I ran into David Cunliffe last week in New Lynn. I had spoken to him about the fictional law enforcement AWINZ a number of times. In the past he has asked me to send details which I have done and all I have achieved is wasting more time.
Last week David had to dash off for an ” urgent conference call” and left me talking to Sue Hagan his office lady who assured me that the AWINZ matter had never got off the ground.. Looks like you are talking through a hole in you head Susan they were a law enforcement authority for 10 years. But with today’s revelations Cunliffe used agent to take donations for campaign it becomes clear all you have been doing is protecting the secret trust which you rely on to circumvent the intention of the law , to reveal the fraud behind AWINZ would expose a number of politicians who rely on these phantom or trisect trusts. They are New Zealands greatest vehicle for fraud and the secret behind the least corrupt status.
Len Brown uses one , Cunliffe use one and AWINZ was one for many years and enforced the law through it. The secret trust. The magic behid the lack of transparency.. blink and you will have missed it it is an illusion a deception.
“But he( Cunliffe) confirmed his campaign was run through an “agent arrangement” rather than taking donations directly. He sought a legal opinion before filing his return and defended the use of trusts.”
“In the event donations are made to a trust, the trustee will have information about donations which a candidate or campaign team won’t have. So [if] there is a trust involved, it will be the donations of the trust to the campaign that are declared, as per the rules. If there is a trust, trustees owe obligations of confidentiality.”
I have referred to the actual report previously in the post The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on
The reason I asked about who the report was written by was because the report did not disclose who EY was and as I pointed out the report on its last page provides the definition for EY as being
EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member
firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.
© 2013 Ernst & Young, New Zealand.
All Rights Reserved.
If you visit the companies register you will note that there are several EY companies
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
Go to the intellectual property office and you will find that the trade mark EY is registered to EYGN Limited which is not even registered in New Zealand but is apparently registered in Nassau in the Bahamas. The general disclaimer with regards to that company can be found here
The person at Auckland Council who dealt with the request could well have assumed who the company was which prepared the and assumed wrong we will follow up requesting evidence .
As a private Investigator myself I find it most disturbing that a report has been issued which has no evidential value at all for the quoted price of $198,751. I have to wonder if that is before or after GST .
The law issue
I requested the legal basis on which this report was commissioned
the response states
The report was commissioned in accordance with s12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b) of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). Additionally, the Chief Executive has broad power
under s42 of the LGA to ensure the effective and efficient management of the
activities of the local authority.
This response totally circumvents the requirements of the code of conduct elected members set out in part 8 and has requirement for an independent panel .
The sections which have been quotes in the response are nothing more than a brush off
12Status and powers
(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—
(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.
and section 42 sets out the general duties of the Chief executive
But when a specific duty is placed on the CEO that takes prescient over any general responsibility in this case the obligations were to the provisions of the code of conduct and an independent panel should have been appointed not an organsiation which had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Mayor .
Item 2 time sheets
In an open transparent and democratic society one would expect a bill for $198,751 to be explained . Private investigators work at $150 per hour this represents over 33 weeks of work , how many people worked on it and WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE .
The report is such that it has no accountability paying 200,000 for which amounts to unsubstantiated opinion is reckless.
Item 3 Engagement agreement dated 26 October 2013
I have to question the terms of any agreement between EY and Council. the previous CEO Doug Mc Kay was a member of the committee for Auckland and met with the members of this elite group behind closed doors without any requirement to report back to council see Download View as HTML
Membership to the committee for Auckland was justified as follows
Membership to this committee is an operational issue and was approved by the Chief
Executive, or his staff, within delegated financial authority. As such, no Governing Body
approval is required, nor is the Chief Executive required to report back to the Governing
Once we drew the attention of the CEOs placement on this committee to the attention of he world Stephen towns name was removed from the membership of the committee for Auckland .
Doug Mc Kay who was concurrently with being CEO of Auckland council a director of another committee for Auckland member BNZ .
It appears to me that a CEO who does not appear to know what conflict of interest is , spent more time instructing his fellow members of the committee for Auckland than properly consulting with the executive body of council who employed him.
We await with baited breath to see the path the new CEO follows, his removal from the membership of the committee for Auckland is a step in the right direction
Yesterday I was able to address the audit and risk committee ( although not uninterrupted)
I produced a power point the PDF of which is attached Nothing trivial
With that of the signage on the council facility and vehicles
I had also wanted to point out that Mr Wells had an intention of taking over the entire complex and had expressed this to the then minister ( AWS animal welfare services )
You will not find any discussion papers on council documents regarding this and I believe that AWINZ is an example of how council business units are being groomed for take over , using council funds to set them up and then go into private hands.
There is nothing to stop this as Councillors appear to be ignorant of corruption and I totally expect that you will do nothing about my presentation yesterday except file it. You will no doubt have moved a motion that my documents are not appended to the minutes and that is why I will publish them myself on my Transparency web site along with this email. Transparency.net.nz Nothing trivial
While residents are asked to mow berms and have traffic tickets enforced on them for genuine mistakes and have historic debts enforced at great cost to the rate payers you appear to do nothing with regards to proven corruption within council.
Mr Singh who appears to be a little out of his depth on this issue in referring me to a Wendy Brandon email with regards to email censoring , could do well to meet with me , that way he might understand that there were five different entities who called themselves AWINZ only one of them was a legal person in its own right. There were also 3 AWINZ trusts , so he has to be particularly careful by saying that there is an injunction when I was not talking about the three people who took me to court but was in fact talking about a deceptively similarly named law enforcement authority which was operated only by Mr Wells your council manager from council premises. Any two year old can see the conflict of interest why are you blind to it ? I have to ask if it is willful blindness or plain ignorance ?
Please advise by way of LGOIMA what resolutions you passed with regards to my submission and what plans you have for investigation
Documents pertaining to this matter are available on the post Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?
Neil Wells at the time was running a law enforcement authority called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand from council premises using the staff and infrastructure to enforce the animal welfare law.. legislation which he had assisted in writing and advised on.
Just prior to the act passing into law Mr Wells made an application to the then minister of agriculture and bio-security for the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) to become a law enforcement authority under the legislation which he had played a pivotal role in.
The not at all minor issue which Mr Wells overlooked in the application was that AWINZ had not formed in any manner or means and because it did not exist as a trust as he claimed and therefore could not become a legal person as Maf had required it and expected it to be.
So in other words Mr Wells pulled the wool over the ministers eyes, and any other lesser mortal would have been charged with the very serious offence of using a document for pecuniary advantage or false statement by promoter ( 10 years ) .
Mr Wells worked with his associate Tom Didovich the then manager of Waitakere city dog and stock control. Didovich gave consents to the minister for Neil wells to use his fictional trust in the then Waitakere city and in North shore city , in so doing cutting out the the very inconvenient requirement to get consent of the Councillors.
Now many of you will be jumping up and down and screaming conflict of interest by now but for our Councillors it doesn’t appear to matter , they are quite happy to consent to rate rises to cover this sort of thing.
Any way Tom Didovich had to leave council because affairs of the heart ( or so I believe ) is something the council sees as a conflict of interest so Mr Wells has to apply for the position to keep the set up of AWINZ going.
With Wells ( a barrister ) at the helm the council premises are re branded.. could it be to to fulfill the intention he stated in the application to the minister under point 7 where he states that in the short term Animal welfare services (AWS ) will continue to be a business unit of Waitakere city council … it will be a linked organisation to AWINZ and its inspectors will interface with AWINZ .. in the medium term the business unit of AWS will be vested in AWINZ . All the assets of the AWS ( the animal refuge , plant and equipment ) will be transferred or leased to AWINZ….
So with this PPP idea in mind Mr Wells set about changing the signage of the council premises so that they were confusingly similar to that of AWINZ .( council are refusing to look at this they ignore it )
In 2006 Neil Wells through Wyn Hoadley (who posed as the chair person of the fictitious trust AWINZ )solicited donations for the Waitakere animal welfare fund there was also a collection box on the counter
the donation form states ” YES, I WILL HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND … here’s my donation” MY CHEQUE (made out to AWINZ) IS ENCLOSED OR PLEASE CHARGE BY CREDIT CARD
The issue is that AWINZ at this point in time did not exist in any legal manner or form and only Mr Wells administered the bank accounts. .
I complained to council with regards to the logo being so close to that of the council buildings and the following year the same donation letter was produced with an amended logo and minus the council logo .
In December 2006 , that is after the first donation drive and before the second , Hoadley, Coutts Wells and Didovich ( yes the same one as before ) formed a trust which became a charity .
This charity is registered as
|The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand||CC11235||Registered||28/09/2007|
Each year the charity is required to file an annual report and in 2009 the Waitakere account was identified as the no 2 account
This year the annual return shows the no 2 account being closed and fed into the general accounts .
I know a lot more about this money and have previous correspondence from council which acknowledges that Council is aware that a third party is dealing with council funds. So on seeing council funds being apparently misappropriated I do a Lgoima request
Today I receive a letter from council lawyer Jazz Singh which refuses the information I have asked for Auckland council Waitakere welfare response
Jazz refers to an email from Wendy Brandon. dated 13 February 2013 and it simply makes no sense that this email from Wendy has any relevance to this request .Brandon email 13 feb 2013
Jazz also quotes refusal by virtue of section 17 ( h) LGOIMA section 17 LGOIMA,
Now my question is why is it important to take residents and rate payers to court for historic unpaid metro water accounts using false documentation and why is it frivolous or vexatious or trivial to raise the issue of corruption , use of council premises for private pecuniary gain and misappropriation of charitable funds which were being held for council?
With regards to the metro water claims. Water care is taking a number of persons to court on Tuesday the 18th to enforce 7 year old debts to Metro water, these debts are not to water care and water care through its solicitors have sworn false affidavits ..
I have the evidence .. but Council just plods on and makes us accountable for things we are not accountable for and they ignore the criminal of fences which are going on around them.
Jazz we would love to have a response from you
No doubt the Councillors they will as usual ignore this .
I refer to my previous post council-employee-benefits-v-mowing-verges
I received a reply from council which appeared to have been put together by one of their many talented spin doctors I have followed this up with another request and am awaiting a reply
In the mean time I noticed a magnificently groomed verge outside Palmers Remuera , on closer inspection this may be the ultimate solution.. too bad about the carbon credits but at least we will know the appearance is as artificial as the ethics and transparency in Auckland council.
Auckland transport at the time said that this move was so that they could standardise services throughout Auckland, if that is the case why do people in Henderson pay $4 for all day parking. should that not be standardised as well ?
Also discovered a business unit for council this week city parks , there is nothing on the website which indicates that it is a council business unit . I did find its annual return to council it went in under confidentiality.
So what is all that about ? the web site is a .co not a govt and the site is registered to the phone number is answered city park services.
|Registrant Contact Name||Enterprise Services|
|Registrant Contact Address1||PO Box 8428|
|Registrant Contact Address2||Symonds Street|
|Registrant Contact City||Auckland|
|Registrant Contact Country||NZ (NEW ZEALAND)|
|Registrant Contact Phone||+64 9 3672400|
How come this section of council cannot be open and transparent and provide the services to mow the verges instead of contracting it out.
open letter to Suzanne Snively this will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz in response to your email to Vince Siemer
Please stop defaming me. I do Not trade under the TI name or under the TINZ name (or a fictitious version) in any way.
Nor does the New Zealand government or any government agency fund me or my personal activities.
Executive Chair, TINZ
Please find here with your linked in page from last year which I saved and is attached . You will note that it states
Transparency International New Zealand Ltd
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand
As a country with low corruption, New Zealand has the potential to be an examplar to others,
demonstrating how this can improve business profitability through lower cost of doing business in
overseas countries, better access, lower cost of capital and for those listed companies, a higher
yeilding share price.
I notice that you have now changed it http://www.linkedin.com/pub/suzanne-snively-onzm/27/92b/56b
and you who defend no corruption in NZ now accuse Vince of defamation .. isn’t that under hand ????
As to the funding You may wish to refer to your own correspondence which shows who your sponsors are. They look suspiciously like Government departments . I have taken the liberty of saving those documents as well .
Unlike transparency international Inc , Transparency New Zealand is totally self-funded and receives no funds from any one
We are totally independent and do not have connections with international banks such as credit Suisse ( previously Jarden & Co) or large audit companies who promote NZ as an investment centre.
I have for years tried to tell you about corruption in New Zealand but you deliberately turn a blind eye/ Deaf ear. The instance I have is that of identity fraud ,Funny then that you should change the identity of the company you claimed to represent ( by the way who or what is New Zealand Army Leadership Board)
I see identity fraud in companies all the time I know how corruption is perpetrated in New Zealand through our slack controls and systems , it must be heaven for money launders.
New Zealand keeps its “ least corrupt” status through your hard work -as an economist you must be aware that an unblemished reputation is vital to business growth so let’s encourage some growth .
As a former Police officer and now Private Investigator I find that honesty is the best policy and I would rather be in a corrupt country knowing it is corrupt than a country which uses smoke screens and mirrors to hide corruption.
I have conclusive evidence of a person writing legislation for his own business plan .. advising on the legislation and then applying for law enforcement powers under a fictitious name .. and getting it due to deceiving the minister.
He then ran this operation from council premises using council resources and infrastructure .
He covered up using a fictional trust which I can prove is fictional but I can’t get the court to comprehend this overwhelming evidence.
This is all apparently condoned in New Zealand its not corrupt therefore there is no corruption .
When Vince questioned the ethics of Stiassny, he promptly had his arse sued off .. can’t have any one questioning our business practices.. what will the world think ?
Suzanne when we have to lose your home , marriage , go to jail and/or substantial sums of money as a result of being a whistle-blower on serious government corruption then NZ cannot claim to be the least corrupt.
The least corrupt country would have procedures in place to investigate such claims and would take notice of the evidence placed before the court. Instead we allow the civil court to be used to pervert the course of justice .
The least corrupt country would not facilitate a business man paying crown law office to drop 22 fraud charges , they would make him face the court and let the judge decide.
Suzanne you can’t keep your head in the sand and plead ignorance , you are deliberately portraying New Zealand to be corruption free by ignoring stories of real corruption which are being ignored by the very government departments who support your organisation and pay your wages for the so called integrity study.
You must know that if you do an honest integrity study your funders will not support you next time round, and you will find yourself like me doing it all for NIX , I can tell you it’s not easy.
Suzanne You claim to be the director of Transparency International New Zealand Ltd when there is no such company , you apparently don’t know the difference between an incorporated society and a limited liability company.
You probably wouldn’t recognise corruption if you fell across it.. it’s not just bribery , it goes deeper than that and if you were truly interested you would sit down and talk to persons such as Vince and myself instead of threatening defamation.. we have both been there done that .. boring.
When you take time to look at actual case studies of corruption in New Zealand and report your finding from both sides then you would be giving a fair picture, but when you totally exclude people from your organisation because they have a corruption story to tell then you are showing bias which in a situation such as your is in my opinion- a corrupt practice.
I have asked to join many times but You have told me that my company name is too close and that is why I can’t join.. for the record I tried to join about three times before I set up the company .. Transparency New Zealand is a limited liability company you are transparency International ( New Zealand ) Inc .. quite different.
Any house wife will tell you that you can sweep dirt under the rug for so long but sooner or later it is will start to smell. In Auckland we can smell it , we can see it and we are just waiting for the government to cover it up and tell us that we were all wrong about our Mayor …. see no corruption.
See no evil speak no evil let’s keep those foreign investments rolling in keep the share prices up . Good for economy.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Many New Zeallanders don’t grasp the concept that there are two types of person , there are the living breathing people ( and I guess those who no longer breath ) who are called natural persons and then there are the “legal persons” which are companies , trusts , societies & organization which have had body corporate status assigned to them through statute.
Only legal and natural people can sue or be sued. In a nut shell Legal & natural people can be identified and held accountable .
There is a trend in NZ to use trading names , it is always a good idea to know and to have it in writing just who is using a particular trading name because you cannot sue the trading name or recover a debt from it or seek accountability for statements made as this has to be done through the legal person who uses that name.
The independent EY report into Len Brown is located at this link , (which reportedly cost $200,000 to produce ) is unsigned and does not disclose any real or natural persons who take responsibility for the accuracy of the document .WE presume that it comes from Ernst & Young Ltd Show Details as this is the only company registered under the Private security and personnel act. but then it does not disclose who the investigator /s were. – wish I had their job I certainly cant charge sums like that .
EY in this document is defined as ( emphasis mine )
“EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.”
It is important for an investigator to be identifiable and if Ernst and young Limited are the investigators why not say so.. or are they ashamed to put their name to the document?
So who was the legal person who compiled the report with no one identifiable and the page of disclaimers the document could easily be totally fictional as there is no way that any one can be held accountable for the accuracy of its content. The investigation could have been completed by one of the many other EY companies who have no licence to investigater.. its all open to speculation and assumption which must reflect on the accuracy of the content.
Based on the content however the council has acted and censured the mayor.. What is the reality what does the report not reveal ?
EY had just finished compiling a report commissioned by the mayor on PPPS Access the report here . If a 19 page document cost $200,000 we can only speculate what the 67 page document was worth , so EY had a vested interest in remaining loyal to the had which pays them.. Len Brown . In all fairness you cannot say that the EY report is ” independent “ as 1. we don’t know who conducted the inquiry and 2. EY companies had a vested interest in preserving a working relationship with the mayor.
Current EY companies in NZ are
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067) Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
so which one did the investigation ?
Can you rely on an entity which hides behind an undefined trading name ? It is great to advise and consult from a point of anonymity .. all care no responsibility .
smoke screens and mirrors watch this space for more on EY. clue TOP SECRET INVITATION LIST WIDENS BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT CHASM
To the trustees of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand – Tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil Wells. And to the party to litigation Hoadley Coutts and Wells
23 December 2013
Ben Atkins of Brookfields has told me to pay the $19,000 cost demand payable to AWINZfor the legal action for obtaining a judgement by fraud into a bank account number National Bank of New Zealand 060 968 0067 4 77 00, this is the bank account used by the charity animal welfare institute of New Zealand, it is not the account for Hoadley wells and Coutts parties to the litigation .
Before I pay this money into the account I wish to inform all those associated with the charity, the person running the account and those party to the legal action ,of the implications of receiving these funds which have been directed to be paid for deceiving the court.
For 8 years there has been much obfuscation about who AWINZ is. I have evidence to prove that the charity the law enforcement authority or the former trust. The charity does not run its own bank accounts Neil Wells does and the trustees are not running the charity in any proper manner. They are not even meeting.
In 2007 there was no trust deed associated with the national bank account I am certain that the banking ombudsmen will help sort that one out.
The account was in the name of a person who does not exist- animal welfare institute of New Zealand . Neil Wells was the only person running the account and the account was not a trading as account.
I will not pay into a bank account of a non-party without some assurances and without the full knowledge and consent of those whose account it is being passed off as being. I will not hand over that sum of money and then find that those who have a judgement against me demand the money again in their personal capacity.
I am therefore looking for a letter in which Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as the defendants agree that the money is paid into a designated account of a non-party being the trust which they are trustees of together with Tom Didovich . ( the charity )
As the account is that used by a registered charity, I request that all of the trustees of the charity AWINZ consent to the money being paid into that account and that they accept full responsibility as trustees for receiving the money which has been obtained through deception on the court and perverting the course of justice.
I note that the lawyers have gone on leave and so will deal with the parties involved direct as the lawyers appear to be totally confused as to who is who. The lawyers in any case were not instructed by the charity but by Hoadley and Wells at a time when no trust existed. I will show there is no continuity to a previously formed trust.
In 2009 Hoadley Wells Didovich and Coutts all signed a document namely a financial return on the charities commission which read
“On 30 July 2008 Judge Rod Joyce QC made an order in the matter A WINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following:
Damages – $57,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
As at 16 December 2009 damages, costs and interest due stood at $117,903
The Trustees have entered a charging order of $100,000 on properties jointly owned by Haden.
Resolved 20 December 2009 “
Now my issue is that I have paid some $200,000 to Neil Wells alone, not in his capacity as trustee and I have paid $16,000 to Wyn Hoadley in her private capacity and according to these “true and correct” accounts you have a charging order over my property.
I would like to know which property you have a charging order over and I would like proof that it has been removed, I also want all references of any debt to the trust removed as I have never had a debt to the charity .
I also dispute that there is any money owing to the charity and I do not wish to put money into the charities account thereby giving reality to their fiction. I will put the money in that account if I get acknowledgment from all the parties as to why I am placing into that account.
The whole thing has been Identity fraud 101 and all those who go along with this are complicit in obtaining a pecuniary advantage through fraud and perverting the course of justice. Facilitating something is enough.. each one of you is a party to this fraud.
I will expect a response from each of you by 4 pm 31 December .
Before you sign your life away I wish you to be aware of the evidence I have which I will use next year ( in private criminal prosecutions if necessary ) that will prove that you do not have a leg to stand on for claiming to be the law enforcement authority or the 2000 trust
In 2006 I was approached by an animal welfare officer employed by Waitakere city council she wanted to know who she was volunteering her council paid time to as she was uncertain as to who AWINZ was. I found that AWINZ did not exist and no one had a trust deed. AWINZ was a law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act,
We registered a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand on 27 April 2006 and through this registration proved that no other legal entity existed by that name. Neil Wells wanted our trust gone and was informed of the process by the registrar of society’s , he chose litigation in the district court and coercive means.
AWINZ operated from Waitakere city council premises using the council staff to run its business and prosecuted those who fell fowl of the animal welfare law.( this money went into the same account which your lawyer now wants me to put nearly $20,000 in to- this account was operated By Neil Wells alone).
The vehicles, signage and buildings at council had been re branded by the Neil Wells to look very much like the Logo which AWINZ the law enforcement authority used. There was talk of the council assets to be transferred to AWINZ as is recorded in the audit report page 4.
Neil Wells had been Manager since 2005 when he took over from Tom Didovich the previous manager who had corresponded with the Minister of primary Industries and had given consents and approvals on behalf of council for matters which council had not been properly consulted on.
As a result MAF and the minister were of the belief that it was the councils desire to take on animal welfare functions in reality it was Mr Wells personal desire one that he had recorded in a business plan.
I asked questions as to AWINZ role and contracts with Waitakere Council and the existence of the law enforcement powers which were obtained after Mr Wells had written the animal welfare bill and consulted on it as independent advisor to the select committee.
In July 2006 Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts commenced legal action, using clever ploys such as false standing and striking out my defence of trust and honest opinion in defamation proceedings they have managed to re write history and confuse facts .
I now don’t know who I am dealing with I believe that there are various parties all called AWINZ and various ones have used the bank account which the lawyer has given me a number for .
The groups are
1. The people who came together paid for by Waitakere council to form a trust with Waitakere council in 1998
2. 1999.The AWINZ which Neil Wells and Tom Didovich told the SPCA existed in 1999, the one that they claimed funds from the community well being fund for or the one which gave a notice of intent and a made an application to the minister
4. The AWINZ which monitored the Lord of the rings and gave the false and title
5. The AWINZ which received law enforcement powers and the Awinz which Wells represented when he signed the MOU Waitakere and MAF
6. The Awinz which met June 2004 which only Mr Wells knows about.
7. The AWINZ which opened the bank account and obtained the IRD number and obtained the $100,000 beauty with compassion.
8. The people who posed as AWINZ as litigants June 2006( no trust deed existed no evidence of being appointed )
9. You . the people who signed a deed 5.12.2006 the trust which became a charity and although you were not connected to the bank account let Neil wells and Christine wells operate the bank account which you were supposedly trustees of.
Not all AWINZ’s are the same they share a common name but there has to be real verifiable evidence to connect them.
In 2012 I took action against Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts for obtaining a judgement by fraud but because their lawyers obfuscation and reputation had more impact on the court than the 700 odd government documents which I had collated , my claim was struck out at a cost of some $35,000 this and the preceding matters won by deceit has resulted in payments of $200,000 which has mainly been collected by Wells himself in his own capacity.
Wells has been hell bent on bankrupting me and liquidating my company we have had three attempts at liquidation and in the courts own words it has been done in a very aggressive manner.. so much for animal welfare .. can’t be nice to humans.
The latest round the invoices were made out to AWINZ, for them to be made out to AWINZ that is the charity then the charity must be itself involved in the perverting the course of justice , and I would very much like to establish if all of you that is the December 2006 trustees consider all the AWINZ entities 1-9 to be you .
First of all you need to grasp that AWINZ is not a body corporate it is nothing more than a name adopted by various people, in this case you and only from 5 december 2006 . The trust therefore provides no protection for you for any act done before that date or for actions outside the scope of the trust deed.
AWINZ cannot sue or be sued only the people who comprise AWINZ can sue and each does so based on legal documents which support their claim of being legitimate trustees.
I cannot see how you can be a continuation of a trust allegedly formed 1.3.2000 as those trustees never met Let’s look at the audit report and associated document in detail to establish some facts which you yourself ( through the lawyers ) have promoted.
The Affidavit of Tom Didovich which sets out the fact that he ( while holding he position of manager Dog and stock control of Waitakere city ) drove to each trustee and obtained their respective signatures , this proves they never got together at the start and could not have ratified the deed.
the 2009 an audit report released by MAF- the audit was conducted on AWINZ the law enforcement authority looking at section 4.1.2
“we found that despite being set up in 2000 AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004 . Since its inception (and at the time of the audit) AWINZ has held 4 Trust
Board meetings – we found that four Trust Board meetings held since 2000,three of.
the meetings minutes were not signed by the chair and the one minute that was signed was for a meeting which did not have a quorum of trustees “
Neil Wells kindly supplied the minutes to the law society they can be located at the following links
The minutes which we don’t have is the June 2004
We know that the 2000 trustees did not meet when they signed the deed( see Didovich ’s affidavit ) , we know that there were only ever 4 meetings the earliest was 2004.
The 2000 trust deed calls for the trustees to be reappointed by 1.3.2000. This trust never met, did not have minutes, passed no resolutions held no assets and by its own terms ceased to exist 1.3.2003
Therefore the meeting in 2004 was by an unknown group of persons or person.
Now let’s look at the Application for approved status 22 November 1999 how could this application have been made by those whose only act was to sign a trust deed 1.3.2000 , it is customary for people to sign such applications to show that they consent to it being made in their names.. This is not for a Sunday school picnic this is for law enforcement powers.
How could your deed 5 December 2006 revoke that deed when it was defunct from 1.3.2003, there was nothing to revoke
In correspondence with the AWINZ lawyer Ben ATKINS it has become clear that your lawyers think that AWINZ became the law enforcement authority as set out in paragraphs 50-52 of their submissions which read
“In paras 57-59, Ms Haden alleges that Mr Wells deceived the Court in “many ways” and in particular, she alleges that Mr Wells misrepresented that an application to the Minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999, was not the final application made. We assume that Ms Haden is referring to Mr Wells’ evidence given in Court when he said that MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until 1 January 2000, when the Animal Welfare Act 1999 was passed. Mr Wells went on to stay that a formal application could not be lodged before that time and that when the Act was passed, a formal application was made, and the trust deed was signed (refer CB p 340, L8-23). Note how your lawyers cleverly still put the application before the signing of the deed , things just don’t happen in that order.
Ms Haden’s claims of perjury in this regard are simply without any foundation. Mr Wells was entirely open with the Court about the formation with the trust and the application to be registered as an approved organisation. He noted that the November 1999 application was made, and this was attached to Mr Wells’ affidavit sworn 10 December 2007 (refer CB p 324, para 31 ). Further, the application was subsequently formalised, after discussions with government officials and further correspondence. In particular, Mr Wells sent a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture on 25 March 2000 to address various issues that had been raised, and to formalise the application (refer CB p 138- 144).
You will note that in the letter dated 25 March 2000 om page 7 Wells stated “Having provided all the additional information requested over the past 3 months we trust you are now in a position to provide approval in our original application of November 1999.”
So how can the persons involved in AWINZ the law enforcement authority become involved without putting their names to the application? The assurances were at all times that AWINZ was a body corporate a legal person in its own right… It never was… This has a major impact on the administration of justice it is creating a false person and by consenting to being part of this you are implicated and for the actions for keeping that illusion alive . The audit report quite categorically states bottom of page 5 AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . Neil Wells deliberately deceived the Minister in his letter 25 March 2000
“A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”
You will note that your deed or the deed of the defunct trust which you claim to have followed on from , does not contain a section 20 a
Your trust and the 2000 trust were never incorporated so it was not your deed that was sent in to the Minister for registration and clearly was not the deed which Mr Wells was referring to. So how could this be YOU !!!!!!
Conclusion: It is therefore a different AWINZ which became the law enforcement authority
In the audit report Wells contradicts his own evidence to the court Neil is quoted as saying on Page 4 “Neil Wells (AWINZ Trustee) explained in his original application for AWINZ to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (dated 22 November 1999) that in 1996 AWS(animal welfare services made a strategic decision that “a not-for-profit body to act as the interface between community and service delivery” be formed. This strategy led to the formation of the animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), whose objective was “to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ the AWINZ trust was established in March 2000.”
Wells also claims that the objectives of AWINZ “was ” to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ You will note that there is no mention of this objective in the trust deed 1.3.2000 which you claim to have as your origins that this objective is expressed.
Neil Wells further stated that the principal purpose of AWINZ was to promote the welfare of.
Animals, and its aims were “to provide a national body to which Inspectors will be properly answerable”. How can that happen through a trust which did not meet at all!!!!!! Look at yourselves you don’t meet you all know that Neil wells is the only person who deals with AWINZ the rest of you are there to cover up .
On that point You did not meet to change the terms of the trust deed which you signed, there are no minutes which show a resolution to change the objectives, there are no meetings after 5 Dec 2006 which resolved that you should become a charity . I will get a full investigation into this you have been most fraudulent. Trustees have legal obligations including the requirement of a meeting to decide to take legal action.
I believe that the only explanation is that the trust 1.3.2000 was not the law enforcement authority and Neil wells was it all by himself and all the rest is a cover up to pervert the course of justice something you have all conspired in.
There are many other points I could raise which have come to light due to the audit report but I won’t go into that now after all it is Christmas.
Those who want to save their necks can do so now. I will hand over the $19,000 + subject to being told by all parties to the proceedings that they consent to it being put into the charities account and acknowledging that the charity is receiving the money and know that it is money obtained by crime in light of this detailed letter.
I will not be responsible for any accrual of interest due to your delay
I will release the money as soon as I have the assurances and also an explanation as to why the charity is claiming the funds as theirs in the annual report when they are not a party to the proceedings and how they came to put the caveat over my property , or if they did not put a caveat over my property why they filed false accounts.
If I don’t hear by 31 december 4 pm I will assume that You will not be responding and won’t be making any demands on me due to the fact that you are collecting the proceeds of a crime.
Since its Christmas. Anyone who does not wish to be prosecuted criminally next year can come clean, I am sure the police can deal with the issue. Having the matter before the court has held it back but all that is finished now . You have cost me well over $300,000, my family and my marriage I am not about to walk away from the crime you have perpetrated, You have won the battle but not the war .
You will be made accountable for your action and the part you played. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Those who facilitate corruption are art of it.
You can’t put your name to something and then say you are not involved.
Copy on transparency.net.nz as usual.
Dear Wyn (with copies to Wells and Coutts)
Bogus trusts are very much the issue in the news with Mr Brown receiving vast sums by way of donation through the invisible “New Auckland council trust”.
The “New Auckland council trust” and the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) appear to have a lot in common – both are unincorporated trusts and both play a public role but do so through the interface of invisibility and fiction so as to conceal the truth.
When you look at the chronology which the court has created based on the uncorroborated evidence of Wells and the strength of your support by pretending to be AWIINZ the law enforcement authority and the 2000 trust.
22 November 1999 “AWINZ” made an application for Approved status ( law enforcement powers equivalent to those held by the RNZSPCA )- an unsigned deed is provided
1.3.2000 the alleged date that the trust which made the above application was formed despite the fact that not one of the trustees signatures appears on the application form trust deed
January 2001 Minister grants approval based on the application made december 1999application
1.3.2003 By the terms of the deed this trust ceased to exist trust deed ( trustees never met held no assets were not reappointed as required )
April 2006 we prove conclusively that AWINZ does not exist
10 May 2006 you come onto the picture and become trustee of the defunct trust through no visible or legal means and under a section which does not show in the trust deed supplied to me by Wells in June 2006 see minutes and at a time when the deed was missing.. surpise surprise
June 2006 Maf supplied with a different copy of the trust deed by Neil Wells.
18 July 2006 despite the fact that you have never traded as AWINZ you take action ( along with Wells and Coutts ) for passing off and breach of fair trade against myself and the legally incorporated trust whose existence proved categorically that AWINZ did not exist. In the Statement of claim you falsely claim to be a trustee of the defunct .2000 trust You also claim to be a law enforcement authority which made an application three months before this trust was formed and through an application which the parties to the 2000 deed were not part of in any legal manner or form.
5 December 2006 a third trust deed claiming to be continuation of the defunct trust, this becomes a charity and uses charitable funds obtained in 2005 by Mr Wells for the litigation .
For 7 ½ years you have kept up the lies in court and you have sought to keep vital information from me. When the information was released to me I took the matter back to court for obtaining a judgment by fraud, the 700 plus government documents however mean nothing as your lawyers reputation is enough to refute everything with nothing more than his unsupported say so. (Old boy’s network strikes again)
I realise now the lengths that lawyers go to to protect these secret trusts. I have discovered that the real secret is that they are a fictional creature which lawyers have created to circumvent the law.
Breathing life into something which did not exist certainly fooled the courts and the only conclusion I can come to is that the courts rely on the integrity of the lawyers and when the lawyers have no integrity people like myself lose out.
In my opinion and based on the evidence which I have Neil Wells, lied to the court and the court was confused as to who or what AWINZ was and because you and Graeme Coutts played a role in this deception I now have to pay you Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts $15,074.25 to reward your lies and deceit .
But as if that is not enough you are being paid personally for funds which are due to the trust which you set up in December 2006 some 5 months after you pretended to be a trustee and commenced legal action against myself and Verisure .In my book this is money laundering .
This 2006 trust is now a charity, it has yet to carry out any charitable deeds but has done plenty of not so charitable things. Despite the objectives of the trust being to promote humane attitudes to animals and people, you have spent the last 7 ½ beating me up in court with lies to conceal the fact that AWINZ the law enforcement authority was a total fiction.
As a lawyer and officer of the court you are now complicit in having used the civil court to pervert the course of justice and having used the charitable funds which Mr Wells obtained from Beauty with compassion in 2005 to fund this deceit. (misappropriation of charitable funds see charity web site )
2014 is going to be a year of change, you will be held accountable for your deceit, it is well documented. But before we come to the accountability phase you need to be paid for the lies you have perpetrated, the decision is binding and I have to fork out yet another sum to liars and cheats if I don’t you will take bankruptcy action despite knowing that I am solvent .
I am aware that the fictional AWINZ has a bank account at the national bank but that account is only administered by Neil Wells in a manner which conceals his identity ,this account was set up after the 2000 trust expired and before the 2006 trust came into existence. But it appears that if something has a similar name it is one and the same. - We now have case law on it.
So with money to be paid I am therefore requesting that you advise me as to how this money should be paid and whom will not pay it to your lawyers, I find them most unethical and I will not give them another cent. I want payment to be made in an open and transparent manner as your lawyers refuse to disclose who is being paid and who has demanded the sums.
As I do not have a personal cheque book I will transfer it into a nominated bank account.
Wyn you are a lawyer, you must be painfully aware of the consequences of obtaining a pecuniary advantage through deceit and that is why I want to know who is getting the money it is after all an ingredient of the charge.
Being a lawyer does not mean you can be ignorant to the law? You contort business practices to such an extent that they are nonsense, the court has been used to pervert the course of justice and I have been ordered to pay so the payment offer is here and will be made as soon as you give me a bank account number.
Wyn I have spelt things out to you often enough and placed you on notice, you cannot pretend to be ignorant when you rip up the very documents which I give to you to prove my allegations . You are in so deep that there is no saving you, you are a corrupt lawyer a willing player in this deceit . I want to put the final nail in so please give me your bank account number and I will pay you the judgement sum in full .
I am serving this document on you, sending it by email and posting it on transparency so that there is a public record of the offer.
If I do not hear from you , Wells or Coutts by 4 pm Monday 23 December 2013 I will presume that you prefer not to receive the money and that you will not be making any demand on me for payment.
All the best for Christmas
Regards Grace Haden
From Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 11:08 a.m.
To: Bruce Thomas (Bruce.Thomas@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Cc: Councillor Christine Fletcher (firstname.lastname@example.org); ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Subject: Complaint with regards to receipt of donations
Good morning Bruce.
I hereby make a request for investigation into the New Auckland Council trust in accordance with section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001
The local electoral act in its interpretation section 103 a states
anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation, means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate who receives the donation—
- (a) does not know the identity of the donor; and
- (b) could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor
The “New Auckland Council trust” is not identifiable , it is not a person in the legal or natural sense , it is like Santa clause. How do we know it exists ? How do we know it is not just a made up name to conceal the identity of the persons behind it .
Without proper identification or proof of existence the new Auckland council trust is just another name for anonymous yet it is being treated as though it is a ( legal ) person
If it is a trust Various possibilities exist , Mr Brown could be the settlor, the trustee and the beneficiary/ how is the trust set up? Is he being honest with us he wasn’t honest with his wife ?
Are the provisions of the deed legal in any sense? or is it just an excuse to hide money ? How would anyone know to make a donation to it, by what means do these people make donations to it ? blank envelopes ??
The New Auckland council trust is not registered under any legislation which would make it a legal person in its own right or gives it legal existence separate from the people who the trading name or act as its trustees .The name needs to be clarified to use the name as though it is a real person is identity fraud.
In many aspects the new Auckland council trust is like Santa and while we sometimes don’t know who “ Santa” is we generally know with a high degree of certainty who is posing as such.
In the case of secret Santa we generally know what group this secret Santa belongs to and we can show our gratefulness to that group .
Therefore what evidence is there that Mr Brown doesn’t know who is represented by the new Auckland council trust and how do we know that he does not feel obliged to them.
As a private Investigator I have done substantial work on a group called the committee for Auckland , a recent LGOIMA request revealed that 63 out of the 72 members of the committee for Auckland hold contracts with council . This group of contractors play a vital role in the running of council and even advise council, their future and their existence depends on a mayor accommodating them, -could they be the new Auckland council trust, the name certainly fits their intent as they were the very people who promoted the super city and pushed for it.
Intuitively I believe that this “ new Auckland Council trust “ could well be a cover name for the committee for Auckland so as to lend its support to Mr Brown and I believe that Mr Brown would know that the money came from them for his continued support .
Mr Brown appears to condone the use of fictional trusts and believe that he point blank dismissed investigation into a similar “ trust” the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )which operated from council premises and used council resources for the personal pecuniary gain of the manager of the dog and stock division because investigation into AWINZ would also bring about questions into the fictional “new Auckland Council trust” both have a lot in common they are both fictional and are a cover for corruption .
There is a requirement for transparency and by using a name of something which cannot be proved to exist Mr Brown has not made an accurate declaration on his return .Fiction has no place in election returns Mr Bron is a lawyer he knows the principles behind the existence of a legal person and as a lawyer he also knows how to circumvent the law.
Section 112 A requires the name of a donor .. something which does not exist cannot donate , neither can it have an address. I further request that an investigation be conducted as to why 112A was not complied with
Unincorporated trusts only exist through their respective trustees and there is therefore a need for the trustees to be identified on the return as the persons who gave the donation and if it is from a trust there is a need to show that this trust deed is legal and intended the recipient to be Mr Brown and not others . (how do we know that the deed has been lawfully executed if the deed exists.. other beneficiaries i.e. mayoral candidates could well have missed out )
I there for request that urgent investigations are undertaken into the New Auckland council trust to establish, its legal existence, the identity of the settlor, the trustees and identify the beneficiaries and have this information disclosed publicly in a transparent manner 103C Donations to be transmitted to candidate- makes it clear that the donations are transmitted through a person.. the new Auckland trust is not a person it is a bunch of words strung together to give the illusion of the existence of a ( legal ) person
I also request that in accordance with section 103F Identity of donor to be disclosed by transmitter, if known is complied with it requires accountability on the transmitter, where the donation is made through a phantom trust or a fictional being there can be no accountability or obligation , one has to question how something which does not exist can transmit a donation.. who is the person who acted and why are they hiding ?
I also request this matter to be passed on to the Police for an investigation into whether or not this trust which I believe is run by the committee for Auckland is being used to influence contracts and governance of Auckland.
Should the trust not be identifiable and the deed not forthcoming I ask that a declaration is made that the money was received anonymously and treated in accordance with section section 103j for transfer into the general account .
I request this investigation in terms of section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 for both the 2010 and 2013 mayoral campaigns
In the interest of transparency I am publishing this request on the transparency NZ blog
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz