Elizabeth Knox Home – Ethical issues?
May 18, 2012 | 
Author 
The Elizabeth Knox Home and hospital is operated by KNOX HOME TRUST BOARD, the trust was set up in 1911 deed knox home with 15,000 pound for the trustees to use in such manner for the purpose of building and endowing and maintaining a hospital or home for the poor people suffering incurable diseases .
The deed leaves it open to the discretion of the trustees as to who should benefit from the home and now over 100 years later the home has morphed into a facility which is primarily for the aged.
The latest news letter lists the trustees as
Mr Warwick Peacock—Chairman shareholder FUNERAL DIRECTORS (AUCKLAND) LIMITED
Dr Alistair MacCormick- Professional Director, Management Consultant
Mr Andrew Smith..
Mrs Christine Hart
Dr Ross McCormick- TOHUNGA CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED
Dr Bruce Foggo- Dr in Palliative Medicine
Mr Bal Matheson partner Russell mc Veagh
Last year I was asked by a staff member to assist in a employment matter where Knox home had sent her the following letter . (Please note that this letter has been edited to preserve privacy of natural persons .)
What followed was five months interaction with Knox home and their EMA representative. It was at all times big money pitted against a low income earner. (Less than $15 per hour)
The trustees did not wish to know what was going on or become involved, I kept them in the loop and they condoned what was going on. I take this as proof that they believed that there was nothing wrong with their action and felt it justified.
The CEO who is an advocate of the Eden principle took charge of the matter .
My client was kept in the dark as to the allegations against her, no specific incidents were given to illustrate the allegations against her and we were told that the allegations were all in the supervisors head. When the Knox home management had a meeting without my client but with the supervisor, the 9 allegations became two. Proving that they had failed to investigate the matters in the first place.
Despite being warned on two matter My client was not provided with the minutes of the meetings, the incidents which had allegedly been referred to or any specific details of the claims.
The claims arose from the very first day the new supervisor took over and he had chalked up 5 allegations against my client on the first 4 hour shift but did not report these for a further month.. presumably saving them up for impact but failing to provide detail.
In my opinion my client was actually being bullied by her supervisor and my suspicions were confirmed when she reported that he had sworn at her and had punched her hand bag into a wall .( this is a reconstruction and Knox management insisted that we destroy this evidence of violence directed at my client )
This was a frightening experience for my client but Knox management tried to hold her responsible for this action.
We made a complaint to the police and it transpired that the supervisor was known to them . The police were very concerned that he was apparently employed without any pre-employment screening being carried out. A comment was passed that this person should not have been employed in these surroundings.
The supervisor “ resigned “ after this event but things were not going to go well for my client who on leaving work for her Christmas holiday , was given a letter on the 23rd December dated 11 November alleging more nonspecific issues that she could mull over , over her holidays . At a time of good will to men Knox Management chose to fire off an allegation without investigation and later transpired to be along the same vein as the earlier complaints .. all non specific.
It was obvious to me that Knox were trying to remove my client from her job , they were in my opinion not doing this ethically and even resorted to spying on my client using the security cameras , as she went about her duties.We have employment laws for exactly this reason but when money buys you rights and lack of money limits other peoples rights to justice then the law is truly an ass.
After having the meeting of the 17 January put off by management for a further period we failed to find resolution. We were actually told my a senior supervisor to hurry up and file the grievance and it became clear to me in mediation that the confidentiality in mediation was going to provide them with the opportunity that they desired.
The matter went to mediation and following this my dissatisfied client refused to pay me as the action by Knox had forced the bill up and she had not had her expected outcome , she told me “ I did not want to have to resign “
Faced with a former client who does not have 2 cents to rub together and account of now nearly $10,000 which reflected the 5 months work, I looked at constructive means of converting my many hours into $$. I could bankrupt my client but that will cost me more than it will deliver and seemed a rather harsh thing to do in the circumstances.
This whole scenario proved to me that the scorched earth policy is alive and well , it is one I have seen played out many time, where the rich , or those using trust funds , can write things off to a tax loss while forcing the costs to accumulate against the other party who does not have those benefits. The strategy forces the financially weaker party into submission due to their inability to pay more. In this case it worked my client has no money and cannot progress her grievance .
I am in the process of wring a number of e books and I believe that the correspondence and the manner in which this employment matter has been conducted is typical and of public interest to show how a dispute progresses and the stand which is taken . The fact that the Trust board and the management condoned this action means that there could not have been anything detrimental or unethical about the process in their view.
As a matter of courtesy I wrote to Knox home and advised them of my intentions of publication and provided them with an opportunity to purchase the material and the rights to the work which I had put in.
I was told by management that I was breaching confidentiality , I pointed out that I was not contracted to them in any way and invited them to show me how I owed a duty of confidentiality to them.
I gave them a period of time to respond they asked for an extension of time and I granted this , then half an hour before that time was up I received a phone call from the police stating that Knox home vial Jill Woodward had filed a complaint of blackmail against me.
I have responded to Knox home as follows
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012 3:52 p.m.
To: ‘Jill Woodward’
Cc: Peacockfamily@xtra.co.nz
Subject: re
Good afternoon Jill
I have received a phone call from the police alleging black mail for the record blackmail is
237 Blackmail
- (1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent—
- (a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
- (b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.
(2) Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
(3) In this section and in section 239, benefit means any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.
Please advise where an when I have threatened in any way to make any accusation against any person or to disclose something about any person or to or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person .
I have clearly stated my intent and that is to be paid for the 5 months of work which I have put in.
You have failed to advise me of any confidentiality agreements I have with you and I believe that the e book will be a valuable public resource.
I will commence writing my e book on the weekend and hope to have it published next week .
I will also mention that you have made a complaint of blackmail to the police .
I further refer you to the bill of rights S 14 Freedom of expression
- 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.
I will be availing myself of that right.
I accept by the events of this afternoon that you do not wish to purchase my work from me. May I remind you that I extended the dead line for a week to accommodate your trip to Australia and you have not had the courtesy to reply.
All I can read into this is further bullying. Directed at me this time. A charge against me would be good as it will well and truly get it into the press..
When things are dealt with properly surely there is nothing to fear? .. that is what transparency is all about.
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
I wish the above to serve as my statement to the police and would also like to know why they are in a rush to investigate me when for 6 years they have not looked at the serious corruption in Waitakere city .
My client in my opinion was subjected to Bullying by Knox staff , they condoned it , they condoned the action they took against her but now they are alleging that I intend them harm?
I have personally always found it a good policy to have ethics and hold to them could it be by this action that the Knox home management and trustees feel that what they have done is not going to be perceived as ethical in the court of public opinion? They can’t have it both ways. Or can the rich defeat the law and then use the police to obtain a gagging order?
When transparency is not welcome.. you have to ask the question Why?
Posted in 
Do Brookfield’s lawyers support corruption? – a formal complaint
Over the past six years I have been before the court because I questioned corruption.
Not just any corruption this would have been the perfect public fraud.
The only thing which could save the perpetrators neck was to discredit me, the inadvertent whistle blower. So enter Brookfield’s with the solution.
I have advised Brookfields of the situation many times but because they are not an incorporated law firm as defined by the lawyers and conveyancers act , they apparently can get away with it .. another one of those silly loop holes in the law.
This how they physically did it and I am making this complaint to all the lawyers int eh practice int he hope that one may have a conscience with regards to the rules.
First to barristers make a complaint to a law clerk, the dedicated law clerk springs into action after hours and attempts to secure a result through intimidation. ( hyperlinks reveal each segment of the story )
When this fails The law clerk gets her husband Nick Wright involved he happens to be a partner at Brookfileds (You will note from the link that he claims he is a solicitor in a law practice but if you look him up on the register you will find that its actually just false advertising- shows integrity? )
Nick Wright gets David Neutze involved, David is apparently one of those types who signs anything without checking and then when he does find out about the very big oops ,will go out of his way to cover up even to the extent of filing bankruptcy and liquidation papers on someone who has him before the LCRO on claims of negligence .
While there are rules of conduct for lawyers you will find that even large law firms like Brookfield’s are happy to take your money to defend the indefensible even if it means ignoring the rules all together.
Brookfield’s were very clever they managed to win a defamation case without the need to produce those awkward documents which really don’t say what they have claimed they say. Read the blog How to win with no evidence .
Basically if you take a leaf out of David Neutze book you can win at anything using his formula .
- File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
- use interlocutories to trump up the costs,
- demand the costs in a short time frame
- Have the defence on the remaining matter struck out.
- With draw the fictional claims.
- Skip formal proof
- Go straight to Quantum
- Deny any opportunity for appeal
- Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
- Continue liquidation and bankruptcy action even though the judgment is challenged on having been obtained by fraud.
The strategy in a way is a bit like that demonstrated by Rowan Atkinson in the skit Fatal beating You take something trivial and escalate it and take something major and trivialise it.
It was good to see that Ben ATKINS did not turn up at the high court this week and for the first time in 6 years David Neutze turned up in person. It would seem that Ben recognises that there is fraud involved but Brookfileds management are still happy to see the bankruptcy and liquidation go through despite the facts.
The last time I saw Ben ,he was holding a folder which contained the affidavit which I filed in support of the claim of obtaining a judgment by fraud , the folder had the name of the fictional organisation AWINZ on it .
This brings about another question since the funds which were used to pay Brookfields are charitable funds ( as shown in the annual returns ) how come only Mr Wells is claiming it in his own name.. is that not money laundering.. are Brookfield’s now complicit to this criminal act as well? Or are they so fixed on civil matters that criminal matters don’t matter? where do they get the imunity from to be using their office for fraud?
We would love to her from Brookfields .. why are you immune to the rules ?
2 A lawyer is obliged to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice.
-
2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.
2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
Proper purpose
-
2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.1
Conflicting interests
-
5.4 A lawyer must not act or continue to act if there is a conflict or a risk of a conflict between the interests of the lawyer and the interests of a client for whom the lawyer is acting or proposing to act.
- 5.4.1 Where a lawyer has an interest that touches on the matter in respect of which regulated services are required, the existence of that interest must be disclosed to the client or prospective client irrespective of whether a conflict exists.
- 5.4.2 A lawyer must not act for a client in any transaction in which the lawyer has an interest unless the matter is not contentious and the interests of the lawyer and the client correspond in all respects.
Proper professional practice
11 A lawyer’s practice must be administered in a manner that ensures that the duties to the court and existing, prospective, and former clients are adhered to, and that the reputation of the legal profession is preserved.
Misleading and deceptive conduct
11.1 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive15 anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice.
Prevention of crime or fraud
-
11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.
4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
-
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
-
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
-
(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
-
(c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
-
(d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.— that is court first client second .
-
Open letter to Ben ATKINS lawyer of brookfields
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012 2:59 p.m.
To: ‘atkins@brookfields.co.nz’
Cc: ‘neutze@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘johnston@brookfields.co.nz’
Subject: Lawyers using their office for fraud.
Good afternoon Ben
I wish to make you aware that Mr Neutze is currently before the law complaints review office on my complaint .
I spoke to you at court this week and Noted that you had the affidavit which details how the fraud was perpetrated. As the officer dealing with the case you have an obligation to read the affidavit .
The affidavit should sufficiently warn you that you are dealing with gross corruption and fraud.
We are again scheduled to appear in court next week for the liquidation in which you have appeared for Mr Neutze.
It appears that Brookfield’s are allowing their offices to be used for fraud and you are facilitating it . That is their choice as to your involvement you have a choice too.
Mr Wells in the bankruptcy and insolvency matters is taking action to pervert the course of justice and for money laundering. I have filed a statement of claim seeking to rescind the decision on fraud.
If you turn up in court next week and continue to act on behalf of Mr Wells and not as an officer of the court with duties and responsibilities to your statutes and regulations, I will make a complaint to the law society .
I have warned you twice now , what you are doing is career limiting, you have to make your own ethical decisions.
If anyone else from Brookfileds turns up I will know that they have been instructed by Mr Neutze and will take action against him/her as well . Mr Neutze is being vexatious after all I have made complaints against his conduct and he has good reason to want to see me liquidated and bankrupted.
I have suffered 6 years of hell because David Neutze did not get the evidence before he filed a statement of claim. Lawyers acting under his direction produced no evidence of any form and misled the court as to discovery.
Mr wells in an attempt to exonerate himself and others including Mr Neutze produced documents to the law society which proved that the claims were meritless and an abuse of process.
I am making submission next week so that I can represent my company one of the reasons lawyers are preferred is because they have accountability .. I will ensure that you have that accountability , had lawyers been accountable to the rules from day one I would not be in the position I am in today.
A reminder of your rules
As officers of the court the barristers have fundamental obligations as set out in section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act 2006 and to the rules of professional conduct ,I refer to specific rules being Set out as follows :
- chapter 2 Rule of law and administration of justice 2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.
- 2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
- 2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.
- 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.
- Prevention of crime or fraud 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.
Above all refer to section 25 Crimes act 1961
I will be posting this on my Transparency web site along with the post , which is a copy of the open letter I sent to Mr Neutze as to his actions
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
Rodney Hide on TAX
In response to Rodney Hide on NBR
If you were truly concerned about our taxation why did you not do anything while you were a minister?
There appears to be little or no accountability in the way that our Tax dollar is spent, If the government was to have the same degree of accountability in spending Tax funds as we have in paying Tax then we may just find that there is a surplus.
You advocate one law for all but those on the highest income bracket find ways to avoid taxation and the easy targets, the low income earners, cannot defend their rights as it is uneconomical for them to employ accountants and lawyers. Those in the highest brackets don’t mind how much they spend they simply call their defence a tax deduction .
Taxation is only fair if we are all equally responsible to tax laws and if we have full transparency and accountability of payments made from the public purse.
If we simply began with transparency which ensured that all those including who receive the tax dollar are identifiable so that we can see what our money is being spent on and who is cheating the system.
There is gross corruption in the way our taxes are spent; no one knows how many people are double dipping or how many fictional organizations/ persons are ripping us off.
You know that it goes on I spoke to you years ago and provided you with evidence of a form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain.
You were supportive of me until you became a minister, then you would not let me have an appointment with you despite that fact that you were my local MP .
I have yet to find out how one makes a complaint about corruption when the victim is “the public“. Is it acceptable because there are so many feathering their own nests from our hard earned dollars? Is my case being kept from the public because it will show how truly corrupt New Zealand is?
Rodney You ignored my last post will you ignore this one too and will you sign my petition for an independent commission against corruption ? www.anticorruption.co.nz
Rodney Hide and the NBR
Rodney Hide has returned to the NBR and I have responded to his latest article
HIDESIGHT: Political principle lost in a circus run by monkeys
as follows … I have yet to receive a response from him
It would appear that Facts and truth don’t matter. to politicians either and although you were very helpful when I saw you, with regards to the fictional law enforcement authority -AWINZ , as my local MP when you were in opposition, you did everything you could to avoid me when you were minister for local government .
I could not even get an appointment with you and you chose to totally ignore me.
AWINZ was operating as a parasite off the councils resources and infrastructure using the public funds to derive a private income for a council manager, yet knowing the facts you did nothing.
This was Gross corruption and you apparently condoned it with your silence and in activity.
Rodney do you not think that this is a very good reason for us to have an independent commission against corruption. Would you support my petition?
I think ethics are important and those who turn a blind eye, in my book are as guilty as those who perpetrate the offenses.
If ministers don’t seek accountability who does? How do we get to question corruption when corruption is ignored by our ministers?
my petition is down loadable from www.anticorruption.co.nz
Talking Works Tom Didovich!
Talking works Tom Didovich perhaps you need to admit to the corruption you are involved with , corruption which is bringing about a rise in dog registration fees … See Council to hike dog fees
I have been talking for years but you who claims that talking works ,have remained silent and now I find that you are a counselor for talking works. Which quite frankly I find quite hypocritical.
You see the real issue is that dog owners have been paying for a great deal more than dog control they have also been paying for animal welfare.And you are right in on this scam up to your neck , in fact it would not have got of the ground if it wasn’t for your involvement.
To differentiate between the two.. Dog control is a council responsibility and Animal welfare is carried out by the RNZSPCA, police and MAF.
Tom Didovich is a trustee of a trust called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand , he became a trustee in 2006 but while he was the manager of dog and stock control at Waitakere city council actively campaigned to set up the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) and approved payments from the public purse to facilitate the origins of this trust ( full back ground can be found here with supporting documents )
When Tom Didovich left Waitakere his associate Neil wells took over and quickly changed the branding on the building , vehicle and gate
This coincided with a public fund raising campaign sent out with the dog registration papers the logo that Mr Wells used are shown on the top of the flyer which was printed in green
.donation request The letterhead was adjusted after I complained to the council and became
Do you not think that this logo and the 
signage on the buildings and vehicles are deceptively similar?
One is a council the other is a private enterprise run by the council manager. Who wold guess that there were two entities being run “symbiotically” close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. And true to form there was no benefit to the public/ratepayers/dog owners just to you and Mr Wells. refer this letter to you from Neil Wells
It just so happened that Mr Wells had written the bill leading up to the animal welfare act and had been independent adviser to the select committee. When the law passed he made an application for AWINZ to become an approved organization with the ability to appoint inspectors who had statutory powers .
While Tom was manager he had ensured that all the dog and stock control officers had received training through Mr Wells who was paid By Mr Didovich from the councils dog control budget through his discretionary spending.
The dog control officers were required to Volunteer their time to the approved organization and prioritize the work to the approved organization. Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. So when you saw the van driving about Waitakere the staff and vehicle were not necessarily on council business they were on private business paid by you the rate payer and dog owners .
Problems arose in 2006 when Lyn Macdonald asked me to find out who or what the animal welfare institute of new Zealand was and I discovered that there were no trust deeds or anyone associated with AWINZ except Neil wells officially and Tom Didovich as support person.
On 27 April 2006 With two others we categorically proved that AWINZ did not exist by legally registering an identically named organization .
On 10 May 2006 Neil Wells claims to have had a meeting at which Wyn Hoadley is appointed trustee to the animal welfare institute of new Zealand, a trust which has not met, had lost its trust deed ( if it had ever had one before then ) and by a section which does not appear in a deed which is eventually produced .
WYN Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme courts to legal action which started with a legal executive , now lawyer Vivienne Holm harassing me to force us to give up the name of the incorporated entity in which I was a trustee.
Her husband at the time Nick Wright then became involved and harassed our web host, he then prepared a letter which David Neutze of Brookfileds signed without checking the accuracy of it . How could they ever have claimed passing off? when they didn’t even get together before we had legitimately formed .
And so 6 years of court action which relied on words and NLP and not on evidence began. ( Neil wells through the proceedings referred to AWINZ as having legitimate business dealings when the reality was that it was no more than a leach off council services.
Tom Didovich turned up in court more often than any of the so called trustees and became a trustee by signing a deed in December 2006 when Neil Wells tried to get AWINZ charitable status but failed to do so due to lack of documentation.
This is a complex matter a perfect fraud more can be found on this at http://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com, some of the documents no longer open but we are going through and fixing that, if you are interested in a particular docuemtn please let me know and I will update the link or send you a copy.
More recent articles are on the anticorruption web site ANIMAL LAW MATTERS
But getting back to rise in dog registration , this is due to persons such as Tom Didovich and Neil Wells using council resources facility and staff for their own income.
Stop corruption and our costs will decrease.
Ask the question why is the dog control division of council adopting out pets 
, who is funding it and why?
why Have I not been able to expose this corruption of Public office for private gain
Tom its time to talk talking works !
LGOIMA request why increase dog registration ?
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012 10:09 a.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Subject: Lgoima request Dog registration.
Good morning
I would like to request information pursuant to LGOIMA under urgency with regards to dog licencing.
The reason for the urgency is that submissions are due by the 23rd March and a number of people will need access to this information for their submissions.
Since the council has suggested in its annual plan that the costs are going to go up, this information should be readily at hand and what I am asking should be the very questions considered before making a recommendation that fees should increase.
These reports and the collation of the information would have formed the basis of the decision to increase dog registration fees. To that end please supply by way of LGOIMA with respect to each of the councils which formed into the Auckland council for each year of the past 7 years
All reports on which the decision to increase dog fees are based and in the even that these reports do not contain the following also
- Annual Costs for the running and administration of the dog control division
- the method used to enforce dog control, ie
- was it out sourced to contractors, if so please advise the full details of the contractors or
- was it dealt with in house, if so how many dog control officers were employed and what funding was used for their employment
- With regards to all divisions which dealt with dog control please advise what other duties this division carried out for council or any third party e.g.
- did the officers also do stock control if so how was that funded
- did the staff undertake animal welfare work i.e were they animal welfare inspectors under the animal welfare act and f so how was that funded.
- The annual income from prosecution of dog by laws for each area
- Total Revenue brought in by prosecutions and licensing per annum for each area
- The % of registered and unregistered dogs in each area.
- How the process by which dog control officers are warranted , is it transparent where can members of the public verify that a person is a dog control officer?
- The number of dog control officers employed in each region.
- How the income from prosecutions was distributed did it go back into general funds or were the funds returned to the dog control division for running expenses?
- What other animals are catered for by the dog control division and how is that funded?
- By what legislative procedure and by what ruling of council was any non-dog or stock related activity consented to by the territorial authority. E.g why are other animals catered for in Waitakere at the concourse and by what lawful means. ( note that they adopt cats out )
I will be posting these questions on Transparency.net.nz for the interest of the general public and will attach the response as soon as it becomes available.
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
Corruption its a global thing- and not a load of rubbish
I have long had a theory that what ever happens in NZ is history repeating itself from what is occurring over seas.
Years ago when my local council ( One Tree Hill Borough ) was amalgamated into a larger city Auckland City and our rubbish bins shrunk in size I spoke out .
Auckland city has since been amalgamated with other cities to become Auckland Council and again they are talking about changing the way our rubbish goes out. Brian Rudman: Beware invasion of the wheelie bins
I was sent some links about a lady by the name of Stacy-Lynne and although she is in Colorado her concerns and her issues appear to be the same as ours. I also note that they have gone all out to immobilize her having taken her son away from her, e this is all part and parcel of silencing the whistle blowers.
the lnks are
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1q_YdTMVQg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXWP0OpQtxw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpSQH6zhh0&feature=related
http://coloradoan-anti-censorship.net/story/2011-12-21/sad-news-report-stacy-lynne-case
a further link sent on to me which will be of interest is www.cmn.tv/news/new-world-currency/
It s time the silent majority stopped being silent and stood together it is a lot easier to engage your mind now and see what is happenign than to allow things to happen and be powerless to fight back.
Misleading Justice
Lawyers are meant to be officers of the court and the court is supposed to be a place for truth honesty and justice. But that is where the fairy tale starts and finishes.
I have long used the equation for corruption as
CORRUPTION= MONOPOLY + DISCRETION -ACCOUNTABILITY
Looking at the equation in terms of the court we see that lawyers are a group of persons who through the very legislation which allows them to practice also have exclusivity to the court .
The court is run by rules and there are rules which dictate how lawyers should act in the rules of conduct there are specific references to Fraud .
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.
- 2.4.1 A lawyer may assist a client in seeking to avoid or minimise any penalty or adverse effects that flow from fraud or crime.
Prevention of crime or fraud
- 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice. This includes taking reasonable steps to ensure the security of and access to electronic systems and passwords.
But where a lawyer alters or manufactures documents they have protection from allegations by the following section .
Reputation of other parties
-
13.8 A lawyer engaged in litigation must not attack a person’s reputation without good cause in court or in documents filed in court proceedings.
- 13.8.1 A lawyer must not be a party to the filing of any document in court alleging fraud, dishonesty, undue influence, duress, or other reprehensible conduct, unless the lawyer has taken appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable grounds for making the allegation exist.
- 13.8.2 Allegations should not be made against persons not involved in the proceeding unless they are necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the allegations and, where appropriate, the protection of the privacy of those persons.
111 False statements or declarations
112 Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement
114 Use of purported affidavit or declaration
115 Conspiring to bring false accusation
I have serious forgery problems commited by NZ lawyers, but NZ police refused to investigate it.
Please refer to my youtube link
reply from David Neutze
Despite the fact that I have new evidence before the court which shows that Mr Neutze is aiding and abetting fraud he has sent the following email through a fellow lawyer … it appears that a win is a win no matter how dirty you play and Mr Neutze has therefore proved that he plays dirty . But Lawyers can apparently get away with murder Mr Neutze is apparently a lawyer who will sign anything without checking the facts.
its strange that the ordinary Kiwi can see it but Mr Neutze can’t …. the full story can be found at
ANIMAL LAW MATTERS
From: Cathryn Curran-Tietjens [mailto:curran-tietjens@brookfields.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012 3:30 p.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: Re: open letter published on transparency.net.nz
Dear Ms Haden
Thank you for your call this morning. I have now had the opportunity to make contact with David Neutze.
I can confirm that the sums demanded in the statutory demand are all judgment sums. That is, they are sums that have been awarded by the Court. In the event the amounts sought are not paid, then bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings will be filed.
As there is nothing further Mr Neutze wishes to add, please take this email as a response to your 7 January 2012 email.
Cathryn Curran-Tietjens
Senior Solicitor
Brookfields Lawyers
DDI: +64 9 979 2109
Fax: +64 9 379 3224
Email: curran-tietjens@brookfields.co.nz
19 Victoria Street West
P O Box 240, Auckland 1140
NEW ZEALAND
(Legal Courier: DX CP24134)