister to direct the Department to ignore animal welfare issues. 

Such a view is naive in the extreme of the powers of a government minister to direct their department are actually very limited and ignores the common sense approach that past Liberal Ministers of Agriculture like the Hon Ken Baston have taken in supporting the RSPCA via initiating the last independent review into the organisation back in 2015.

But even this review which was very sympathetic to the RSPCA and saw many of its key recommendations adopted has still left the RSPCA struggling for the government funds needed to do the job properly.  Government sources claim that DPIRD would need an additional $10m a year to effectively cover the animal welfare of companion animals.  At the moment the RSPCA gets less than $500,000 to cover the whole state.

Only government has the bank balance and the core powers to do the job properly and while the RSPCA remains in this space it allows government to walk away from the real and growing issues in animal welfare, the vast majority of which are linked not to farm animals but domestic and companion animals.

For too long the State has gotten away with outsourcing animal welfare and for too long have the elites in the RSPCA hung onto the power they have been granted by the state. 

WAFarmers would like to see an open and frank discussion on the merits of government bringing in-house all the compliance powers as part of the current review into the Animal Welfare Act and just as it does with a whole range of other emergency services, out sourcing the helping hand side, such as the running of shelters to non for profits like the RSPCA.

This will leave the RSPCA to continue on with their political campaigns against live exports, dog racing or anything else they want banned, free from any charges of conflicts of interest, and most importantly it will ensure the animals particularly the companion animals that are being abused in the remotest parts of WA are given the same level of protection as those in the inner city.

David Slade – President Livestock Section WAFarmers

Trevor Whittington – CEO WAFarmers

Volkerson a chronology and police complaint

IN late 2019 when I started working with Janine and Barbara I encouraged them to ask questions and got them to file a police complaint.

The 5 dogs which were taken on the 4th August 2017 were not mentioned or acknowledged but extensively used for SPCA donation drives.

There was another raid on the 13th October 2017 and 15 dogs were taken two of which were in whelp.

Plowright interviewed Janine two weeks later, his interview did not raise any questions with regards to the care of the animals but was more about coercing the “voluntary” surrender of these dogs.

When this tactic failed, Plowright produced his first Inspectors Report on 8th December 2017.

His co-inspector Laurie Jane Davis who also acts under the name Lori Davis then served Production Orders on the Vets which Janine and Barbara had used and also one on the New Zealand Kennel Club to obtain the pedigree papers.

This was followed up by the execution of Kevin Richard Plowright’s Search Warrant on the 27th March 2018, the Search Warrant was dated 26th March 2017 a year earlier and therefore not valid.(they have to be issued within a defined period of time which is much shorter than one year)

Significantly the search warrant lacked any evidence that it was issued through any court or by any registrar

The first thing that Plowright did was to disconnect and disable the security camera, the hard drive went and has never been seen again, the claim by Plowright was that there was nothing on it.

The personal computers were cloned and documents which were in the house which recorded the events and notes for their defence were seized as were communications with their lawyer.

On 29th March 2017 Kevin Plowright returns some documents and a puppy.

1st May 2018 there was a TV campaign and photos of the dogs appear on the SPCA Facebook pages, the dogs displayed at their worst, the photos show very scared and very uncomfortable dogs at the SPCA.

At the same time the SPCA does a massive appeal and this all coincides with a Court action to dispose of the dogs.

18th May 2018 a further raid took place, Janine had taken 6 dogs to the middle of the farm for a swim and a run, as they were trained like athletes upon completion they were fed, watered and rested.  She tied them up on 2m chains and soft collars under a canopy of trees, while she returned to clean the kennels.  The Inspectors arrived and drove to the back of the farm and took all six dogs falsely alleging that these dogs had been housed out there for a week.

All this occurred while the Court was dealing with the disposal of the original 15 dogs, two of which have given birth to 10 and 11 puppies each during this time.

It is of note that the 20 puppies were disposed of unlawfully, I will deal with this later, but basically there was no provision in law which allowed for these pups to be subject to a Section 136A application.

Significantly the dogs were disposed of to the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so the question is… who got them? where did they go?

Charges were not filed until 2 November 2018 and Plowright “threw the book” at Janine and Barbara.  The charges are totally unfair and lack detail.

e.g.        1.            The Prosecutor is a fictional organisation.

                2.            While some dogs are named others are identified as 

5 puppies wool shed 
4 adult German shepherds
an adult German shepherd deer
three adult German shepherds in old runs 
young male German Shepherd dog
female adult German Shepherd
three German Shepherd dogs crates
young male German Shepherd dog fence 

All the dogs were microchipped, so how can someone file a defence for a dog which is not identified and not seized and allegedly committed an undisclosed offence in July to October 2017 and had the charges brought a year later.   This is not in line with the Bill of Rights, where they have the right to be fully and fairly informed of the charges.

Significantly the unidentified dogs were not seized so one dog tied to the fence when Plowright arrived was worth seizing ( Monty ) and disposing of through the court but others (e.g. last one on the list )which was in identical condition and circumstances was left . The only difference with these dogs was their blood line .The seized dog had recent imported blood lines .

The ladies made their first appearance in Court on 17 December 2018.   Merry Christmas but that was not the end of it.

24.01.2019 Plowright returned and took Champion Xena, who was having a break from her 7 week old puppies.  He returned on 31. January 2019 and took Champion Hobby, Alex and Emma before returning and taking Champion Fenta on 21.02.2019.

I got Janine to make a Police Complaint about these dogs and they were miraculously returned on the 16th December 2019, a week after the second lot of seized animals were disposed of by the Court based on evidence by Plowright starting that Janine and Barbara were not suitable to have dogs returned to them.

I find it strange the contradiction ironic and I have to wonder why the RNZSPCA has condoned the unlawful action of Plowright in taking dogs without any apparent paperwork.

And I also have to question why there has been no apparent oversight of the prosecution by the SPCA , you would think that an organisation that is overseeing the prosecution would get their own name right. But I guess its been a very worthwhile exercise for fundraising and I fear that this is all the SPCA is interested .

Question for Tracey Phillips

Could you please provide information for Barbara and Janine that will identify the un named dogs and identify what the alleged offence is for each and every charge .

Currently the charges are typical of the one below given that the charges were filed in court some 14 months later with regards to dogs which were not sized how would they know which dogs these were?

what did they do , what didn’t they do so as to have ( in the opinion of the inspector ) not ensured their physical and behavioral care ?

I have gone through the file and found no evidence which would support this charge ( and many others )

Criminal Procedure Act 2011

A charge must contain sufficient particulars to fully and fairly inform the defendant of the substance of the offence that it is alleged that the defendant has committed.

The above charge dos not disclose who the prosecution agency is and if you do not respond then this will be prima facie evidence that the RNZSPCA , its member societies or branches are not involved in the prosecution .

If the prosecution has been taken by The RNZSPCA then I like others reading this post would hope that you act responsibly and provide the evidence required to Barbara and Janine as they need to file a defence Section section 13 animal welfare act

Volkerson Lets start at the very beginning

There appears to be a lot of interest in hanging Barbara and Janine because the jury on social media have already gone off half cocked and made their decision.

I am not involved in the Court process and my only objective is to see transparency, accountability and a fair process. I have not charged for my work nor for my research, which is extensive. I have no confidentiality agreements in place or confidentiality obligations.

I was contacted by Janine in October 2019 not long before a trip to Auckland. While I was in Auckland I visited their farm and their home, it was then that I decided to support them as so much is so wrong.

I became involved with the Animal Welfare legislation when back in 2006 I questioned why one of the two approved organisations the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, did not exist.

We proved conclusively that this ”organisation” had no legal existence despite having been given coercive law enforcement powers under the Animal Welfare Act.

MPI totally covered the corruption up and to date this corruption has been both concealed by the authorities and condoned.

Once you suffer injustice and see how it occurs you see other things so much more clearly, its like magic… the magic is gone when you know the trick behind the slight of hand.

So lets start with the very first visit by the SPCA at Volkerson 

28 July 2017 Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis visited the farm and decided that there were too many dogs there. Barbara was told to build better kennels and was given until 31.12.2017 to do this.

4 August 2017 Plowright and Davis return and Barbara is given 5 minutes to hand over 5 dogs. The dogs had been out on the farm exercising and working and Fiena the Long Coat GSD had been running around in the mud which was plentiful at the time. 

The dogs were taken away without the owners being given an opportunity to wash them. Feinas photo was used on Seven Sharp and even on a news item in October 2020 incorrectly alleging that this dog was seized in October 2018. 

Does a dog need to be well groomed at all times or are they allowed to run free and be shown at their worst because it suits the SPCA?

Feina sized by Plowright under coercion

No charges have ever been filed with regards to these dogs and no paper work was ever completed. The dogs were taken and the signature on the surrender form has been entered by some one not authorized to surrender the dogs.

No mention of seizing the dogs was made on the official documentation.

These dogs were handed over by an 80 year old lady who felt grossly intimidated and who believed that she had no rights. It opened the door to repeated visits.

Question for Tracy Phillips 

Nothing in todays questions relate to any matters before the court we therefore look forward to answers .

  1. do you condone taking animals and not giving the owner the opportunity to know what their rights are with respect to their dogs or even giving them the opportunity to sign the surrender form?

2. Is this action considered legal and or ethical ? 

3. These five dogs are not the subject to any charge but have been used extensively by the SPCA for fundraising and allegations that the dogs were abused , these dogs still belong to Barbara , ownership has not passed so when are they going to be returned?  

4. And what is being done with respect to the forged signature on the surrender form ? 

5. whose signature is it and

6. why was it concealed from the information request ?

Open Letter to Tracy Phillips GENERAL MANAGER SPCA INSPECTORATE

Good afternoon Tracy 

I am writing to you in connection with the prosecution of Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace as reported in the Herald today 

I am a former police prosecuting Sergeant and am a retired Private investigator. I have done a lot of work with the Animal Welfare Act and I was contacted by Janine last year and was asked to look at the prosecution for the Volkerson dogs. 

I did not know Janine or Barbara and my first step was to visit their farm and see what was going on. I never intended to become involved to any great extent but what I have seen with regards to this prosecution has struck me as very very wrong and there is so much that simply does not stack up.

Because of the multitude of issues and the need for accountability and transparency I have decided to ask the questions which the lawyers are not asking. It is easy for people to make the assumption that an organisation like the SPCA would not take a prosecution unless it is serious but I certainly have not seen any evidence of any animal neglect or mistreatment and would not be sticking my neck out if what I had seen had supported the actions of your inspectors.

There is obviously a lot of public interest and I am concerned with the online bullying which has gone on and the manner in which these ladies have been executed before they have even been to court. In fact the manner in which they are being treated is grossly inhumane.

In my day in the police no single person ever dealt with a prosecution, there was always oversight of the file by a more senior person in the police. This file is akin to one person ” throwing the book ” at two ladies for trivialities.

I further concerned that it appears that this file is being prosecuted by a person who has left the employment of the SPCA and that there is no legal organisation which has charge of the file.

The whole thing appears to have been passed to the Crown Solicitor to prosecute. The involvement of the Crown Solicitor in itself is a concerning matter as this is a Private prosecution and is in breach of the  Terms of Office of Crown Solicitor (at point 16). 

The inspector who was involved from day one was Kevin Plowright he left the SPCA on 21 June 2019, so the prosecution file has lacked oversight by the officer in charge since at least that date and probably before that when Plowright was overseas see https://www.spca.nz/news-and-events/news-article/ronas-roar

It occurs to me, that the timing of the events with Volkerson, the publicity and fund raising capacity that this gave for the SPCA and the winning of the  2017 Rona’s Roar prize by Kevin Plowright may well be more than meets the eye. 

Getting back to the identity issue

According to the Bio on the Detector Dogs website, Kevin worked with Neil Wells in Waitakere City Council where Wells operated the “approved organisation” which was AWINZ for some 10 years ( there have only ever been two approved organisations one the RNZSPCA the other was AWINZ ) 

Kevin was warranted as an AWINZ ( Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ) inspector from 2002-2005.

AWINZ was a fictional organisation, it did not exist in any legal manner or form but no one in MAF( Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries ) at the time or since has cared about this. A fictional organisation which had coercive public law enforcement powers has been totally condoned. 

Kevin is a protégé of Wells and would be aware of the significance of using the correct name for an organisation and he has seen that fictional organisations are condoned. 

Kevin Plowright was employed by the Auckland SPCA from 2005 – 2007 and again from 2010 to 2019. The Auckland SPCA is an incorporated society officially known as THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED (222889) this is its constitution 

The Royal New Zealand Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is the approved organisation under section 121 animal welfare act which gives the SPCA its inspectorate powers which by virtue of section 190 is passed on to its member societies

The Auckland SPCA is a member society of the RNZSPCA see the constitution of the RNZSPCA society number 218546 schedule 2

It Is very clear by this that the SPCA Auckland and the RNZSPCA are two distinctly separate organisations to the extent that the constitution of the RNZSPCA defines. 

SPCA Auckland as The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated (registration number 222889). and the “RNZSPCA” and “SPCA” mean the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated and includes its officers, employees and Board Members, unless specified otherwise.

The charges however has been laid as follows: 

“I, Kevin Plowright of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) have good cause to suspect that has committed the offence specified below.”

Question for Tracey Phillips. I will have questions for you from time to time in this open manner and undertake to put your responses up publicly and un changed. Because of the multitude of issues I will tackle them one by one.  Today the question of identity. 

Who or what is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) ?  There is no such organisation and fictional organisations are not capable of taking a prosecution see Section 16 Criminal Procedure Act 

The contact person is the Crown Solictor who appears to be ducking for cover and we have now been told officially through the court one thing one week and an another the following week. 

Tracey it is apparent to me that neither the RNZSPCA nor the SPCA Auckland has oversight of the file and no one has been able to fully and fairly inform Barbara or Janine what the specific allegations are with regards to each alleged offence.

If you looked at the file as closely as I have, you will notice that evidence is rather sadly lacking and given that all the inspectors involved have left the RNZSPCA, we need to identify a person representing the alleged prosecuting body, and for them to take charge and ensure that the file is of prosecution standard and that each charge can be sustained. 

As the most senior inspector we presume that the responsibility must fall on your shoulders.

The papers are reporting this as an RNZSPCA prosecution. However based on the court papers it appears that it is a prosecution by a fictional organisation and as such the charges cannot stand .

It also appears that no one in the SPCA Auckland or the RNZSPCA has had oversight of the prosecution and that Kevin Plowright has prepared the file and handed it on to Luke Radich the relative of Jenny Radich through the Anita Killeen pro bono prosecution scheme .

Please advise urgently .

RESPONSE

From: Tracy Phillips <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:17 am
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Tena koe Grace

As the matter is before the courts I am not in a position to comment.

Kind regards

Tracy

      Tracy Phillips General Manager Inspectorate
SPCA 
New Lynn Office 3047 Great North Road | New Lynn 
PO Box 15349 | New Lynn | Auckland | 0640 | New Zealand P: +64 021 191 59 56 E: tracy.phillips@spca.nz  | W: www.spca.nz   Text me if this is urgent as I do not regularly check my emails during the day         

From: grace@verisure.co.nz <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:35 am
To: ‘Tracy Phillips’ <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Thank you Tracy

but we don’t even know if the prosecution is a legitimate  SPCA prosecution  or even  if  the SPCA is involved

We doubt that the board of the RNZSPCA or  the board of the Auckland SPCA   supported the prosecution   and wish to  have the identity of the prosecuting body   confirmed

I certainly hope that  you do not  condone a prosecution is in the name of a fictional organisation 

Dogs New Zealand :-The tail that is wagging the dog

DOGS NEW ZEALAND the trademark which has taken on life of its own

Dogs New Zealand is the latest fictional organisation to take on life of its own. It is nothing more than a trade mark . Few people realise that a trade mark is like a car, it is vehicle for business. It can be assigned it can be used but it is a thing and has as much capability of sending out letters in its own name and invoicing and fining people as your car does .

All over New Zealand Dog breeders are being duped with the latest list of fines and penalties and being rejected on any appeal , few realise that the name Dogs New Zealand has no physical ability to set up the so called breeders code, and least of all, enforce it .

I decided to look into the back ground and first port of call was the register for incorporated societies .Put in the New Zealand kennel club ( as dogs New Zealand wont bring anything up ) and you will find the list of filed documents

The only constitution which has any legal binding is the latest constitution filed in the registry . You will note that this document dated 2018 makes no reference to Dogs New Zealand or any code of conduct , process for making rules and regulations, process for enforcing them .

By going back through the documents you will find that the original documents were robust and contained all the rules and regulations in the constitution and were passed by the executive council with due process.

In 2014 the rules still contained a large section entitled Discipline and settlement of Disputes at section 35 . The following year it was simply struck from the rules see here and again when the constitution was filed again a week later here

There has been nothing in the constitutions since which provide for any process of making dispute and settlement regulations and it is of note that there appear to be no members of the executive who have authorised the correctness of the filed constitutions ,this has all been done by staff members ie employees.

In my experience I have seen many instances where incorporated societies have been taken over by its staff . It is the executive that makes the rules and they appoint the ceo who then employs the staff to carry out those directions , not the other way round .

So often the executive have no idea which way is up , they are elected by the membership , or in this case the delegates and too often are then pretty much told what to do by staff.

It is unclear as to how DOGS New Zealand came about and its even more puzzling as to how ti took on life of its own .It is a registered trade mark but we do not know by whose authority and when it was resolved by the executive to adopt it , the possibility is that the exectutive have no idea how it evolved either .

Now Dogs NZ appears to be touted as the name of the former Kennel club

What can you do .. each of you belongs to a kennel club which has a delegate on the NZ Kennel club , I believe that you should raise it with your club as a concern that the kennel club is acting unconstitutionally

Ask for a copy of the minutes of AGM’s going back to 2014 to verify that the constitutions were changed with proper authority and consensus , to check when and how the rules which are being enforced on you were passed and what legal authority those rules have

Seek evidence that the clubs were consulted on the changes which relate discipline and penalties and the consultation process which had been undertaken with executives, delegates and members.

Those on the executive council https://www.dogsnz.org.nz/dogsnz/executive-council need to be held to account for the unconstitutional actions of the Trade mark and those using the trade mark as though it is a legal person .

A copy of this post will be sent to all members of the executive council and I ask that you all spread the word to the breeders to seek fairness , transparency and accountability

Plandemic fact or fiction .. you decide

PLANDEMIC Part 1 (Dr Judy Mikovits

https://d.tube/#!/v/veritas11/QmYG5y53VFjjHP2t5ZqkH8xoYSMyHwbA1pSHyX3fFt6gw7

When documentary videos are taken down and reputable people are sent to jail for speaking up then this signals , to me at least that this is a documentary worth watching

It is indead food for thought and any educated person using logic and reasoning will be able to come to their own concluson about what is going on

In my book it is a must watch especially when there is such a massive drive to conceal and bury her work on line and to discredit her to the level of a fruit loop when what she is saying is in my opinion and based on my medical laboratory background, totally plausible .

As a whistleblower myself I know the signs well. I was discredited, I have been to court for speaking the truth and even now there are those who try their damndest to have my posts removed from the internet.

Where is the freedom of expression and the freedom to impart information, if her information was not hitting the nail on the head , why the massive reaction ?

That is why I say see for yourself make up your own mind be informed from all sides.

How lawyers use the court to conceal corruption

We all know that there is no such thing as magic . Magic in my definition is to do something seemingly impossible

We are told that our justice system is robust and that there is fairness in our courts but what few realise is that the civil jurisdiction has far less constraints on it than the criminal jurisdiction .

Section 27 of the bill of rights “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”

But only those charged with offences have “the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court” section 25

For many lawyers court action is war, and as you know all is fair in love and war .

I was once a police prosecutor and believed that they system we had was fair , perhaps that was because I was an honest cop and thought the same of my colleagues, but times change standards change and a wider perspective allows you to see the full picture .

when I found myself in the civil jurisdiction on a claim of defamation and passing off , I discovered that lawyers are simply able to make things up

This is the statement of claim ,I was not allowed to defend it and the corrupt Barrister Neil Wells who was behind this public fraud swore it as true

The statement of claim was allegedly drafted by a woman who was not a lawyer at the time , the charitable dollar was used to prosecute it and it was all signed off by a former crown prosecutor, with a reputable name who had obviously not looked at the allegations and the evidence to support it see details at this link more background

Clues to our legitimacy to hold and have our name is on the front page of the intituling the first plaintiffs

NEIL EDWARD WELLS of Huia, Auckland, Council Officer and
Lecturer, WYN HOADLEY of Castor Bay, Auckland, Barrister and
GRAEME JOHN COUTTS of Avondale, Auckland, Recruitment
Consultant as trustees of the ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF
NEW ZEALAND, AN UNINCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST

the third defendant

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALAND, AN
INCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST having its registered office at , Epsom, Auckland

Only through incorporation does a group of persons become a body corporate , Wells was aware of this he provided the law society with copies of minutes in 2011 these stated it clearly “Registration as Charitable Trust and tax exempt status with IRD..AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. IRD approvals required.

this contrasts with the application he submitted to the minister in 1999 and the letter which he wrote in march 2000 when he gave the minister the assurance that he could not send a copy of the trust deed as it had been sent off for registration .

There was never a trust deed produced that showed all three people as a trust and evidence was later to be found that the trust deed which they did produce was a total fake , the people named on this trust had never met and had never passed a resolution and the trust by its own terms expired in 2003 and since there was no meeting there was no re appointment of trustees

But why should all this stand in the way of obtaining a incorporated name through court action All done by way deceiving the court and attacking my reputation and character .

All this was achieved without evidence, simply as perjurious statement of claim and bull doze a head as if all the crap is true lawyers don’t fact check those with the money can get anything past the post .

The major flaw in our legal system is that Judges believe lawyers .Like any good magic trick it all begins with distraction by planting ideas in your head until our courts start calling for evidence and for a lawyer to fact check the claims then there will be no justice

The court must not be a tool where by the corrupt can obtain what they want and neither should the court be complicit in this , when there are no safe guards and the court can re write history based on the verbal garbage a lawyer presents then there is something very wrong. Its not about winning at all costs its about upholding the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand something that many lawyers over look guess there are no $$$ in that so they help Goliath strip david of his pebbles and slingshot and say justice has been seen to have been done .. or any way lets pretend it has.

Easter, Covid 19, and a reflection on our inept legal system

While we are in lock down and Easter is upon us it is time to reflect on the meaning of Easter .

I for one am moving my summer clothes and replacing them with my winter wardrobe, but our friends in the northern hemisphere are doing the opposite and that is where the true meaning of easter can be found .

Easter is marked by the Friday after first full moon after the winter equinox , the equinox was on the 22 March so easter can fall any time between that date and the full moon .

This year the full moon was on the 7th april making Friday the 10th Good Friday and Sunday 12th Easter Sunday .

So why is Christmas , the birth of Jesus, a fixed date and his resurrection a movable feast . Well it is because it actually has nothing to do with Jesus at all and it is in fact part of the marketing package that sold Christianity to the pagans .

There are fabulous articles for those who do not have minds which are limited by their beliefs and a good starting point is this , and this . The story behind easter eggs is here .

Last year I was in the Norway and visited the first christian church built in 900 ad , I discovered that Christianity was a tool which was used by men in power to keep their power and control over the people . Kings ruled because they had the support of the vatican hence every one in those early years were catholic and were called up on to have large families as this in time would mean more troops or cannon fodder to keep the kings in power.

While the term ” image of god” would have us believe that man was created in the image of god, the reality is that god was created in the image of man and that was to put all the other preexisting gods out of business. But some survived thursday is still Thors day , friday Freyas and wednesday Odin ( wodin).

and so it was that eventually our legal system, originating from roman law is totally founded on christianity.

While our ancestors were deprived of education we have more information at our fingertips than ever before and we do not have to believe what we are told and our sunday sermon in church is not our only source of education.

Except for some cults and cultures, we are no longer being killed or thrown out for having our own beliefs or opinions . and very much whatever you believe in is true .

o that end I simply love this clip George Carlin – Swearing on the bible – YouTube so True and it totally reflects on the fact that swearing on a bible doesn’t mean that the evidence is true but in New Zealand it is almost impossible to have some one prosecuted for perjury .

Our justice system relies on lawyers ” not knowingly deceiving the court ” you may find this address by her honour justice Winkelmann interesting

she states ” There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 23

The biggest problem we have in New Zealand is that lawyers are not held accountable to the lawyers and conveyancers act least of all the “truth” which they encourage the court to believe.

If lawyers can stand before the court and be believed while hard evidence is ignored , then we have an unsound legal system

If lawyers were engineers and had to front up to mother nature instead of judges they would find that their ” constructions would collapse. as Mother nature only accepts integrity and anything without integrity is put to the test in a very physical and real way .

Getting back to the bible The Wise and Foolish Builders Matthew 7:24-27 New International Version (NIV) 2“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Is our legal system built on solid foundation or is it built on the sand ?

I am very much impressed with the accountability that we all have to stopping Covid and hope that the same will be implemented in our legal system to stop corruption which I believe is perpetrated by lawyers who lack integrity and will do anything to win .

Update an associated article worthy of a read https://www.kiwisfirst.com/new-zealands-plan-to-eliminate-covid-19-prompts-habeas-corpus-challenge/

Open letter to Linda O’Reilly Partner Brookfields Lawyers

Auckland lawyer Linda O’Reilly practises in the area of local government and public law. She has extensive experience in local government having worked in management in that field in Auckland and the Waikato, including as Returning Officer in two triennial local government elections. Her experience includes investigating local government and official information issues in the Office of the Ombudsmen, and a period as Regional Solicitor in the Auckland Conservancy Office of the Department of Conservation.
Linda advises a range of private and local government clients on local government, resource management and environmental issues. She is a contributing author to Thomson Reuters Local Government Law in New Zealand and a regular columnist in NZ Local Government magazine.
Industry memberships
Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand

Good afternoon Linda

Was a bit shocked to see your response to my open letter which advised David Neutze to take harassment action against me . In my experience lawyers who work unethically and recklessly cover their tracks with defamation action and harassment action . Those who make genuine mistakes seek to put things right, the obligation is after all to the rule of law .

I consider that suggesting harassment action is totally disgusting, especially by a mediator and a person involved in local government and the ombudsman’s office. what you are suggesting is secrecy , limiting the freedom of speech and there by making the whole issue as transparent as old sump oil .

Currently we have a call for whistleblowers to dob in any one breaking the rules for the outbreak. I wonder if any one contemplating this action realises that lawyers will then make their lives a total misery from there on in by suing them for the next 14 years .

I am whistleblower. I found that Neil Wells Barrister was operating an approved organisation ( private law enforcement Body ) from the premises of Waitakere city council . He was using the council staff ( dog control ) to obtain income for himself and had rebranded the council dog control premises to look like the fictional organisation in whose name he was carrying this out.

To grasp the significance of this you may wish to read the decision of the Ontario supreme court , this is with regards to a legitimate legal person the ontario SPCA. As a direct result of this decision the Ontario SPCA gave up its law enforcement powers.

AWINZ took it one step further, it was formed through fraud and had no legal existence at all other than it being a trading name for Neil Wells who had obtained the powers by writing and advising on the legislation than making a fraudulent application

I now understand why my complaints to the ombudsman’s office have not had traction and it appears that there have been a lot of people beavering away in the back ground ” covering arse ” for their fellow lawyers.

I was first sued for harassment when I did an investigation for a lawyer when he was not paid by a client, the company was on sold to a fictional director who then employed a fictional liquidator . see story here and news items here Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.

Peter Spring Lawyer for Terry Hay took me to court for harassment because I had been at the business address looking for the fictional Sanjay Patel , this did not suit Lynne PRYOR who had assisted Hay in the fraud .

Next was Evgeny Orlov who I had worked with when my marriage fell apart due to Brookfields unethical prosecution tactics . read the items here International fraud connection with Equity law and naked capitalism the story was  entitledNew Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia and The curious case of Equity Law and Equity Trust International

Effectively I had stumbled on what was to be exposed as the Panama papers .

Harassment is a tool used by people who have something to hide . and it appears that Lawyers are believed in court and are not held accountable to the rule of law , their own society nurtures and protects them and is he disciplinary body.. this is a massive conflict of itnerst.

Then people like you have fingers in many pies , and I find that my complaints to the ombudsman’s office are ignored and there must be a fabulous network of in house lawyers working for government departments ensuring that information is with held long enough to put those who you fear at a distinct disadvantage while you beat the up using the court system.

How can you possibly defend the use of council premises for private pecuniary gain . what part of the AWINZ matter don’t you understand.

1.do you turn a blind eye to fictional organisations administering the law ,

2. condone people writing legislation for their own business plan

3. fraudulent applications to the crown

4. using intimidation to attempt to conceal fraud

5. when this fails using he court to pervert the cause of justice by having some ones defence of truth and honest opinion struck out and using a tame judges 92 page decision to re write history , while ensuring that vital evidence is withheld until vital time lines have passed.

Linda You have exposed your self , you may have had one sherry too many when you hit the send on the email and copied me in but it shows how the corrupt network of lawyers works and shows how you are all connected

a law degree does not make any one honest but lack of accountability to the rule of law opens the door to corruption in our legal secor, and in my opinion it is rotten to the core when lawyers have to resort to harassment action and defamation to conceal their dirty dealings .

David Neutze do you have integrity ? or are you a corrupt lawyer ?

This is an open letter to David Neutze, Partner of Brookfields Lawyers seeking him to admit his lack of due diligence and help put right the injustice which resulted. The question is has he been wilfully blind to these events or was he guided by a lawyer who was mentally ill

Education
Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, University of Auckland
Areas of expertise
Insurance, Construction and Engineering Litigation, Health & Safety and Dispute Resolution

Hello David I doubt that you are aware that you had a devastating effect on my life when you allowed your name to be used for legal action without checking the facts .

I thought I would turn to you as a member of the Arbitrators & Mediators Institute of New Zealand as indicated by your profile on your law firms page but it appears that you are not shown on their membership .

Even so I have decided to seek some answers from you which with the passage of time have indicated ( to me at least) more than a minor amount of negligence on your part.

You may be wondering why I have popped up again after all these years, well the answer is simple there are former members of your law firm who are still giving me grief 14 years after the event , I am normally quite a patient person but enough is enough and I am asking all those involved to be accountable for their apparent lack of due diligence.

As a lawyer and former crown prosecutor you will understand your obligations to section 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers act specifically

4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers : Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

I will be relying on various documents which can be summarised as follows 1. your response to the law society 2. your letter to the trustees of the trust which was legally incorporated 3.the statement of claim bearing your name

I certainly hope that you agree that the rule of law exists for the protection of every one and that lawyers who discover that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by less honest lawyers and or mentally challenged lawyers have a duty to the the law to ensure that any miscarriage of justice is corrected .

I here by give you the opportunity to show your integrity by getting you to look at the following issues

In your response to the law society dated 12 April 2011, it appears that everything was done in consultation with you to such an extent that you were happy to put your name and signature to the proceedings you stated that “The statement of claim was prepared in consultation with me as the senior litigation partner of the firm and I was satisfied with its contents.”

Most of your response relied on input of Nick Wright who had prosecuted the matter a resource management lawyer who was a committed patient in 2009 and left the firm taking the files with him and then returning the files to you to finish off the job with bankruptcy proceedings when he ceased being a lawyer

You relied on the court decision to prove the allegations in the statement of claim despite the fact that there was never any evidence in support of the claim and the strategy saw my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out . The only evidence given was that Neil Wells who has since been proved to be this corrupt barrister , swore the statement of claim as True, this is perjury in my book .

After you responded to the law society Wells wrote another letter to law society which set out the alleged background of the so called trust .

Despite the fact that we should not speak ill of the dead, I can only bluntly put it this way that Neil Wells was untrustworthy in addition to him ripping off his life time friend and charging her to find the money he had embezzled I will also show where he has been less than honest with you and the law society.

In 2001 the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  was given coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act   section 122 . The legislation was drafted and advised on By Neil Wells who had his own business plan for setting up in competition to the RNZSPCA .  The RNZSPCA is an incorporated society  but AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form

Wells posed as a trustee of a fictional trust when he made the application on 22 November 1999 and attached an unexecuted deed . He reassured the minister in March 2000 and said

full letter at this link

Neither MAF nor the minister ever saw a trust deed  and none was on file before June 2006 when this copy was sent to me by Wells if you down load a copy and click on the properties you will note that the document was created by Neil Wells on 27 june 2006 a day after the threatening letter which you sent to us .. proving conclusively that you had never seen a trust deed before you signed the letter to the trustees of the legitimately registered trust

In the letter dated 26 June 2006 you state “We act for Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand…. ” how could you act for the animal welfare institute of new zealand it was not a legal person in its own right and the only legal entity by that name was the one which I was a trustee of , incorporated on 27 April 2006 . the whole purpose of the exercise was to force us to give up our incorporated name so that a massive public fraud could be concealed.

Proof that ” your client ” AWINZ did not exist as a legal person can be found in the minutes of 10 May 2006 when Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graeme coutts met at the very first meeting of the alleged trust , not surprisingly the trust deed was missing and the minutes state ” AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. “ Its also strange that people who have allegedly been operating an approved organisation need to be told what one is six years after allegedly taking on the public responsibility .

As a commercial Litigant I hope that I don’t have to explain to you what the effect of incorporation is , however if you are in any doubt please refer to section 13 of the charitable trust act

This also means that Wells Lied to the minister in the letter at this link , he also knew what his options were he had been told by the registrar of incorporated trusts

http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ministry-of-economic-developments.pdf 21 june 2006

MAF was also aware that AWINZ had not been incorporated , this is because we drew attention to this with our successful registration proving that the approved organisation was nothing more than a fiction with real public powers . this is recorded in the audit report which Wells fought hard to conceal from me

The audit report records that ” AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected” and

The trust deed , which was missing in March 2000 , was also missing in May 2006 the deed then reappears by magic and Maf are supplied with a different version to the one which I was supplied with . the MAF version has been tampered with to correct the errors made in haste.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is trust-documentation.jpg

Obvious errors are that section 20(a) does not exist in either copy of he deed ,Wells incorporated two other trusts in 1999 the ark angel trust and the national animal welfare trust and knew that you did not send originals , if there were two originals as later claimed by Wright, why not send another copy ?

and another big one was that the deed by its own terms expired three years after being signed, we know there were no meetings and so the following clause could not have been invoked

The deed by its own terms expired 1.3.2003

David you are more experienced than I am at this but what would you say to two conflicting original deeds one with signatures missing, a trust which had never met never passed a resolution and had never held assets . is this not a sham trust .. so why do me for defamation and destroy my life for making that statement ?

The statement of claim was in the name of Wells Hoadley and Coutts. If they came together without any formal deed documentation on 10 may 2006, with no evidence of any legal appointment of Hoadley( as required by section 4 charitable trust act ) and acknowledging that they were not incorporated .. how could they possibly allege that we, a legal entity with the name animal welfare institute of new zealand were passing ourselves off as three people who had not functioned at anything and had formed after us with no other intention but to use charitable funds to pursue us through court to fice us to give up the name

David a 5 year old will tell you that none of this makes sense . You went on to take an active roll in attempting to bankrupt me forcing me to sell the family home, guess that was not significant as you had destroyed my family and marriage any way with the serious miscarriage of justice which could have been prevented if you had done some simple due diligence.

So what are you going to do about it , it has not gone away for me there are still members of your staff pursuing me seeking to silence me because their conscience cannot cope with it ..

To me this very much fits into conspiring to defeat justice , but since your name is all over this I thought I would give you an opportunity to help resolve it .

Its been 14 years David this is over the top, if you were negligent in trusting those you perhaps should not have trusted then it could be a vry good time for you to say lets sort it and put it right, just like you did when you found out that my company had been put into liquidation on a false affidavit . Please help put the wrongs right I know that a man of integrity would do that . I am sick of being under attack being a whistleblower should not come at the price I have paid

I am sending this to your email and posting it to the members of brookfields for transparency reasons , I am sure you have nothing to hide and will realise the error that you have made .