Our view is yes to both depending on who you are
Please click on the link above or here to make a submission prior to Monday 1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others
Submission of Grace Haden
I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator. I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.
Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.
Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but the years erode your strength and you are repeatedly portrayed as a sinister being when in reality you are the opposite.
I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those who drown we have bucket loads of research and we actively strive to reduce the road toll and enforce all sorts of measure and throw tons of money at prevention.
The annual road toll and he drownings are far smaller than the annual suicide rate. And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings will be suicides .
On the one hand our society is reckless with regards to suicide and encourages those who are healthy but stressed commit suicide because of the apparent lack of justice while those who have no hope of ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied this right due to lack of physical capacity.
In our current civil litigation system there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing and is aimed to ensure their entire life collapse around their ears and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will eventually feel that they are just a very bad person .. these are mind games
For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical methods which seek to bully and undermine good people involved in the judicial system part of this is giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be sinister and when the court supports the opposition few will believe that this person is a victim of a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of evidence.
If we were to interview the relatives and friends of a suicide victim I believe that a disproportionate number of incidents would show some kind of legal issue in the background.
Our primitive justice system does not consider emotions and the civil jurisdiction does not have to comply with the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.
On the other hand those who live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life but have the mental capacity to know that future life is futile and will not improve must sit and wait till nature takes over.
If you have a pet and allow it to continue to live in those circumstances you would be prosecuted under the animal welfare act
If you have a pet and bully and torment it so that it shys away from others and finds itself unworthy you could also face prosecution but these tactics are totally acceptable if the victim is a human.
The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us
Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those facing litigation should not be pushed into it
We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the reducing drownings and road toll and if the government will not fund lifesaving medication for those suffering illness or if no remedy is available they should not be forced to die a slow agonising death
Amazingly such an approach will actually reduce our suicide rate by keeping healthy people alive and allowing those terminally ill the right to die .
I wish to be heard on my submissions
The herald reported in an article headlined
Stonewalling and strange deals: Has NZ become more corrupt? that New Zealand’s public sector is the most corrupt it has been in almost 20 years
On the other hand we believe that the public sector is very corrupt but we are now getting more exposure on that which has previously been carefully concealed.
Transparency Intentional New Zealand published a Media Release Document in which Susan Snively states
“Our government must act immediately to reestablish New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector”. says Transparency International New Zealand Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its corruption free reputation.”
Snively’s comment proves the short sighted focus of Transparency International New Zealand inc of keeping the corruption free appearance alive.
We can only hope that Transparency International NZ is encouraging our government to take a hard line and enforce the law against those who are corrupt rather than pretend it is not happening.
We support Transparency internationals statement that ” Not one single country anywhere in the world is corruption free ” so why does Susan Snively wish to give New Zealand the apparition of being corruption free? As an economist she apparently sees this as a good move for the economy. We see her efforts as encouraging the concealment of corruption there by making the country a very dangerous place to trade in .
There are two ways to improve the corruption perception index
- convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who are whistle blowers or show any hint of exposing corruption .
- prosecute those who engage in corrupt practices so as to discourage others.
From and economist point of view it is much cheaper to conceal corruption and in New Zealand transparency International NZ incorporated in our opinion appears to play a vital role in the concealment of corruption as its members include the very Public sector agencies whose performance is being rated.
We encourage the truth and transparency when it comes to corruption but Transparency International NZ ‘s Susan Snively appears to have a severe conflict of interst see www.kiwisfirst.com
It is well worth watching this U tube clip from fair go this was filmed in 2013 things are probably worse now
On 1 December 2015 the NZ Government ratified the UN Convention against corruption
We have written to you and your minister in the past and published several articles with regards to the Muse on Allen and the so called Owner Samuel North who according to the latest accounts we have does not hold any equity in the company yet claims to be the 100% share holder.
We have identified the fact that Josef’s shares were transferred to Samuel North without consent and without any corresponding change in equity . It has also been acknowledged in court that the required documentation was not completed. For good measure the shares of the majority share holder were taken in two steps and then even after it was alleged in court that this was done in error Jozsef was sued as a 62.4% share holder when he is denied all share holder rights.
We compiled a list of offences which have occurred, there were about 30 of these Offences but the registrar of companies appears to condone these offences by failing to act.
We wish to draw your attention to article 22 of the United nations convention against corruption a treaty to which we are now a full signatory
Embezzlement of property in the private sector
Each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally in the course of economic, financial or commercial activities, embezzlement by a person who directs or works, in any capacity, in a private sector entity of any property, private funds or securities or any other thing of value entrusted to him or her by virtue of his or her position.
Malcolm North in an email stated “we are not going to get locked up for stealing shares”
There can be no doubt about the embezzlement of shares by Samuel North and since share transfer is done under the supervision of the directors both Samuel’s parents Debbie North and Malcolm North appear to be complicit . They and Samuel admitted to having reduced Josef’s shares in Error and now it appears that asking for errors to be corrected by their lawyer is more of an offence than the actual act of misappropriation.
The second least ( perceived ) corrupt country appears to be out of wack with reality .
Now that we have signed the convention will the registrar of companies please act to correct this criminal actand prevent the asset stripping of the equity which Jozsef has invested into the company and from which Samuel North has profited.
In the mean time Samuel North has become the only director with Janine Corke resigning on 23 November and Malcolm North resigning 6 December
Samuel north has now set up a new company Catering limited on 3 December ,this was right after we had Trade me take down the posting for the sale of the chattels. see the trade me ad here Chattels, lease, fitout for sale _ Trade Me
this is what Samuel wrote in reply
Samuel North <email@example.com
I have been passed on your questions about the premises.
So the business is not for sale, it has been very successful and I am relocating it to a bigger venue.
The lease has around 5 years remaining with a further 6 years right of renewal ( I have asked the landlord for a copy and should have it within the next couple of days)
I recently fitted out the restaurant (not kitchen) so all chattels in the front are all brand new, kitchen equipment has been well maintained and ranges from 3 years to 6 years old.
Attached is a chattels list
We turned over 800k the last financial year, the street is very busy during the night, we operate Tuesday to Saturday – Friday and Saturday are our busiest.
Muse on Allen is a fine dining restaurant with a bar, our average spend is $90 however you may want to make it more accessible as the street is busy but not everyone spends $90 on a dinner these days.
Please let me know if you have any more questions or you would like to view the premises, it is price to sell and I’m open to offer as I’m moving in January.
so what is the bet will he liquidate Muse on Allen ? when changes occur something is up . Muse on Allen has been in liquidation court already this year .
We further draw your attention to the provisions of the convention in
Article 52. Prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime.
The chattels are being disposed of there is an attempt to pervert the course of justice and there can be no doubt that many crimes including misappropriation of assets have occurred crime has been committed but our authorities will not act. there appears to be a ping pong game between police and Registrar in the mean time Jozsef has paid out $50,000 to lawyers and needs to find $10,000 more . If he drops out of the court action his lawyers advised him to commence before bleeding him dry then he will be cleaned out with costs and as victors the offenders will walk free.
We request that the registrar of companies urgently intervenes as required by our new obligations to the convention and ensure that the crimes which have been identified are not left unprosecuted and the assets secured.
This letter is an open letter as this is now a matter which is not just in the national interest but in the international interest. New Zealand wither condones corruption or it does not. If it does not condone corruption then the government officers cannot sit on the side line when we have signed up to this important treaty
At Last NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption but is this an empty gesture or will corruption be dealt with seriously and not just concealed like it has been in the past ? Time will tell .
We fear that it will be business as usual in the Axminster system operated in NZ where corruption is habitually swept under the carpet.
News of the ratification received virtually no publicity at all instead we had a video and an article of a South Auckland man finding a live caterpillar in supermarket salad bag. Those of us who have grown up with fresh vegetables know that this a possibility if you don’t like bugs in your food go for GE .
So what are we going to do now that the necessary law changes have been made are we going to ignore them and continue to allow the courts to silence those who have asked lawyers to act according to law ? ( more on that later ) .
We are still asking questions with regards to the former crown law lawyer who is now acting in a situation of conflict of interest by turning a blind eye to the corruption of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a fictional organisation which was given wide law enforcement powers because no one checked.
And transparent International New Zealand what are you going to do? provide more statistics to show how well we do while ignoring the elephant in the room ? we must keep the perception alive imagine if people were to embrace reality ? Disaster !
More to come in the mean time here are some links so that you can investigate what the ratification of the UN convention against corruption should mean .
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a multilateral convention negotiated by members of the United Nations. It is the first global legally binding international anti–corruptioninstrument.
read about the convention here
Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption English
STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
|New Zealand 8||10 Dec 2003||1 Dec 2015|
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (from this link)
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (external link) requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.
New Zealand signed the convention in 2003. It creates:
- arrangements to strengthen international co-operation
- arrangements to prevent the transfer of funds obtained through corruption
- ways of monitoring a country’s compliance with the convention.
The convention requires countries to criminalise corrupt behaviour such as:
- bribery and embezzlement of public funds
- trading in influence
- concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption.
When dealing with the proceeds of corruption, a country must be able to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate those proceeds.
New Zealand is compliant with most of the convention’s provisions. The Ministry of Justice is working on the final necessary steps to bring New Zealand into full compliance.
|United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications:|
Today Monteck Carter chartered accountants sent out a news letter on Shareholders agreements
“A Shareholders’ Agreement is a contract between the shareholders of a company. Without one, you risk a dispute at some point down the track when each shareholder has a different idea of who can do what, when they can do it, how it is done, and what was agreed at the outset. Like a pre-nuptial…
The entire fiasco with Muse on Allen Restaurant and Bar is a great example as to why share holder agreements are essential and why the company should have a Lawyer who acts for and on behalf of the company ensuring that all parties have the protection which the law affords them.
Two Chefs agreed to purchase an existing business , One a relatively new immigrant to New Zealand had the finances to set up a company, the other had an ambition too large for his pockets which was to be the youngest chef to be the owner of a restaurant.
The young chefs owner worked with their family lawyer to transact matters in the company and then they drew up their own document which has no real basis in law but despite this and lack of compliance with the document have staunchly held to this grossly defective and deceptive document.
What was signed between the so called partners of Muse on Allen was called a partnering agreement as opposed to a Share holders agreement There was no interdependent legal advice nor was an opportunity provided for such advice. As a result the majority share holder had all his investment taken from him and transferred to the young chef Samuel North , contrary to the provisions of the companies act so that the most cash strapped member of this so called agreement could claim publicly and repeatedly that the restaurant was his own .
As can be seen there is a massive difference between this document and the ” partnering agreement
Share holder is defined in the companies act in section 96. Partnership has no definition other than that given under the limited partnership act and this registers partnerships. this does not apply in this instance as this is a limited liability company with share holders.
It is interesting to note that the agreement to the right is deficient section 21
It is quite clear therefore that Anabelle Torrejos Malcolm North and Debbie North were not share holders. they have never appeared on the share registry, either those of the company or as reflected on the registrars on line registry therefore it can quite safely be said that this is not a shareholders agreement.
We are of the opinion that this Partnering document being held out to be a share holders agreement makes false representations and through those false representations those who hold this document out to be be genuine should be looking at the provisions of the crimes act .
We cannot emphasize enough the need for good and competent lawyers who act in accordance with the law. Without such protection companies can go entirely off the rails and be used contrary to the law .
It is therefore essential that any company has an impartial Independent lawyer who ensures that all parties comply with the law.
No one involved in a company should sign anything unless thy have sought independent legal advice .
We are led to believe that companies structure is safe. Companies are set up and regulated under legislation which is the companies act . The legislation is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. But does that give you any confidence that what is on the companies register is accurate and what about the penalties and enforcement measures how realistic are they ?
It transpires that enforcement of companies act offences is not taken on as diligently as parking and speeding matters and the registrars approach is to seek compliance. In other words.. they may ask people nicely to make corrections . In my career as an investigator I have found instances where directors and liquidators were fictional. when I discovered this I was sued and taken to court for harassment , fortunately in those days the national enforcement unit was active and Lynne PRYOR and Terry Hay were both charged with some 22 fraud offences . see news items Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt .
We had hope that our complaints to the registrar with regards to Muse on Allen may have been taken and addressed in a similar vein but it appears that in a few years there has been a rethink on enforcement.
Despite a detailed complaint with evidence the minister of commerce and consumer affairs Paul Goldsmith has advised in the letter LETTER – to Grace Hadon – 19 August 2015 that ( RIET= Registry integrity)
the RIET is unable to take action in relation to every complaint it receives. I am advised that resources are therefore focussed on those matters that have potential to pose:
• a material risk of financial or other loss or harm to users of the register; or
• a reputational threat to the New Zealand corporate registration system.
We are unsure as to the scope of the registrars inclination to act in such matters as we believe that the companies act offending by Muse of Allen’s directors was at the top end of the scale and fell into the category .
While the companies office chooses the ” economical ” approach to enforcement.. that is not to take legal action.. it has to be noted that Jozsef has already spent $50,000 on lawyers who then withdrew when they had false allegations of contempt of court made against them and who advised jozsef that it was not economical to continue due tot he fact that the company is insolvent.
The companies accounts have shown it to be insolvent since day 1 and ironically the accounts in 2014 showed that Jozsef was the only share holder with paid up equity yet he had no rights except to be abused and bullied.
Muse on Allen is currently in Liquidation court, it was due to appear this week on a claim by the former land lord but our inquiries reveal that this sum has since been paid.
Samuel North who misappropriated the shares and the companies assets for his own use is now looking for more hired help and continues to promote the restaurant as a top restaurant.
Mean while the lawyer for the company xxxxxxxxxxx has filed harassment proceedings against me because I had the audacity to email him and express concerns with regards to his false allegations against me . Harassment proceedings are frequently taken by lawyers who find themselves in a pickle , in my opinion it is bullying and there is no need for it if lawyers stick to their legal obligations.
I personally also have to wonder why this lawyer ,( whose father is a well respected former police officer and who worked with me in the police), would go all out to try to have me removed as support person for the victim of this serious matter.
lawyers have an obligation to the rule of law section 4 Lawyers and conveyances act and
Assisting in fraud or crime 2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.
I joined the police with this lawyers father , I worked with him in Rotorua , he would not condone the action of your clients . Pleases make your father proud and act like a chip of the old block . in trying to remove me as Jozsefs support person you are backing the wrong horse.
I have now spent the best part of the past week preparing for your harassment proceedings , this does not make mr happy at all especially when I went so far as to make amendments to the web site at your request to appease you .
You have falsely accused me of contempt of court, blackmail and harassment . please try to put your energy into justice it will serve you your reputation and the public so much better. .. but it may not bring in as much dosh that is why i am working for Jozsef pro bono .
In the mean time any one going into business has to be aware that the New Zealand company structure is extremely unsafe and it appears that with the use of the company key you can add and remove directors and share holders. you then protract the legal action stall it , come up with false complaints provide a side show and hopefully the aggrieved party will find that it is uneconomical to pursue the matter.
It appears to me to be a perfect script for crime. How to steal a company by Muse on Allen :- if this is not a reputational threat to the NZ companies register I wonder what is?
New Zealand companies appear to be safe on paper but when the 30 significant breaches of the companies act (see Offences ) ranging in penalty from $5000 to 5 years imprisonment can be ignored you have to wonder what confidence the public can have in the integrity of the companies register.
the opinions expressed in this article are genuine and based on research a statute . If any statement is incorrect and requires modification please provide you evidence as to why it is incorrect and we will make the necessary changes.
This publication comes to you by courtesy of section 14 NZ Bill of rights “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
From: Samuel North [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:26 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
You have the wrong BMW on your website along with all the other wrong information
Its actually only a 2.5L not 3L
On 9 Jul 2015 4:12 pm, “Samuel North” <email@example.com> wrote:
I’m getting phone calls from friends and Hotel management about the email you sent out they find it very amusing.
Its very embarrassing having a BMW X3 on there that has done 90,000ks mines only done 50,000ks and my alloys are way different.
Can you please correct and re send
Head Chef / Owner
Muse on Allen Restaurant & Bar
My response : Certainly
On 9 Jul 2015 4:18 pm, “Samuel North” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Much appreciated, mines a 2007 model as well.
Also can you please add in the shareholders agreement we had with Jozsef, want to make sure we are transparent here.
My response :Yes that’s there. Twice
On 9 Jul 2015 4:24 pm, “Samuel North” <email@example.com> wrote:
Sweet as, I love reading over those articles of myself again, really makes me feel good and I achieved things as a chef and business owner.
Hope we get a few clicks out of it.
My response :Am Sure you will. Happy to help
by the way for accuracy could you send me a photo of your. BMW.
From: Samuel North [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 4:30 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
I don’t have one on hand but will get one to you soon with a few shortys hanging off it in those beautiful nickers you mentioned
I did not respond :the knickers he is referring to are the ones he purchases on Trade me see these purchased by gamgee1
From: Samuel North [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 5:35 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Very amusing how much of the information you posted on your pathetic website is wrong
The car loan is under my name and my partners not through the company.
My response:Tut tut tut telling lies gets you caught out
Attachment sent BMW…. this is the PPSR report which very clearly shows the vehicle being purchased in the name of Muse on Allen Ltd
Open letter to Craig Foss Minister of small business
Good Morning Minster
I am approaching you in your capacity as minster for small business and wish to bring to your attention a major flaw which I have identified in the enforcement of the companies act with regards to small businesses.
We appear to have entered a phase where economics are considered before justice and this is distinctly in favour of those who breach the provisions of the companies act.
I am a licenced Private Investigator / Former long serving police and prosecuting sergeant . Earlier this year a young man approached me when his lawyers advised him that after spending $50,000 with them to seek justice it would take another $42,000 to get the matter to trial and since it appeared that the company was insolvent there was no point in pursuing the matter .
In brief the circumstances are my client Jozsef Gabor SZEKELY and Samuel Raymond North are chefs, together they purchased a restaurant for $90,000 they set up a company called Muse on Allen Limited and were 70/30 share holders .
Jozsef is an immigrant to New Zealand . Samuels Father, Malcolm North is an Employment Broker for the ministry of Social Development. Malcolm helped and supported the two boys in getting the business started but it now appears that as far as Jozsef was concerned there as an ulterior motive, that was to provide his son with a company financed by some one else.
Samuel gave the company key to his mother she used this to appointed herself as director and backdated this to the companies date of formation.
Samuel reduced Jozsef’s shares to 49% , then appointed his father as director, removed Jozsef and finally transferring all the shares into his own name. this was all done contrary to the act and without the injection of more share capital
This occurred in January 2013 less than 6 months after the company was formed. Jozsef immediately went to see lawyers . It was correctly identified as fraud but could not get the police to take a complaint .
The lawyers took the matter to court under section 174 of the companies act and Jozsef spent most of his time earning money to pay the lawyers.
Malcolm represented the company in court and even posed as though he was counsel this caused Jozsef’s expenses with the lawyers to go out of hand .
The company would not give Jozsef any of the documents which a shareholder is rightfully entitled to but they were released to Jozsef’s lawyers under confidentiality and copies remain in their office and no duplicates have been released.
When the lawyers withdrew Jozsef approached me, I attempted to get the registrar to correct the on line register based on a set of accounts which we had obtained outside the discovery process.
The registrar however would not act as they claimed that redress was available through the courts .
I acted as a Mc Kenzie friend for Jozsef and supported him in representing himself in court ,the matter was to have been set down for a formal proof hearing but now the company has engaged counsel ( instructed by the very directors who have breached the companies act in so many ways ) and it is set for a three day trial in September on the matter of Jozsef being a disadvantaged shareholder.
In early June we were advised By Malcolm North that the former lawyers for the company have taken the company to liquidation court and the company could be wound up before the hearing.
Jozsef has not only lost his $64,000 investment in the company but has paid $50,000 in an attempt to have his rights enforced.
The final straw came when the company sued Jozsef on 19 June in the district court for the losses which the directors have incurred in the company since unlawfully removing Josef’s shareholding .
The whole purpose of a limited liability company is that the losses are limited to that of the shareholders equity yet Jozsef now finds himself burdened with a second set of court proceedings.
So we now have an ironic situation where by Josef’s shareholding has been removed from him and he is being held responsible for losses in the company due to being a share holder
I have prepared and filed an extensive complaint with the registry integrity , there are some 30 serious companies act offences which the directors and their associates have committed. Yet in again a parallel move they are attempting to hold Jozsef for contempt of court for allegedly using the accounts and the documents which have never been copied or been outside his lawyers office .
The entire process has been total bullying and abuse .
Those who invest in NZ companies should not be subjected to this lunacy, it destroys confidence in small business and shows that there is a major flaw in the system which allows people to effectively steal shareholders equity and use it for their own means. The law is there to protect persons such as Jozsef and ot should be affordable and expedient.
Samuel North has a deficit of shareholders equity in the company yet drives around in a late model BMW vehicle owned by the company while the only person to have invested in the company is being hammered in the court
We request urgent intervention in this matter where by the registrar seeks to hold the company and its directors accountable to the act.
We need a system which prevents this type of scenario from repeating .
In the interest of public confidence in small business ,we hope that you can open a ministerial enquiry into this matter so that this cannot happen again.
I am happy to supply the complaint to the registrar and the evidence on your request .
Muse On Allen Restaurant – Food that inspires and a secret that does not amuse
Restaurateur Samuel North has been in the news many times , each time there is a common thread and that is – he is identified as- the youngest chef in Wellington to have his own restaurant .
Transparency New Zealand will today examine the truth behind that statement and others which we have located in the news.
For convenience we have prepared a file with the relevant documents they can be found here samuel north evidence ( most of the originals of these documents are available on the companies register , the others have been filed in the Wellington district court with the exception of the car registration which comes from the on line register)
Page 1 this is the sale and purchase agreement the lawyer involved for Muse on Allen was the North’s own lawyer .The company was set up with two directors and two share holders Jozsef Gabor SZEKELY who owned 70 % of the company page 2 and Samuel Raymond NORTH who owned 30% of the company .
Malcolm North was involved from day one and took charge, he drew up a Partnership agreement and as can be seen Samuel’s total contributions was to be $10,000 as opposed to Jozsef who invested $65,000 .page 3
Jozsef understood that all would be equal partners but that was not to be, as it was later revealed that every one except Jozsef introduced their money into the company by way of loans . Jozsef on the other hand was recognized in the accounts as a share holder .
Debbie North Samuel’s mother requested to be an alternate director for her son instead she completed her own directors documents and uploaded them on to the companies site back dating them to the date of the companies formation Pages 4 &5
On 3 November 2012 the dominion post published a review of the restaurant Muse on Allen: Food fit for the gods
On 19 December 2012 Samuel without complying with the required legislation and without any share holder transfer documents reduced Jozsefs 70% share holding to 49% Page 6.
Another great review was published by Raymond Chan on 4 January 2013 acclaiming both chefs.
On 9 January 2013 without following the required procedure for appointing a director Samuel prepares a directors consent for his father Page 7 and up loads this to the companies register Page 8
Malcolm North, Debbie North and Samuel North are now all directors and have a meeting at their home on the 10 January they resole to remove Jozsef as director Page 9
24 February Samuel North transfers all of Jozsef’s shares to himself . page 10
Jozsef who consulted Lawyers on the 10th of January 2012 has spent two years in court attempting to get justice.
It has been a stalling game one intent on costing Jozsef big $ and now when the end is in sight Malcolm North advises that the company is in liquidation court.
Malcolm North has also been passing himself off as counsel in court documents see here 18 Amended Statement of Defence In this document Malcolm also states
The Companies Office records stating otherwise are in error, and that the plaintiff remains a shareholder in the company, and
The amendment of the Company’s Office register on or around 24February 2013 was an error, and the plaintiff remains a minority shareholder of the Company.
despite making this statement the companies register has never been corrected.
On 19th June 2015 despite Jozsef being denied any rights of a share holder, Malcolm files documents in the District Court pages 11- 54.
In the statement of claim he alleges that Jozsef as a 63.2% share holder is responsible for the corresponding % of losses in Muse on Allen for the 2013 & 2014 financial years .
this would have to be a first in New Zealand where a company sues its only solvent share holder for the loses which the management has incurred after denying the share holder any rights.
The accounts attached speak volumes especially the share holder accounts they show that Jozsef has paid up share capital of $64,118 and Samuel North has a deficit of $6420.
No other persons are shown as share holders and no other share capital has been introduced.
The accounts clearly show however that the funds introduced into the company by Samuel’s parents and his girlfriend Anabel Torrejos were introduced as LOANS. they have never been recorded as share holders.
We wish to make it clear that these documents came to us without any restriction or confidentiality and as can be seen they clearly identify Jozsef as the majority share holder.
As a share holder and in this case the only paid up share holder he has every right to the accounts .
On a % share holding basis it is obvious that the sole owner of Muse on Allen is Not Samuel North but Jozsef .
We believe that what has happened in Muse on Allen totally undermines the confidence that should be had in the integrity of our companies.
Jozsefs battle to be recognized as share holder continues but in a bizarre twist Malcolm North advised Jozsef on 8 June 2015 that the company is currently in insolvency court being sued by Kensington Swan , their former lawyer. The date for the hearing has been delayed allegedly in the hope that they can repay the debt which we believe is some $24,000.
In the mean time Samuel North is driving about town in a Black BMW X3 2007 Reg HYE837 Page 55 .similar to the one pictured for which he has raised a loan through the company ( see corrections on Samuel North responds )
Now that you have these facts you can look at the following articles in a different light , we particularly like the concrete playground article it speaks volumes and is well worth reading and now that you know the truth you will have more insight.
Other less colourful articles are below they all assert falsely that Samuel is the sole owner of Muse on Allen Limited.
11 august 2013 Muse on Allen takes Top Honours– Wellington has a new rising star on the food scene, with the 22-year-old head chef and owner of Muse on Allen taking out this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award……Muse on Allen’s 22-year-old head chef and owner, Samuel North
04/09/2013 Young upstart of the restaurant scene Samuel North is not your typical restaurateur. At just 22, he’s thought to be the youngest chef running his own dining establishment in Wellington. In fact, he was 21 when he launched Muse on Allen in the former site of Satay Kampong restaurant at the top of Allen St…..In his most recent job at the White House as chef de partie, he read about Martin Bosley starting a restaurant at the age of 21, and says: “I was inspired by that. I thought I could do that. I started looking at places up for sale. We looked at 19 different places before we found this one.”
August 9, 2013MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award Winner Announced 22 year-old Samuel North, chef & owner of Muse on Allen, takes out the MiNDFOOD Wellington on a Plate Award….Wellington has a new rising star on the food scene, as the chef & owner of Muse on Allen takes out this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award…..Muse on Allen’s 22-year-old head chef and owner, Samuel North,
21 July 2014 Theatrical dish coasts into Dine award final Samuel North, 23, the head chef and owner of Muse on Allen in central Wellington, has had his restaurant nominated as one of five finalists in the Visa Wellington on a Plate Award.
06/08/2014 Fresh faces of food SAMUEL NORTH, OWNER AND HEAD CHEF AT MUSE ON ALLEN Samuel North was just 21 when he opened his own restaurant, Muse on Allen in 2012. By that time he’d already chalked up six years behind the stoves of a whole bunch of kitchens from Wairarapa to Hunter Valley. “I think I may have been the youngest chef to open a restaurant in town. There was this big hype when I opened it because I was so young and a lot of people thought I’d fail, ” he says
Oct 13, 2014 NZ Herald -Your Business: Young Entrepreneurs “I have no credit cards, no bank loans – nothing,” he says. “The banks ran a mile when I put the idea to them. It’s pretty funny looking back at it now; there was no way they were taking the chance on me – and I can’t blame them.“
March 2013 social cooking :Samuel North Info:At just 21 years old, Sam was considered to be the youngest Chef to be running his own establishment in Wellington, when he opened Muse on Allen 2 years ag0
August 13, 2014 48 hours in the capital: Where to eat in Wellington Head chef and owner Samuel North is, amazingly, only 22, and made a name for his new restaurant
31 January 2015 Grab one Owner and chef, Samuel North, won this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award, which recognises the top level of creativity and skill among Wellington’s chefs, along with their ability to showcase local ingredients through Dine Wellington’s festival programme.
18 April 2015 Muse and a little Singin’ in the rain Muse is the establishment of Samuel North, a young chef in Wellington with a bucketful of talent.
Muse on Allen Restaurant and Bar -Wellington on a plate