Time we had an independent commission against corruption

loraxI have the petition  calling for a commission against corruption

I asked to circulate it at the   certified fraud examiners meeting and was declined, have approached political parties for support and was declined. I took to the streets and got support .

I now have a petition ready to go its   done  signed  and all it needs  is a minister to  present it .. therein lies the  rub .

have tried a few who  site  conflict of interest   ( what the hec ??? )  but  I obviously have not yet asked those who have  stated that they support the call for a commission  against corruption  so lets  see    who will be  true to their cause.

Today I was sent a link to Lauda Finem  , really good read and  right on the button .

Guess the difference between Australia is chalk and cheese .. or  if you like  Wine and Milk .

New Zealand  can be likened to the small cute child  who thinks they can get away with murder, there is a story to cover every scenario  and we dont look at facts for  the basis of our research instead we look at statistics and other ( carefully selected )  peoples opinions.

This  mode of is evident in the research which Transparency International New Zealand  does . The shinning light  of Transparency International  New Zealand is Susan Snively..In fact I rather suspect that she is the only person  involved an that the others are just there as window dressing .( hence no minutes )

Susan is an economist    Wikipedia defines an  economist as a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy.

In a recent  radio  interview Play now Susan identifies her sources of information , it clearly puts her in the “apply theories and concepts from economics”  category, she speaks of  working from statistics and no where is there any real evidence of actually having spoken  to  the people  who  would be involved  i.e. the women  who she claims are the victims of domestic abuse  or the employers who  she alleges  are  losing  out because of  it.   In other words her  study  research and     outcomes are derived    from second hand information  and  delivered as” fact”

Last Friday  Steve Hart  published his interview of Susan Snively  of transparency International well worth listening to , I will  go through the interview and respond  later.

It is significant to note that she refers to the funding , ( the funders are shown  here ), the corner stone platinum  funder is the office of the auditor general the same  auditor general   who has refused to investigate the misappropriation and misuse of council resources and  the  fraudulent application to  the minister for law enforcement powers and the subsequent issuing  of  coercive law enforcement powers to an organization which does not exist in any legal manner or form.

The  ministry itself plays cat and mouse  and is actively  involved in concealment of corruption  see   MPI conceals corruption by playing cat and mouse   and  MPI apparently condone Neil Wells deception with regards to the fictional AWINZ

Compare that to the resignation of the  Australian state leader  over a $3200  bottle of wine, while Len Brown is still in office  despite having   received  $750,000  from an  unidentifiable  un locatable  private secret trust .. I am told Police investigations are continuing, since the police are not really conversant with trusts  dont hold your breath   .

I think that   the call for a commission  agaisnt corruption cannot  be   soon enough  and it should be an  election issue .

In the mean time   any MP wishing to make a stand agaisnt corruption  in New Zealand, I have a petition ready to go .

What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?

TI-NZOpen letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand

The Governance body of Transparency  New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards  to the  ” integrity ” of your organization

You may or may not  be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when  Director Grace Haden was declined membership   to TI-NZ  on an application which stated that  she was  a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association  and  a licensed private Investigator.

Transparency New Zealand  and Transparency International NZ   are very different  in that  TI-NZ wishes to   sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption  so that   it  does not spread.

We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored  it , their fate is all too often  sealed , then there are those  who identify  cancer  early and act  , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )

Corruption and cancer  are pretty much the same thing.  Cancer is caused by  the corruption of  cells.

We cannot  deny that corruption exists , we cannot  simply pretend that it is not there  and above all  we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that   those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )

While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand  deals with reality .

The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system  which has no accountability  and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and  conceal crime.

Our very own minister of Justice said this week that we have  a legal system not a justice system 

The old saying that  it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true

yet TI- NZ  states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107  Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..

So could some one please explain why TI-NZ  believes that the  court deliver justice  when the people know it does not   and   this  belief even extends to the minister of justice !  TI NZ  state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.”  It is obvious from that statement  that   no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to   any of  the  actual court users especially those  involved in the family or civil courts

While  Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability  and is true to that objective ,  this  does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.

1. TI-NZ   claims to be   “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other  person who is in  any way  associated  a  victim of  corruption   join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that   TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government  bodies  and members of the universities .

2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..

yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile  claimed to be the  director of a company which  did not exist  Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn.   oops typo

Former director   Michael Vukcevic  slipps  an LLb into his  cv oops typo again

The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with  his linked in profile.. another  typo ?

The web site of transparency International  has been  set up  by  an American resident   also named Snively and  using a company which there is no record of  . ? Nepotism  and  use of  another fictitious  company again. But who would notice as the web site   states that you need less  due diligence in dealing with New Zealand  companies.

3. Transparency International New Zealand  appears to be supported by  Business,  government departments and academics  amongst the members are the SFO,  office of the auditor general , ombudsmen ,   Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development,  NZ Public Service Association,  Ministry for Justice,  Statistics New Zealand

with  sponsors

  • School of Government, VUW
  • Ministry for Justice
  • Statistics New Zealand
  • The Human Rights Commission
  • Ministry of Social Development
  • The Treasury
  • Inland Revenue
  • Department of Internal Affairs
  • Corrections
  • Department of Conservation
  • Ministry of Transport
  • Civil Aviation Authority
  • New Zealand Transport Authority
  • Maritime New Zealand
  • Te Puni Kokiri
  • The State Services Commission
  • The Ombudsman
  • Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
  • The New Zealand Defence Force
  • Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
  • The Serious Fraud Office
  • Crown Law
  • NZ Public Service Association
  • The Gama Foundation
  • Bell Gully
  • VUW School of Government
  • PwC
  • Deloitte
  • KPMG
  • Human Rights Commission Launch Day
  • School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
  • Wellington Girls College
  • Thorndon New World
  • NZTE
  • Institute of Directors
  • BDO Spicers
  • Russell McVeigh
  • Chapman Tripp
  • Gibson Sheat
  • Susan Gluck-Hornsby
  • Chen Palmer
  • Juliet McKee
  • Claudia Orange
  • Te Papa

4. the objectives  of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth  and a very dangerous claim is made  that  “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing with New Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”

Transparency  New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment   as first you  are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about  it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about  saying I see nothing.

Transparency New Zealand  advocates  the  ” trust but Verify ”  approach  to any dealings with any company or person  anywhere .

5.  TI-NZ claims to be  “A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society” But  apparently as mentioned before they do not lead  by example.  We question  what High integrity is  when   by our experience you simply cannot  report corruption .

There is also a difference in what  our definitions are of certain terms as  illustrated in the FAQ  section of  the transparency international NZ  web site

How do you define corruption?   click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.

 It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization  either directly or indirectly.

 Corrupt conduct can take many forms including:

 conflicts of interest ( government departments paying for   ” integrity” reports )

  • taking or offering bribes
  • dishonestly using influence ( promoting business in New Zealand  though claims that there  is no corruption )
  • blackmail
  • fraud
  • theft
  • embezzlement
  • tax evasion
  • forgery
  • nepotism and favouritism( this includes having a relative   designing a web site through a fictitious company )

 NOTE: Corruption does not include mistakes or unintentional acts, but  investigations are   required to determine intent.

What is “transparency”?click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand : Being open  , truthful  and   lacking  concealment .

What is bribery?   click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand : Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

What is fraud?  click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud  and the use of    ” organizations” which do not exist.   In New Zealand  one of the largest vehicles for fraud  are trusts .

Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the  reins to just one person  an economist who  misunderstands  the importance  of  corruption prevention . We suspect that   her objectives are to assist  business development and growth rather than  combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business  woman  with an objective of  bringing in money  rather than an objective of independence.

True corruption prevention  comes from Accountability  , I gave this  example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently  with regards to Suzanne Snively  LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited

We  believe that Susan Snively wished to  create a false perception of her abilities , she   was blowing her trumpet  too vigorously and duplicated   some  of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.

 Because no one checks in New Zealand  when may have believed that   she could get away with it.. this is often  the case.

 Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability

 Susan had control over her    Linked in account ..   Monopoly

 She and she alone  had discretion of what was presented.

 We are holding her accountable

 =   Linked in profile changed.  and no corruption

I also gave an example of perception

When I was on Police patrol  in Rotorua   , I saw a decapitated cat on the road,  I made a comment   to the driver   about the grizzly  find.

 He disagreed with me   and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.   

 Because our views were so different we  went back   and  on close inspection found that we were  both right, it was a cat  with its head stuck in a  plastic  bag.  

 The reality was that he cat lived to see another  day .  Happy ending  !!!!

 When  you  deal with perceptions   you cannot  just look  from one side. You have to   look at the  facts and consider the views of   many and not just a few.

 You cannot  promote   the lack of corruption by will fully being blind   and  intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.

 To  examine  the corruption  which is occurring and to call for accountability  for those  involved is what  will  prevent corruption from  blowing out of control.

 What good are laws which are not enforced,  codes of conduct which are ignored  , and processes which are  flawed.

 ACCOUNTABILITY   is what   we should be insisting  on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is  doing  fantastic work  , when they are openly ignoring corruption  and fraud,  does not serve NZ .

 A report which has been funded  by the party concerned   is not an impartial report.

 The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International  and  has given $15,000   and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond  that ) when you get $30,000  from someone  and want to get $30,000  again next year you will give them a favourable report.    This process is akin to  reverse bribery   where the state is paying  someone to give a glowing report .

  Being no partisan and  apolitical  is not enough  TI NZ should be totally Neutral   and not be acting   for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.

I  look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to  truly  strive to make New Zealand Transparent  by focusing on  ACCOUNTABILITY  .  I would  like to start by making   Transparency International Accountable to  their code of ethics and the definitions of  fraud and corruption  which I have provided  above.

We look forward to hearing  from the directors  of TI-NZ   and we undertake to  publish their response .

Transparency International New Zealand funded by government departments

parliaments watchdogTransparency International ( New Zealand) has  recently   undertaken a national integrity survey.

A quick look at their  web site http://www.transparency.org.nz/   flashes up messages   such as” Least corrupt public sector in the world “.“New Zealand’s high trust public sector is its greatest competitive advantage”

The  integrity survey cost $174,320  , the accounts do not reveal  who  the recipients of that payment was  but  I  do believe that a sizable chunk of it went to the  chair person Susan Snively  .

the   survey was funded in the following manner

Income
National Integrity Systems Assessment
Donation: Gama Foundation        $15,000
Office of the Auditor General        $30.000
The Treasury                                    $30.000
Ministry of Justice                          $30.000
Statistics New Zealand                   $15.000
States Services Commission          $10.000
Ministry of Social Development  $10.000
Other                                                 $55.000

now   look at the pillars of the  integrity system     they are

Legislature (pillar 1)
Political executive – Cabinet (pillar 2)
Judiciary (pillar 3)
Public sector (pillar 4)
Law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies (pillars 5 and 9)
Electoral management body (pillar 6)
Ombudsman (pillar 7)
Supreme audit institution (pillar 8)
Political parties (pillar 10)
Media (pillar 11)
Civil society (pillar 12)
Business (pillar 13)

looking in particular at the   Supreme audit institution  you will note that the $15,000  donation in 2012 and the $30,000  donation 2013 have  not been wasted.

auditor gen  integrity result diag

When you see high scores like  that you  could  be mistaken in thinking that this is the reality . The reality is that Here in New Zealand we are very good at manipulating  data .

Three pages worth looking at  at the  auditor generals  we  site

how fraud was detected ,   Fraud types   and methods of committing fraud

Fist of all How fraud was detected

Internal control systems were deemed to be the  most effective  method of detecting fraud .  This is best assessed in conjunction with the  Price Water House coopers publication  prepared on behalf of the auditor general page 85  is particularly interesting in that    it shows   a very  low percentage of  entities having a whistle-blowers hotline.

But internationally Whistleblowers  are Still the Best at Detecting Fraud.

It is no surprise that  this is not the case in New Zealand as the systems are not in place   for whistle blowers according to the auditor generals  own figures   .

Fraud types  

What I notice here is that  all the frauds are $$ based.  In true auditor style   we need figures.  but not all frauds    occur   in such a way that   good book keeping can pick them up – there is a very large  field  called Identity fraud   which  is not represented in the tables  and I wonder if it is at all  considered.

methods of committing fraud

Again  we have the word theft    occurring   repeatedly  , Theft generally implies that you have something  and next it  is gone without your  permission.

The frauds which are very prevalent in New  Zealand  are identity frauds   perpetrated through  fictitious organizations and secret trusts.

Money is moved from one entity into a seemingly legitimate trust and then the trust  is   split off  and  dissolved  in a very non transparent manner

The fraud which has impacted on my life  is one where  a person   pretended to be a trust.    a  fictitious trust obtained law enforcement powers  and   the one  person  carried out  the duties of  this fictional trust using the staff and resources of  a council .    This  type of  fraud is apparently condoned by the  auditor general as shown by this  correspondence.correspondence with the auditor general

The office of the auditor general   claims to be Parliaments watch dog  it would appear that   this watch dog is asleep  as the office of the auditor General in New Zealand condones  fraud   as follows

  • 1.       Making a false application to the minister 22 November 1999  this document in itself is a fraud on the government .. using a document for a pecuniary advantage.  AWINZ does not exist it is not a legal person in any manner or form.   condoning a criminal act.

 

  • 2.       Central government  giving   coercive law enforcement powers to  an entity which does not exist   and no one checks for  its exists, even when they know it does not exist they continue to   pretend that it does.  condoning a criminal act.

 

  • 3.       MPI  not having the slightest idea of what a trust is and how a trust should  function,  and allowing the  false application   to be justified because   6 years later  they received a trust deed  which was signed 3 months after the application was made.   The fact that the people who  had signed that deed   had never met or made a valid decision between, was totally beside the point. condoning  incompetence .

 

  • 4.       MAF ( now MPI) not being in possession of a trust deed with  the  party to whom law enforcement powers had been  given  and then getting a trust deed  which was  altered or fabricated,  and ignoring this despite having this pointed out to them.  Deed  provide  June 2006   this is the deed MAF have on file condoning  incompetence .

 

  • 5.       Using fictions names   for  contracts to local and central government.  Mou Waitakere  &   MOU MAF  condoning a criminal act.

 

  • 6.       Council employees contracting to themselves Mou Waitakere   ( Mr Wells became  both parties to this contract). condoning a criminal act.

 

 

  • 8.       Council manager writing to   the  crown consenting to the use of staff and resources to   fictional third parties  North shore city   and Waitakere city  condoning this corrupt  action.

 

 

 

 

  • 12.   The processes within the government  department and councils  are such that they serve to conceal  fraud as the very  persons involved and implicated   for their lack of diligence are put in charge of the release of information, additionally Mr Wells was consulted on  what was released to me  and  what was not   there was no impartiality between  the department/ council and  third parties condoning this incompetent practice  .

Why do we have to  pretend to be the  least corrupt   why cant  we deal with the reality  , Corruption happens,  dont condone it deal with it  that will  ensure that   corruption does not  ruin lives .

By outsourcing  your services to private enterprise  teh office of the auditor general  has lost control over the process , but in the  end   its the perception  that  is worth  preserving  and that is  why the office of the auditor general is a member of transparency  International New Zealand , that is as good as any watch dog being a member of the local gang.

so much for the rules of independence

watchdog

Corruption In New Zealand are we going to continue to ignore it ?

Open letter to Murray Sheard

Background  murray sheardMurray Sheard is a director of Transparency International  see linked in CED and  also the  Bio which is put out by TI -NZ Director statements, he also runs a place called the  Kitchen

Murray

 I work as a licensed private Investigator, I was a former Police prosecuting Sergeant. The corruption  I see on a  daily basis appalls  me.

 I see our courts being used to perpetrate and conceal criminal actions.  Evidence and truth have no apparent  place in our courts   and lawyers who  are officers of the court  can lie their teeth out without fear of repercussion and are believed over physical evidence to the contrary.

 I tried to join TI-NZ three times  each time I have been declined , Susan now says that it is because of the name of my company,.. For the record I set that  up after I was declined the first time. I set up Transparency New Zealand because someone has to  take corruption in New Zealand seriously  and TI-NZ does not.

 I appreciate that TINZ does not look at individual cases   but  TI-NZ  goes further than that and totally   ignores what is going on  and  is compounding to the corruption issue in New Zealand by  attempting to discredit  those of us who  are saying that the   alleged low level of corruption is a device for entrapment.

 For the record currently I am dealing with a woman  who  has not had one  cent of her matrimonial property settlement , she has been left millions down despite being married to a wealthy man  for over 30 years  such cases are frequent, wives are cheaper than prostitutes and housekeepers  you can swindle a wife and spit her out at the other end   all done using the court to deny her, her legal rights. ( unfortunately she is not the first and she won’t be the last  it is  a trend amongst those married to the very rich or to lawyers .

 A wealthy American was charged with 22  counts for fraud. His co offender  was convicted , he skipped the county for  5 years  did a deal with the crown law office and his charges were dropped, he had fabricated a director and liquidator for a company to avoid paying a $65,000  bill

I am dealing with a man who had a call from the bailiff  demanding $15,000   , it appears that a claim went through disputes tribunal  where  an insurance broker  simply said his boat was hit by another   then named someone in the neighbourhood who  had recently moved.  No evidence not even the name of his boat   he is suddenly liable for  a ridiculous sum, the court should never have  found any one liable  when there is not one photograph of alleged damage or any evidence of their involvement.

 Secret trusts are  our weapon of deceit , they are so secret no one sees them and the   mention of such a trust is sufficient to  win any  court case  because  our lawyers  all use them  to conceal their assets  and hide reality.

 We regularly have proceedings commenced without  a party being served papers, My own company was put into liquidation that  way the first I knew was when the official assignee called. This also happened to a  lady whose child is being legally abducted by the sperm donors parent .. all done through the  court all done through deception , the grand parents of this  youngest of 5 children  want to  replace their  druggy son who killed himself  on a motor bike , they now want to pull a family apart  and our courts facilitate this through not  punishing persons for false affidavits.

 My personal crime in life was to  ask  MPI    why  law enforcement powers had been given to the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  ( AWINZ ) .  AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form  it is merely  identity fraud condoned  at very high levels.   The only man hiding behind that name was the   man who had written the animal welfare act and facilitated the issuing  of such law enforcement powers , he also advised on the legislation as independent adviser  and further to that  he ran the operation  from  Waitakere city council premises  using council resources infrastructure  and staff for personal enrichment ( he had a bank account in the name of AWINZ  which only he administered. )My second crime in life was to ask council why a council manager could use council facilities for  his own use ( public office private gain—all sanctioned in NZ )

 We do not have an  avenue for   keeping any one  ,least of all lawyers    accountable to the law.   The law is used for the furtherance of corruption and Government departments are paying T-INZ handsomely to give good reports  to show how well we are doing .  Keeping the perception alive

When we pretend there is no corruption  more people  get hurt.. corruption does  ruin lives  it destroyed my family    yet TI-NZ stands by   protects the very people   who   help conceal corruption.

 As a besides.  I am a member of the certified fraud examiners association , It would appear that Susan Snively has reported me to the association  to have me removed from the membership   based on a court  judgement  for defamation  in which I had my rights  to a defence removed and the other party committed perjury.  In New Zealand we do not   prosecute perjury  so without  an obligation to truth in the courts  our courts have become  excessively unsafe.

 Murray  if you are truly interested in  corruption in New Zealand and not in the perception  , then you may wish to meet with me, I have lots of hard evidence, it is not just the fact that these things occur  but   when we conceal and cover up these matters  that is a true indication  that  corruption is out of control.  A country which is truly anti-corruption would deal  with corruption  and its perpetrators.

 It would be nice for Transparency New Zealand and transparency International to work together  to  truly make New Zealand the least corrupt by ensuring that corruption  is  viewed seriously  and dealt with harshly .

 But that is not going to happen  there are simply too many  who enjoy this false pretence as it paves their way to riches.

 I look forward to hearing from you  , but  I won’t hold my  breath  

 This will be published on Transparency NZ web site

 Regards

Grace Haden

transparency new zealand

Michael Vukcevic CV

VukcevicJust recently there was much discussion on a Linked in forum  CV Fraud, is this a sin or not    the topic of  Michael Vukcevic was raised as it had just been in the news  . Today  as a result of that discussion  I have received several copies of the offending  CV which is apparently doing the rounds.

I have cropped it  to  make it download faster  but otherwise I am assured by  various sources that  this is the CV is that which  he submitted for  the job at  Baldwins.

I  routinely check  CV’s  for my clients  and  I cannot accept  Michelle Boag’s  statement 

“This is a bit of a storm in a tea cup,” Ms Boag, an executive adviser to the Middle East Business Council, said.

“As I understand it, he should have had the word ‘incomplete’ next to LLB. Having said that, I don’t know why it wasn’t there.”
The CV can be  found here Michael Vukcevic CV

this is the offending bit

vukcevic LLB

 

 

It appears to me that  the claim of having a LLB is conclusive. It does not say studied for  LLB and BA  and  deceptively  avoids saying that  the LLb  was not attained.  the statement is  clear. LLB,  BA  indicating that the   person whose Cv it is   holds those degrees.

Going back  to a former life of Michael Vukcevic  we find  an interesting   story when he was a  recruiter in the It industry , he states  in this article  entitled Values pay off for everyone

The reason the Curriculum Vitaes they put forward have such a high  success rate is due  to a range of factors .

Let me  guess what that   some of those factors are  could it be that he left this degree of his CV

It is certainly my experience that people who  make it big  after coming from no where  do so  with a  tad of blarney.college-of-bullshit

I would welcome   any input from any one who  can   give any  formation   with regards to  Michael Vukcevic’s   career path .

For recent news items see

Fake degree forces new resignation for Vukcevic

False law degree stoush ‘storm in teacup’ – Boag

Boss admits he had no law degree

Vukcevic admits he has no law degree

CEO steps down after fake degree exposed

Vukcevic Quits Business council

see also

BIG BAD BOY AT “BALDWINS” FULL OF BULLSHIT

 

 

 

David Cunliffe and the not so secret trust.

secret cunliffe and brownI 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.”

I just wonder who the lawyers are, note again that this is not disclosed and is  probably ” secret ”  the legal opinion quoted is
“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.”
Trustees dont owe  obligations of confidentiality unless the deed  requires it  and the trustees have consented to it .
No where in the world  do we have as much use of secrecy  as we do in New Zealand.  A secret trust traditionally exists only   where   the settlor   wishes to leave   assets  in his will for say an illegitimate child or a mistress.  The trustee has to agree to this confidentiality  and the other requirement is that the settlor  dies.
Trustees have a legal  obligation  to the trust deed  and no trust   can be set up to  circumvent the intention of  legislation .The British law commission has an excellent publication   on  illegal trusts  .
In every case no trust can  be so secret that no one can look at it, image:   you  leave a trust  and the trustee claims it is secret  and  then instead of   distributing the  assets to the beneficiaries  keeps them for himself .
Trustees have to be  accountable to the deed   and the trustees have an obligation to prove  the validity of the deed and that they are acting  according to the deed . How can there be any accountability when   we  can’t even identify who the trustees are.
Trusts which are not registered under any legislation are nothing more than a vehicle  and as  we all know  vehicles dont go anywhere without a driver.
 Have a vehicle on t e road  and the first thing   that   occurs is that we look for an owner or driver .  So in the same sense  the trustees  ( the drivers ) of the trust need to  be identified.
Where as in a car there is only one driver and the owner may be in the passenger seat ,  in a trust   there is one or more drivers and all the  people int he car make a decision by consensus  as to how the vehicle operates. they   can only make decisions which the deed permits them to make.
So David Cunliffe and  Len brown and any one else wishing to rely on secret trusts   why dont  you identify the trustees  who have the obligations   to the deed and leave them to  explain  the  terms and conditions of the trust  because if you know  the contents  and nature of the deed ( and are not a trustee ) then the trust is not secret.

Auckland council naive about Identity and the law

identity crisisI have it  in black and white   Auckland council have no policy   with regards to  trading with  undefined or unidentifiable  entities.

My  long over due LGOIMA was addressed  last night the actual response is here EY report response

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
Body.

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

Nothing trivial

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

I had particularly wanted to point out  the similarity between the Logo of AWINZ fundraising logo

With that  of the  signage on the council facility and vehicles

animal welfare waitakere and that this was deceptively similar given that one is a council  logo and the other a private logo used to raise funds from the public

 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

 Please also refer to  my  post on Anticorruption .co.nz    Does Auckland council condone Identity fraud?

 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 ?

 

Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?

wells flow chart_Page_2In 2005  Neil Wells became the manager of Dog and stock control Waitakere . He set about re branding  the council premises   and produced new signage and logos.

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.

Mr Didovich and Mr wells signed a Memorandum of understanding  ( MOU )together  and when  trust deed  were required Mr Didovich obliged  by  witnessing the  alleged trustees signatures .

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.

Lesser mortals would also have picked  that a trust formed  1.3.2000  could not make an application to the minister on 22.11.1999  but that is another story.

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 )donation-request

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 waitakere animal welfare fund collection box

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 .

Auckland Council back tracks on Berms

palmers turfI 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 thhenersone 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.