Archive for 2010

What is corruption?

There are many excellent  articles on the topic of corruption  and the one which stands out today is this one http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/233/What_is_corruption_.html

It commences..Corruption is talked about openly in most countries these days and few countries deny they suffer from it. Which is a good thing, since it provides politicians, business and labour leaders, journalists and civil society with a rare opportunity: that of agreeing on the urgency of stamping it out…. more

Now if corruption is a dirty word in New Zealand and people who question corruption risk losing it all, then we are not one of the countries the article refers to.

In reality it is not  surprising as New Zealand has not ratified the UN convention against corruption . we don’t have fraud and we don’t have corruption because we simply deny that it exists..   simple end of story.

But is it so  we need only look at the news paper articles  or worse still try to report fraud to the police   and you will become aware just  how hopeless your task will be.

In New Zealand we have our heads in the sand , but who are we kidding? When you deny the existence of something as big as fraud and corruption you are giving it invisibility and the ability to grow.

So the question is  how big does fraud and corruption need to get in New Zealand before we get angry and call for an independent commission against corruption?   Between now and then  how many more  victims will there be    when will we say   we have had enough?

 

 

 

White collar crime reality hits

Eighteen months jail for National Finance accountant the headlines of the NBR read  this is echoed by the  herald which reported Finance company accountant gets 18-months jail

This is a growing trend- it’s been happening overseas and it’s been happening in New Zealand . We are now   getting brave enough to admit it happens .

NZ follows the rest of the world   but few directors  have  thought about  the consequences .  I simply love this media  clip from Enron it says it  all worth listening to .

I still caution any one who is wishing to blow the whistle .. I did and Have paid the price for it  New Zealand still prefers to keep its head in the sand  .

Middle income New Zealand has no right to justice.

I have just completed  my submissions to the human rights commission on access to  justice   it is as follows

The right to Justice submission by Grace Haden                                    to    Infoline@hrc.co.nz

I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant; I prosecuted for 3 years in the Auckland district court and youth courts. I was in the New Zealand Police for 15 years and had passed all pre requisite exams to become a commissioned officer.

I believed that our system was fair and equitable.  I left the police and became a mother and later became a licensed Private Investigator.  The comments below reflect my personal experience and those of my clients over the past 7 years of practice as a Private investigator specialising in verification, anti fraud and anti corruption processes and conducting investigations often pro bono because many have found that the law is now inaccessible to the average New Zealander.

I am a director of Transparency New Zealand, Verisure investigations Ltd    a member of the certified fraud examiners association .

International context

I strongly challenge the following statement

“The fact New Zealand has consistently ranked as among the most least corrupt countries in the world on Transparency International¹s Corruption Perceptions Index suggests the system is operating satisfactorily.”

The key word is perception. I have evidence that in New Zealand the perception is kept alive by Suing those  who question corruption then denying them  the right to justice thereby concealing corruption and allowing the perception to remain.

In 2009, concerned with the levels of corruption I came across in my work as an investigator, I attempted to join transparency Internationals NZ Branch.

My application stated no more than that I was a member of the certified fraud examiners association, Former Police Sergeant and now a private investigator.  I was rejected without comment and denied the review of my application which was mentioned in the application papers.

I did have a chance to meet  informally with a number of transparency Internationals members, and in my opinion they all appeared to be  from the wealthier  , predominantly white sector of  our community , many had held  government portfolios  and most would have a commercial interest in keeping  that  perception  alive. These people who keep the illusion alive do not live at the coal face of society as I have done.

FRAUD & CORRUPTION

The reality is that in New Zealand we control the exposure of corruption by making it impossible for people to report corrupt practices.  Few companies have a fraud policy and unlike the united Kingdom New Zealand   does not have a Fraud Act .

Whistleblowers are dealt with harshly and I can give examples where those who have spoken up have lost their jobs, been bankrupted or both.

Fraud is the fastest growth industry worldwide yet our police have only a handful of people who police it.  The energy which the police put into “keeping the  road toll down”   is grossly disproportionate to the   effort put into crime prevention and prosecution of  fraud.

Every year more people commit suicide than die on our roads. We cannot produce statistics for the people who   die while before the court or suffer stress related illnesses through injustice or through being victims of fraud or corruption.

Because these are not measured they are not responded to but the situation is serious and ignored.

I left the police in 1989 and have found that since user pays , much has changed. Government departments which used to control various aspects now have responsibilities to be a viable business and as such economics   plays a major role.

The police is one such business, by turning it from a service into a business the word economy was introduced which in turn has had a major effect on people’s right to justice.

In the days when I served in the police, people were seldom turned away   when making a complaint now they are more often than not shown the door and told to consult a lawyer for their CIVIL matter.

Victims of fraud cannot fight back, most would not know how to get the evidence and cannot afford to pay for the investigation, without which the police will not touch their complaints.

The serious fraud office require proof that the fraud is above a certain threshold before the will investigate. Ordinary people are powerless to get that sort of proof as often warrants are needed to obtain that proof.

Police officers are performance rated and   it is far easier to get statistical clearances by charging people for minor offences for which it is far more economic to plead guilty even if you are not than trying to defend it.

On the other hand police avoid complex investigations as the time and effort in investigations and prosecution is not economic compared to the outcome, this   brings about a determination from the police that a matter is not worth proceeding with as it is not in the public interest.

One needs only to look at the sentences handed out for fraud to see that it is an economic crime to commit, if caught   the penalties are very light compared to the   sums gained.

In the end many companies which suffer fraud let it slip by or if the offender is an employee a confidentiality clause, a payout and a clean reference   is the most economic way of disposing of the   problem   and look no fraud.

Corruption exposure has been very well controlled in New Zealand by denying that it exists and making it almost impossible to expose.  Economics is corruptions greatest ally  and user pays and the business model we have ( Rogernomics )  is the greatest preventer of justice  as  all our rights  have now  only become available at a price.  If you cannot afford that price you cannot afford your  rights to justice.

The United Nations convention against corruption.

New Zealand is a signatory to the convention but it has never been ratified.  We pretend every day that we are the least corrupt and keep this   concept alive by allowing our courts to be used to conceal corruption.

The  fundamental right to  justice

The rights conferred on us through the Universal declaration of human rights are accessible only to New Zealanders who can afford to pay for their right to access those rights or those with the right connections to facilitate it.

Those who can afford access to courts can use it to silence those who could expose corrupt practices. Defamation claims and harassment claims are frequently used with much success because the consequences of going to court are so costly. It is effective  and it works.

Having been a victim of both these processes I have come to the conclusion that if you assault someone with a base ball bat   you will be arrested for assault. But if you take legal action you get to beat up your victim over years, it can do far more damage and sometimes even kill your opponent and it is called legal.

Similarly if I make threats to any one  it is an offence  but if I get a lawyers letter  and tell people  that my action will bankrupt them if they don’t comply   then it is legal.

There are many acts which if done   through any other means than through a lawyer and court would be criminal offences but  by using  lawyers and the court  these  very wrong acts are legitimised.

Civil litigation  penalties   are much higher  and rights to justice are far lower than  in the criminal section e.g. Lynne Pryor   guilty of fraudulent  running a business penalty $18,000 her  unjust action against me  cost me $49,000  .  Another such case Vince Siemer   had to pay $940,000  for words which  have never proved to  be false   yet  the lady who  has been scarred for live in the RSA murders  struggles to get $50,000

By placing a price on the accessibility to justice, especially in the civil sector the ordinary citizen is denied access to justice especially when lawyer’s hourly rate ( $350-450) is marginally lower than the  average weekly income. ($530)

1. The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable.

Accessibility to the law should not be conditional to the ability to pay  for it.

Those who have been financially stripped cannot fight back, your right to justice is directly proportional to your ability to finance investigations and court action.

Our law is accessible only at a price, without money there is no representations, lay litigants don’t get heard and the court insists that you use a lawyer. The rules are so complex that evidence does not come into play, procedure any your lawyers  ability to manipulate the court largely determines the outcome.

In new Zealand it is also possible to  write legislation for your own business plan , I have evidence where a barrister who wrote a bill it to facilitate his own business venture. He was employed  by the  select committee as an “ Independent adviser”  he was also  advisor to MAF.

When the bill passed into law he applied for an “organisation ‘to become approved. Except that there was no evidence that this organisation was more than a trading name for the barrister.

This “organisation” without proof of existence was given law enforcement ability and then contracted to central and local government to provide services to the public.

When I questioned the lack of transparency and existence of this “ organisation “ I was sued .  Because it has been before the court for the past 4 years no government body has acted.  The court action is a text book example of how justice is denied and the level of evidence ( nil )  which is required by the court to financially cripple a person .

I have documents in which statements have been made by the plaintiffs that their desire was to   ruin my life and bankrupt me , I am not yet bankrupted  but my family has been torn apart and my 25 year marriage has ended. Wells and anor V Haden . The plaintiff a barrister used public charitable funds   to fight me in court.. how can any one compete with that.

Another such case  was a parallel proceeding  Hay and Pryor V  Haden .  I was taken to court for harassment   and  later  for contempt of court  by these persons who have subsequently been charged with  fraud . One charged with 22 charges  is a fugitive from our laws but still uses our courts  to pursue me , the other  has been found guilty of fraudulently running a business.

I need to explain that I was trying to locate a director and liquidator of a company, neither existed , false harassment claims were laid to  stop me from  exposing the fictional characters.

These proceedings serve to prove that in New Zealand it is entirely possible

1.       for an undefined trading name  to be given the same status as a real person

2.       For truth to be considered defamatory

3.       That you can obtain a restraining order without any evidence

4.       That judges threaten citizens into compliance from the bench- possibly seeing that   compliance is the best option than to stand up and protect their rights.

5.       For a claim to be won  without  production of any  evidence on part of the plaintiff

6.        For a right to a defence of truth an honest opinion, to be denied for the inability to pay large sums in a short time frame.

7.       To  have a quantum  for defamation determined  without establishing that there was  defamation

8.       For a judge to do his own fact finding after the fact via the internet and have this upheld by another judge.

9.        For the Uncorroborated evidence of the person who stood to gain to be accepted.

10.   For evidence in mitigation of damages, submitted in accordance with legislation, and made by way of affidavit, to be used against the person swearing the affidavit.

11.   For The defendant to be discredited (without evidence) to such an extent that the judge forms a totally negative opinion of her.

12.    For Public charitable funds to be used  to fund the litigation  and obtain a financial befit for the plaintiff.

13.   For perjury to be  condoned by the police  who claim that it is not in the interest of the pubic to prosecute ( not economic )

Suggested  solutions

The requirement for a mediation service before matters being taken to court may be a solution and any one taking action which is not provable should be held accountable to the fullest extent.

Proof should be filed with a claim. Everyone should be accountable to the truth and prosecutions for   perjury undertaken as diligently as speed camera offences.

2. Fundamental human rights must be protected by the law.

My rights to BORA have been ignored at every step of the way, even to the extent that the application for judicial review was objected to without giving any reasons, this action only served to push up my costs   .

 

3. Civil disputes, which the parties themselves are unable to solve, should be resolved through established procedures without prohibitive cost and in a timely fashion.

Court is often used as a means of bullying people into compliance, It is often used by those who wish to deny some one of their freedom of expression, to silence them so that others cannot be forewarned.

The courts do not consider at all what negotiation has occurred outside the court and whether or not what was said was fair comment.  It is evident that the plaintiff is frequently believed  in preference to the defendant, the court dos not  seem to  realise that some cases are brought  for ulterior motives , they presume  that there is  good  and honourable reason for bringing the proceedings.

Court action by those with the financial means and the necessity to conceal corruption is taken with the intention of bringing about financial loss and even bankruptcy on the target.

Court is a lottery.. a bit like gambling, you may have the best hand but if you don’t have the cash to see  the other parties hand  you will never win.  Successful White collar criminals will always have money money than their victims.

4. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers.

For  four years I have been  embroiled  in court action because I questioned  the actions of a public official who contracted to himself and  operated in a situation which is defined by the United Nations as corruption -being  Public office for private gain.  NZ appears to be ignorant of corruption and internal fraud to the point where it is extremely dangerous for anyone to question such activities.

The mechanisms for questioning the activities for those in power do not work, it appears that those who are in power hold the position without accountability and without question. No one investigates and   any one questioning their actions is disparaged and prosecuted.. it is like  the middle ages  all over again.

Part of the problem is that somewhere along the  line there has  to be responsibility for a public servant  who  did not check , as in the Wells V Haden  matter  MAF  had a legal obligation to ensure that they were contracting to a bona fide organisation which was registered as it had claimed, they failed to  do so.

Instead of admitting this and watching heads roll it  has been easier for them to  withhold information, put up a  brick wall  and regard me as mad   thereby protecting their “ business structure”    and preventing liability claims for the damage which has been done  .. cover up  is therefore  the best strategy  and  it keeps  inefficient colleagues in jobs.

Because my matter was before the court not one of the so-called Public watchdogs   would do anything  ,the classic being  the office of the  auditor general, when I asked  for  them to audit the contract of government and local government to this no existent  body  I  received a simple letter saying   you are being sued for defamation   we are not interested. They could not even take time for an independent investigation.

Ask questions of accountability in new Zealand and you are on your own. Ironically this is reflected in what happens overseas  see this news item  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW2nmcmivZ8

5. Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.

In my experience the court process appears to be about forcing one party out of the proceedings, and allowing the other party to win by default. This is usually by attacking the financial resources, the more you can draw out the proceedings the greater the cost for the other party. Interlucatories, debates on the need for discovery, objections to anything the other party  applies for are all stalling  tactics  each step  incurs costs of  several thousands of  dollars on the other party.

Resolution is then offered at a price which one party will see as an economic escape, it is however not justice  and  is more akin to  black mail.

When matters can be won without evidence being produced there cannot be any fairness. I have always believed that “he who asserts must prove “, When people can allege and not be required to  prove then the court is denying  justice.

The courts do not have a mechanism to deal with the corrupt using it to conceal the actions, however if the United Nations Convention against corruption had been adopted  cases such as mine would have redress through articles 33-35

Article 33. Protection of reporting persons

Each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.

Article 34. Consequences of acts of corruption

With due regard to the rights of third parties acquired in good faith, each State Party shall take measures, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to address consequences of corruption. In this context, States Parties may consider corruption a relevant factor in legal proceedings to annul or rescind a contract, withdraw a concession or other similar instrument or take any other remedial action.

Article 35. Compensation for damage

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to obtain compensation.

When I was a member of the police, I was worthy of belief   I   am still the same person but it appears that no amount of evidence will make me believable before our courts, those with a higher  ranking in life are far more believable to the court , than  I am a mere  woman.

The man who has had me in court is a Barrister  , many  barristers habitually  tell lies and they all laugh about it   even a judge said to me   that that is what lawyers  do.. She would know   she was one once.  If lawyers were held accountable to the truth then we may have a different situation.

Police have a very low priority for prosecuting perjury, so what is the point in having statutory declarations and affidavits when    the persons swearing those statements   have no fear of being prosecuted for telling lies in these documents of truth.   Swearing a document does not make it true yet they are treated as that and it  it then for  the other party to have to prove that it is not true,  all without consequence for the   one  telling the lies.

Persons swearing  affidavits and  statutory declarations  must  have real fear of being prosecuted for telling lies  otherwise the  document is  not one which can be relied on.

Honest people are  jeopardised in court  as truth only has one version  and those who  tell lies  can create any story to counter the truth.

When courts do no evaluate factual evidence and interpret the law as written then there is no justice.

I have had two judges  who both sat on the  two separate  legal issues, neither took the opportunity to recluse themselves and I had to  make an application  to the  chief district court  judge to have one  who had struck out my defence remove from sitting on the case further.

I  found it  simply  too  coincidental that of all the judges available  the same two   recurred on my   cases both judges  denied me  my right to justice.

I was shocked when at the commencement of proceedings and before any evidence was  heard , I was told by a judge to  take certain action, give an apology  and give the plaintiff $2,000 “or my life would be ruined  and  I could  well be bankrupted.”

I did not take up the judge’s offer and found that she later hiked up the  costs against me in the interlocutory hearings and then  struck out my defence of truth and honest opinion in an alleged defamation matter where I was questioning corrupt practices in local government.

This same judge refused to recluse herself from another matter where she forced me to sign an undertaking   in a matter where it has now been conclusively proved that the plaintiffs were acting against me to conceal fraud.

In then end   my complaint to the judicial conducts commissioner   and the request to have the judge removed did not help my case. My case is a great case study of how justice is denied in New Zealand.

Complaint procedures

We appear to have a tendency in New Zealand to make complaint procedures available then under resource the compliance bodies, which will then look  at methods of “ writing off “complaints rather than investigating and dealing with them.

The standard of proof which is required by the various watchdogs is way beyond that which the average person is capable of supplying, even with the police there seems to be a need for people to supply a fully investigated complaint, and for them to tell the police which Act and section to enforce, before action will be considered.  Ordinary people do not have access to the conclusive evidence and as in my case seeking that evidence leaves you exposed to litigation to silence you .

Judicial review

My application for judicial review cost me $10,000 and costs are still growing. The other party opposed my right to a judicial review.  I am not aware if my judicial review has been granted or not.

This right should be a conclusive right which no other party can object to.

The legal system

Our legal system is complex with judged reviewing their own decisions on appeal; it is a system which bankrupts people not one which supports rights.

New Zealand context

As an anticorruption professional I have an equation   which works in any situation   this is

Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability.

Monopoly

Both Judges and lawyers   have a monopoly in the courts, I thought that as a former prosecutor I was well equipped to take my own case but found that judges simply do not listen to those who are self represented.

Many Lawyers appear to give advice based on the amount of money that they believe they can extract from a client  and  will either tell you to pay  up  regardless because it is the most economical thing to do  or  will take  thousands of dollars from you without any visible progress.

The average New Zealander does not have $300 to spare per week yet this is a  very low hourly rate for lawyers. I have experienced lawyers who claim they are not the highest paid but will happily complete a document with two finger typing at $450 per hour.

Ironically if you are called up for jury duty you are rewarded with a sum which is less than the minimum wage. I believe the rate is $31 for 3 hours.

The Police is also a monopoly and so are the various watch groups such as Judicial conducts commissioner, Independent police conduct authority and law society.

Further law enforcement  authorities which are a monopoly  in their area are – councils  with by-laws and the RNZSPCA. The RNZSPCA  has  to be of  concern  as this  is a private sector  law enforcement agency  which  has no accountability to any one  and is not subject to  the official information act.

Legal aid

Everyone should have free access to justice.  When Justice has a price there can be no justice.

Civil litigation  should not provide less rights than those who have been charged  with criminal offences  as the standard of proof for civil is nonexistent and the  defendant  has  virtually no rights.

Solution

All of  these bodies  would benefit from being accountable  to an independent commission against corruption such as the one they have  in  Australia.

Discretion

Judges

An independent and impartial judiciary is a cornerstone of a legal system; however we have a very small pool of people   and as the emails   on the NBR indicate that judge’s talk amongst themselves.

I made a complaint to the judicial conducts commissioner but because the judge had discretion about the notes she caused to be made from the day it was her word against mine.

It is therefore in my mind essential that everything in court is recorded continuously   to keep all parties accountable.

I also had cause to complain about another judge who admitted to searching the internet during his deliberations, his discretion went beyond the evidence which was heard in court and such wide discretion is apparently condoned.

Lawyers

Lawyers should not have the discretion to   use the court for any purpose, they have a responsibility under the lawyers and conveyances act to ensure that they do not mislead the court or use the court for an improper purpose.

They have wide discretion as to how many hours they put in and the size of the bill for the client, I have known lawyers to charge for completing their accounts and for taking credit card payments , this is on top of  their   already very high   hourly rate.

Police

Police have very wide discretion which reaches beyond their right to   investigate, prosecute I have found that they wish to appease their statistics and avoid taking on anything which will result in an offence which is not  cleared.

While people are prosecuted every day for minor offences, the offences which are at the serious end of the law are not enforced with the same diligence.  This reflects in why we have more Maori offenders than any other part of the population.

Maori are targets because they generally do not belong to the old boy network which provides protection to many wealthy corrupt, they cannot afford   their right to justice  and the offences  they commit are generally  more easily proved because their actions are more spontaneous rather than carefully planned to avoid detection. They have become frustrated   with  the brick walls which stand in the  way to  their rights  and many have come out punching.

A good police tactic  is  to   get people on a secondary offence ,  fist you deny  someone their rights, then  they lash out  then you arrest them for assault.

In January of this year I was given a ticket for something I did not do , and for  which  the police had no  evidence for .Despite bringing this to their attention a number of times, they went ahead with the prosecution .  I had to travel to an out of town court to defend it, the instant fine would have been  $150  which  on the hourly rate of lawyers makes it uneconomical to defend.

I won in court, because the police had no evidence.  I took the complaint to the IPCA. The police admitted that the charge should never have been brought.   Repercussion for the cop- Counselling. Cost to me in lost wages, travel  etc   well over $1,000.

The law is not accessible to people, the police turn people away and call the complaint civil rather than accepting the complaint and investigating. This did not occur in the days when I was a police officer, complaints were taken and   after investigation  were filed as no offence disclosed if that was the case.

Those who already have suffered financial loss cannot afford to pay to prove their case so that the police will accept it. I can see this trend of turning people away ultimately resulting in people taking the law into their own hands.

I was involved with an incident where a car was reported as stolen four times before the police would take a complaint. Only after I investigated and provided the names of the offenders did the police take the complaint and the offender was subsequently arrested charged and my client   saw his right to justice upheld.

Fraud and perjury files even when they are prepared by a private investigator are held and assessed before they are given a file number, frequently they are rejected because of the cost of prosecution and a determination is made that it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

A client lost his property through a corrupt accountant, while the lawyers cleaned him out with civil action which went nowhere, especially when this broke and broken man had to come up with huge security for costs.    The police sat on the   complaint file for several years and   this still has not seen progresses.

Clients  had their house sold  from under  them by a company which  falsely claimed to  be the mortgagee, The case is too complex for the police  but not  serious enough for the SFO  it has fallen between the cracks and the file I submitted to the police has disappeared. Dealing with these bodies is like continually banging your head against a wall. The system is geared for people to give up in hopeless frustration; criminals are taking advantage of this.

Councils, SPCA

As with the Police many of the offences dealt with by the councils and the SPCA are  minor offences  which  people commit  unintentionally   and are strict liability offences  with  relatively  low value penalties.

While there is an opportunity to write in the enforcement authority generally digs in their toes and   forces the person receiving the infringement to go to court to prove their innocence. There is no compensation for the defendant when successful,   the economics of law dictate that it is generally cheaper to pay it than to defend it as most people  would not have the ability or skill to  face up to professionals in court .

What is particularly dangerous with the SPCA /RNZSPCA is that section 171  of the animal welfare act allows them to keep the  fines which they impose  this opens the door to  corruption .

Accountability

Accountability is what keeps people honest and where there is no accountability corruption will flourish.

To complain about a judge, lawyer or police brings about more issues for you than it solves, and there is no way that your complaint is going to be upheld any way.

The whole system means that only the brave or the foolish complaint and you soon find that the time and effort involved in lodging complaint is fruitless there is only one consistent outcome-exoneration.

While citizens are held accountable to the law for minor errors of judgement and transgressions, those in roles of enforcement appear to have no accountability for deliberate  and intentional  actions.

Judiciary

I am aware that  just today  Simon Power announced that there will be a law that prevents people  from speaking out against the judiciary, such laws which prevent  free speech   and  prevent accountability can only serve to  support corruption.

When judges act in a fair and just manner there will be no room for criticism.

Judges like everyone else should  be accountable to the truth and to what they say and do  to the same extent as paul Henry was.  It is therefore necessary that all court proceedings are recorded and every party  leaves the court with their own  copy.

Judges currently prevent anyone except press from taking notes in  court  , when there is secrecy there is room for  corruption.

Lawyers

Over the years I have made complaints about lawyers for both myself and my clients, I have never seen one complaint upheld.

My worst experience was  when I complained about a lawyer who had brought charges against me for  something which I had not done ,  his clients proved to  be fraudsters and were subsequently charged with criminal offences, One has been convicted but  his client with the money  is a fugitive from our law and living in Honolulu.

I used Judgements  from other  proceedings involving the same lawyer where the  judge had said that the  action was   heavy handed and ill conceived , that he was using the  scorched earth approach  ( financial burning out of the   defendant )  I showed parallels in  my case to the earlier case.  I had no reply from the law society.  When I followed up I was told that they had sent a letter out several months earlier and it was now too late for me to appeal. They had effectively not done anything they claimed I had other redress available.

While white collar criminals are using the court to silence and beat up those that who could expose them , the police fail to act  when   complaints of perjury or  harassment are  made.  There is no repercussion for any one laying a false claim in court and there are no repercussions for lawyers who facilitate this action.

Police

The IPCA takes recommendation from the police,  when the police  officers investigate  and the IPCA  accepts the recommendation then there is  no  independence. For true accountability there needs to be independence .

SPCA /RNZSPCA

These private law enforcers  can take action based on the inspectors opinion, there is not even a register for inspectors  and they have wide powers . People can be prosecuted  because they did not take their animal to the vet , something  which they may have avoided  due to cost.

Government /Councils,

OIA and LGOIMA  information is not freely available  and when maters of corruption are brought to the attention of a government department the first reaction appears to be to cover up  rather than to investigate  it.

Many are  covering their backs, there is no  independence in  the supply of information . I can show you documents supplied under OIA where by everything was blanked out except one line.  Had I  seen the entire document   instead of the heavily edited one it would have prevented the perjury  which occurred in my court case.

Prohibitive pricing is often enforced on the applicant. As our watchdogs are so useless at  looking  for corruption the cost of the time effort and  obtaining the information falls on those who  have an interest in seeing he corruption exposed.  This  further prevents accountability and reduces transparency .

 

I thank you for the opportunity    to   have made these submissions, the people   who use the justice system but are not   part of it are the best to comment.

My experience is practical and through my own persona experience as a prosecutor I believe have a unique insight.

I will be happy to make submissions in person.

 

Grace Haden

Director

 

who is who in body corporates

Companies,   court cases and people connected to  Strata Ritle administration   and Michael Chapman- Smith

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED

Owns

·         AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  PRIDDY, Simon Benjamin

·         ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

§  PRIDDY, Simon Benjamin

·         FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  PRIDDY, Simon Benjamin

·         SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

§  PRIDDY, Simon Benjamin

·         VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

o   Directors

§  CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

§  LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

BEATON, Paula Kelly

BEATON V INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV 2005-404-2642 17 November 2005

BROOKER V BODY CORPORATE NO. 154558 HC AK CIV-2003-404-2899 25 November 2005

BODY CORPORATE 182040 & ORS COLERIDGE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2002-404-1665 23 December 2008

BODY CORPORATE ADMIN LTD V C MEHTA AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-6656 10 May 2010

  • BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Ceased Director, Resigned 31 Mar 2005
  • BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATORS LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Jan 1996
  • BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATORS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held
  • CLOVER INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director, Appointed 13 Feb 1988
  • CLOVER INVESTMENTS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held
  • STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Ceased Director, Resigned 25 Jul 1997
  • THE LANDINGS PARNELL NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED Director, Appointed 04 Jun 2008

 

CHAPMAN-SMITH, Michael

4/18 Tahora Avenue, Remuera, Auckland

VANDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V KIM TE RANGIAOUNUI JOHNSTONE LOGAN AND GLENNYS ANN LOGAN HC DUN CIV 2009 412 000219 27 November 2009

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV-2008-404-006294 24 September 2008

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-6294 17 March 2009

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-6294 12 June 2009

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-6294 14 July 2009

BODY CORPORATE 329952 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-007484 30 April 2010

BODY CORPORATE ADMIN LTD V C MEHTA AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-6656 10 May 2010

·         AKARANA REAL ESTATE LIMITED Director, Appointed 02 Mar 1988

·         AKARANA REAL ESTATE LIMITED Shareholder, <1% Individually Held

·         AKARANA REAL ESTATE LIMITED Shareholder, >99% Jointly Held

·         AUBREY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE LIMITED Struck off, Director, Appointed 12 Sep 1990

·         AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 06 Sep 2007

·         BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Director, Appointed 12 Dec 1988 Resigned 23 May 1996

·         BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 08 Jun 1999

·         BONAR LAW LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 3% Individually Held

·         CONDOR 96 LIMITED Struck off, Ceased Director, Resigned 31 May 1998

·         CONDOR 96 LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 15% Jointly Held

·         CONDOR HOLDINGS (N Z) LIMITED Struck off, Director, Appointed 17 Jun 1991

·         C-VU MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 29 Sep 2003

·         ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 11 Sep 2009

·         FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 01 Apr 2005

·         FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 May 2008

·         HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 08 Jun 2004

·         HEALY INSURANCES LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, <1% Jointly Held

·         LABYRINTH HOLDINGS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Nov 2009

o   STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 67% Jointly Held

·         LABYRINTH HOLDINGS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

·         LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED Director, Appointed 29 Apr 2005

·         OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED Director, Appointed 25 May 2010

·         PANCKHURST ENTERPRISES LIMITED Struck off, Director, Appointed 24 Feb 1992

·         PANCKHURST ENTERPRISES LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 999 shares Individually Held

·         STRATA REALTY LIMITED Director, Appointed 02 Mar 1988

·         STRATA REALTY LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

·         STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Director, Appointed 12 Dec 1988

·         STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, <1% Individually Held

·         STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 67% Jointly Held

·         VANDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Sep 2003

·         VANDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

·         VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 20 Nov 2006

·         ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 01 Sep 2005

KWOK, Glenn Harry

  • BLOODSTOCK INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED Struck off, Director, Appointed 01 Jul 1995
  • BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Director, Appointed 31 Mar 2005
  • BODY CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held
  • GEMMELL GARDNER & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Struck off, Ceased Director, Resigned 31 Mar 1994
  • GHK NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED Director, Appointed 23 Jul 2008
  • GHK NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held
  • GKA INSURANCES LIMITED Ceased Director, Resigned 01 Aug 2005
  • GKA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director, Appointed 03 Nov 1999
  • GKA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held
  • GLENN KWOK & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Director, Appointed 07 Mar 1994
  • GLENN KWOK & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

LOCKYER, Phillip Alan Ian

·         AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

·         ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 11 Sep 2009

·         EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 Sep 2010

·         FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 04 Aug 2009

·         FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 May 2008

·         FRECKLES LIMITED Shareholder, 99% Individually Held

·         HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

·         LOCKMOORE LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 100% Jointly Held

·         LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

·         PHILL & CAROLINE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Director, Appointed 08 Jul 2005

·         PHILL & CAROLINE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Shareholder, 50% Individually Held

·         SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Mar 2010

·         STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 15% Individually Held

·         VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

·         ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

PRIDDY, SIMON BENJAMIN

·         BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 24 Mar 2010

·         BROOK STREET INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director, Appointed 10 Oct 2006

·         BROOK STREET INVESTMENTS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

·         EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 Sep 2010

·         SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Mar 2010

ROUX, PAUL WILLIAM

·         BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Ceased Director, Resigned 14 Aug 2009

·         STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 13% Individually Held

 

stop the corporate take over speak out

The super city is all about big business  taking over  our   city  and asset stripping them –  I will  show real evidence  that supports  this statement

What I  did  was simply  to put all the names of  those who have been selected   to go on the committees which rule  Auckland.

I  began with the article published in the Aucklander regarding the so called the secret seven

I compiled a  list of all the companies which they  are and have been involved in committee business directorships past and present

I then looked at three of the largest   business groups   the  Business round table the executive of the  chamber of commerce ( which has held tight reigns  on their  leadership  )  see story and  those who lobbied for the super city  being the Committee for Auckland.

I   collated all the business relationships in one spread sheet and    looked for connections.

What stood out more than anything  is that   these four groups of people   are not  representative of our population.  They are  rich  influential, white   and male and they have  common memberships to these  power hubs.

In my calculations  they represent the  minority of population  and the majority of   big  business ( if not all )  .

This is the spread sheet which I have compiled from those results   shows significant over lap between people  companies  and   the “ Secret seven “ selected to control our assets.

Most significant of all is the  associations of Keenan of water care to liquor industry

If anyone was  wishing to privatise water   which industry do you think would be  knocking on the door first..  well    the already have their inside man  the evidence speaks  for itself.

These  two men appear to have the most connections  they are

MOGRIDGE, Bryan William

MASFEN, Peter Hanbury

When you click on their names you can see their company connections

I have only  gone to one level of connections in my spreadsheets  but as you can see through the   connections of  GREYMOUTH GAS TARANAKI LIMITED and many other companies  similarly named , Masfen is a co director  with Robert DUNPHY   who is none other than Philippa Dunphy’s  husband    a connection which these spreadsheets  don’t illustrate.     There will no doubt be more connections   but  the  are irrelevant if no one cares.  Philippa is on the transport  committee.. handy for the uses of  gas and petroleum.

There is only one candidate warning  every one that this is about a corporate takeover That  is Penny Bright she  is  the Claytons vote  the vote you give to say  yes we agree this is a corporate takeover and we are opposed to it ……..     I gave  her my  vote

You have two choices  Vote for her    or  if you have received this email and have ignored it  accept that things will never be the same again

We can only do this   if we stand together.

If you are not male, if you are not white  or  if you do not support corporate coups  then  give Penny your vote and send a very  loud message..   we  want   the city  for the people run  by those elected by the people  not  by committees  of pre selected persons  who have conflicts of interests and hidden agendas

Please Treat this as the  vote   for  or against the super city.. if you are for the super city and can’t be bothered reading my material   vote for whoever you like

If you are against the super city and don’t like the undemocratic manner in which it has been done  or  you  have read my material and say Oh my gosh what is happening is so  wrong. Then please vote  Like I did    just the one tick on the form     Vote for Penny Bright .

I am not  part of her campaign, this has not been authorised by her  this is   my recommendation  based on real evidence  .

Please forward this email  to anyone  who is yet to vote  click on the links   have a look at the evidence  this is a  corporate take over the very people I have  mentioned  own the news papers the  only way we are going to get this out  is through  email.

This  email has been posted on  http://transparency.net.nz/2010/09/23/stop-the-corporate-take-over-speak-out/

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

those who pull the strings of the new super city

The  chamber of commerce have  not bothered to get back to me , I guess  it would be too embarrassing fo them to admit that a hand full of persons  run the society and it is  only an illusion of democracy . You see if they allowed the  members of the chamber to vote then  the power and control would be lost.

This appears to be part of the wider trend.  Take for instance the Business round table

which is an organisation of  influential  business persons  – all White  men  except for   two  women   and one male of asian  origins.

Many appear to be  in bed with  major overseas consortiums . I have compiled a list of business round table past and  current directorships.

These persons , the chamber of commerce  directorship and   the committee for Auckland   are what I believe to be the  New Zealand based puppet masters they pull the  strings  and it would appear that they have already taken firm control of hte new super city .

I have taken their business  connections and  matched them with those selected for the Auckland  super city  committees  those which the Aucklander calls the the secret seven.   These are the business connections of the so-called members of the secret seven committee business directorships past and present

The results speak for themselves see the document   council business connections It shows directorship  relationships between those on  the new  council committees and those who I believe are  at the helm of this country.

There has been a lot in  the news about privatisation of water the document   associations of Keenan – water care to liquor industry

illustrates  just how many  and how close the associations are  with the liquor industry  .

is this  poised for insider trading or what ?

Ironically just yesterday there was an item in the herald, an insider trading matter

Involving IBM

of which a judge said  “White collar crime is just as destructive to our social fabric as the crimes of drugs and violence”

But I think in light of the events of  this past week   in particular  with ACT which is pushing this whole super city thing  we have to question  just what  the  accepted standards are  I refer in particular to Stealing baby’s identity ‘a bit of a lark’

Just goes to show that those we  elect do not have the values which the rest of society condone.  Perhaps we need to be a bit more cautious about proceeding with this  supercity thing  which has been done in a tad of a rush..  I say  there is only one  vote  and that is   Vote for Penny Bright

Spot light on the chamber of commerce

The  Auckland Chamber of Commerce appears to be a trading name  for  an  unidentified entity. To find out  who or which it is  we have sent the following to Michael Barnett

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 3:51 p.m.
To: Michael Barnett
Subject: auckland chamber of commerce

Good afternoon Mr Barnett

I am doing some research on the  chamber  and   note  that there is both a company and an incorporated society    I note that there is some confusion about the names and wonder if you could assist in  clarification

  1. The AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE is a trading name  please identify  which entity it is a trading name for
    1. AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY LIMITED or
    2. THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (INCORPORATED)
  1. If one joins the  chamber  do they  join  the society or are they  joining something which comes under the  umbrella  of the limited liability company. That is are they a member of
    1. The company   “AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY LIMITED” or
    2. The society “THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (INCORPORATED)”
  1. Do the members  who join through the  web site  get to vote at the AGM   for the incorporated society
  2. If so  how are they notified of the AGM
  3. Where was the AGM held this year and how many attended.
  4. Could we please obtain a copy of the  minutes of the AGM

I hope that   these questions can be  easily answered   and look forward to your reply.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

Wed 8/09/2010 9:31 a.m.

Grace- will get the answers to these and get back to you

Michael

No evidence required to bring court action

It has  long been a concern of mine that  court action can be brought  by any one on anything.

If you have a larger wallet than the person you are taking on and wanting to beat them up  and totally destroy them  then the court is your arena.

Defamation claims are always good because they put the onus of truth on the other party   and then when you can ensure that their defence is struck out- you are on a home run.

I have been fighting this for four years and have met up through the course of events with Vince Siemer who has had a similar experience.

While we spend years arguing law, the facts are not put before the court. Lawyers who are skilled debaters can win any argument   especially when they do not have to produce the facts to back them up.

The police do not act on perjury complaints,  I have  had one with  them for  6 months now  for a matter I was involved in  and it has not progressed

Through my Fresh prepared Limited  case I can prove categorically that  the  courts are  abused .

Today I received some documents from  Vince , he has asked me to put them up  on the  transparency site and I have done so  in the interest of transparency.

http://www.trans.quantoaduro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sol-general-recall1.docx.

http://www.trans.quantoaduro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sc482009-16june2010-secondrecallminute.doc

http://www.trans.quantoaduro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2nd-recall-application.pdf

abuse of the *555 system Police failing to investigate filing court action without evidence.

To the Minister of Police , Minister of transport , Minister of Courts and Minister of Justice   Official information act requests

Urgent  request for review of    the *555  system  and review of the  ability to use the process of the  court  for corrupt purposes .

I am a Former Police  Prosecuting Sergeant , now a Private Investigator.

In January I was  returning to Auckland  when  I experienced an incident of road rage.

As I had the faster  car I managed to  get myself out of the situation  and placed  a vehicle between the other  vehicle and myself

What I was un aware of  was that the   driver of  the  offending vehicle  chose to involve the police to extract revenge on me  for escaping his   torment.

When I was pulled over by Constable Connors   of the Thames  traffic unit   I was told that there had been two *555 calls about my driving.  I stated that that would have been impossible, then I remembered the white van  and told  him that if there had been a call it would have been from that vehicle  and I  told him why.

The constable  claimed  that there had been two calls, I replied that they   would have both come from the same van and that they were malicious

He said he would get back to  me  and  several days later phoned to say he had taken statements from both drivers and I was going to be issued with an infringement for passing dangerously and I was lucky I was not to be charged with dangerous driving.  He added that he had  discussed this with his supervisor .

When the ticket came I  filed an official information act request to  obtain  the   statements, the recording and relevant documentation.

The documents were supplied outside the time frame of the OIA -the constable claiming he had been on leave. Surprisingly the statement from the  *555 caller had only just been obtained and was dated 6 weeks after the alleged offence, this was the only statement on  file .

I noted that   there was no evidence for  the  offence   with which I had been  charged. I brought this to the attention of the senior sergeant traffic unit and asked for a review, especially as the time of the alleged  offence was   two minutes after I had been stopped by the   officer.

There was strong determination by police  to go ahead with the   charge  .  I elected to   enter a plea of not guilty.

I am  grateful to Senior sergeant Rex Knight for ensuring that I  did not have to drive to Thames twice  one to enter the Not guilty plea and  another for the  hearing. Instead I proceeded straight to the  hearing.

I was disappointed that   no one could take the time to review the file . I  fortunately received the voice recording  four days before the hearing  and I was able to play that in court and   use it  in my defence.

It would have been more economical for me to have paid the $150  fine  and I am sure many would  have done so as  a defence is time consuming  and those who do not have the experience would have to engage a lawyer at  in excess  $250  per hour . I have no doubt  that many   pay up  because it is the  easy  and  economic   option. There by serving he police  with  positive statistics and clearances  and the  rash approach that there is no need for evidence.

We had the  hearing on the 16th June  before Two justices of the peace  who concluded that the  charge had not been proved.

I was staggered to hear from the officer that

  1. he  did not   take statements
  2. record  drivers explanations
  3. that a  ticket had been issued  on the uncorroborated say so of  a driver who had earlier tried to push me off the road
  4. That the uncorroborated verbal allegations of a third party was sufficient to  have me charged.

I was  disappointed  that

  1. Despite my  many requests for review of the case   no one compared the statement of the  *555 caller  with the original phone calls .
  2. There appeared to be bias on the part of the police  , Constable Connors  supervising sergeant, Jim Corbett  had been involved in a  police complaints authority complaint , made by me , many years ago
  3. That the court  system can be abused  by the laying of information’s which are not accompanied  by affidavit.
  4. That  even  if there is  an affidavit  that no one is kept accountable to the truth.

I raise these last points as in my experience  in recent years I  have  had personal experience with  the abuse of process in the courts.

There is a real danger  when   the law can be  used to extract revenge  and in the case of the *555  system I believe that   it is  very  susceptible to abuse as the police appear to   accept unchallenged the allegations of the  caller.

Constable Connors admitted that  with the number of tickets he does  he is simply too busy to take statements. This does not serve justice it does build resentment against the police for unfairness.

From the minister of Police and  Minister for Transport  I   request by way of  official information act  request All policies general instructions , directions and  codes of   conduct relating to

  1. to the handling of *555 calls
  1. the   minimum requirements   of  proceeding to prosecution   based on information obtained  by complaint
  1. The need for a signed   statement before laying a  charge  against a person based on  the allegation of a member of  the public
  1. What protocol the police have  in acting or not acting on the say so of one person  against  another   , why are some instanced filed and why are  incidents of the same evidential  proof proceeded with , I realise there is  discretion of police officers  but  the discretions should never be  to such an extent that a person is charged without evidence    beyond the uncorroborated say so of one person existing

From the minister of Courts and  Minister for justice   I   request by way of  official information act  request

  1. All policies general instructions , directions and  codes of   conduct relating to the commencement of proceedings in  any court  especially with regards to  any provisions which would ensure that the  claims made to the court are  made by  a person in their true identity  and  the claims made have a  factual basis.
    1. I am particularly concerned with Identity fraud  and it appears to me  that  there are no mechanisms  for proving that a plaintiff in  a matter is a real person or a person using their real name , this not only pertains to natural persons  but also to legal persons.
  1. What  are the  guide lines    by which unincorporated trusts    can be represented in court and  file proceedings in the court ,  what criteria of poof  of existence of a trust is required in relation to  those who claim to be trustees.
  1. The  number  of prosecutions  we have had in the past  three years for  perjury
    1. In  court evidence
    2. In an  affidavit
    3. For a statutory declaration .

For the  information of all ministers I wish to point out that I am a verification specialist and I  am extremely concerned with the lack of  verification of facts    and accountability to the truth  in   enforcement and in   justice.

It is my experience that   the only  justice there is  is the size of a wallet  truth and honesty play  little or no part at all.

Our courts  spend more time arguing process and law  than   looking at the cold hard facts and making a finding on facts.

It  has been my experience this week that JP’s    have the ability to discern fact from fiction  probably because they are not distracted  by legal arguments  and I wonder  if perhaps  all claims to the court  should follow the   following process.

  1. All material is  submitted with  sworn affidavits
  2. JP’s  have a preliminary hearing  to ascertain the at the affidavits  set out the facts of the matter
  3. If the facts stack up  the matter goes to a judge   for decision on legal issues
  4. If the claim is malicious or fictitious  it is sent to the  police to  be  investigated  by the police for perjury

I wish to point out that I have had a perjury file with  the police for  some 6 months , it has not progressed  it appears ironic that a fully prepared perjury file is  not  acted upon but a malicious telephone call  can  instigate a court process.

I was also with a mother of two children whose father forced them into a sexual act. The police in  3 years have not progressed the matter.  Another client   has lost his  property, I am working  for him pro bono as the police in three years have ot progressed  the obvious fraud.

Policing in my day was a service  one  which kept  us safe .. now it is a business ,…used for   revenue gathering  and the protection to the public is no longer there.

White collar criminals are using our courts to silence  those who can expose them

Those  engaging in road rage    use the police to extract vengeance on the other driver

The innocent  have only  two options  pay up  and shut up    or risk another  beating.

I look forward to your replies  I will be filing an IPCA  complaint with regards to the  Traffic  incident

Only when  we have accountability to the truth in our courts  will we  find justice.

When we allow our courts to be used to extract vengeance on other  we  reduce our courts to the level of a thug   who helps   in beating up  an innocent  person.

Something has to change   I hope that  you can   help make New Zealand  the lest corrupt  by  making  it difficult for  those who use the court  to extract vengeance to  do so.

I will be posting this  and the replies on my blog http://transparencynz.wordpress.com/

and http://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Strata Title Administration

Stata  Title administration

we have concerns  about the lack of transparency of  Strata management

They have previously appeared on    Fair Go investigations and been the subject of many  court cases

The video  is located  on the  fair go   page hyperlinked above   it would appear that he complained about this item and  this was reported by the broadcasting standards

We have collated news items  which highlight  the nature and  ethics of this   organisation

In news item Body corporates scrutinised as review pressure mounts

Strata was ordered to repay more than $50,000 of money illegally held and it still faces further action from other bodies corporate later this month.”

“A proprietor of one of those bodies corporate has revealed a statement in Strata Title’s body corporate manual that he believes is tantamount to a policy of kickbacks.”

the following comments are made in the  news item Court clears way to dump property manager

“Strata threatened owners with debt collection charges”

Justice Paterson concluded, most, if not all, of the proprietors had become disenchanted with Mr Chapman-Smith  and Strata

“He said the representatives of 94 apartment holders had their rights and views overridden by a secretary [Strata] and a developer [Ede] who had only an interest in two further apartments”

Justice Paterson said many of the owners’ complaints arose from the manner in which Mr Chapman-Smith chaired meetings, his refusal to co-operate and negotiate with an informal owners’ committee and Strata’s action in trying to enforce levies which were not approved by the annual meeting.

“According to the judge, Strata had caused the proprietors considerable inconvenience, anxiety and cost”

“Strata would have collected levies it was not entitled to collect”

in news item Property manager battles body corporates

“Rob Ferguson said Strata had set itself up so it was “entrenched”and “ran roughshod over the clear wishes of many of the registered proprietors.”

In Judgment exposes property managers

“One disgruntled tenant claimed the company was “useless.””They deliberately obfuscate, if not lie, when you try to get the simplest problems attended to.”

“In June 1989 Strata’s Mr Chapman-Smith was fined $7500 by the Real Estate Institute Licensing Board for misconduct and for misleading the institute.”

Chapman smith has  special connections with Easy energy Limited   which is a Welington based  company  but shares  his office in Auckland  through East energy  water and gas bills are hiked  up  Water bills upset apartment owners

The court cases are  publicly reported  and from the history of Strata Title administration (STA) can be  traced

Paula Beaton was formerly married to Mr Chapman-Smith, who is the sole director and majority shareholder of STA. They married in 1985 and have one child. Following separation, Ms Beaton became the owner of Mr Chapman-Smith’s shares in ( Body corporate administration) BCA, which by that time was the largest body corporate secretariat in New Zealand. A year or so later, Mr Chapman-Smith founded STA.

Between ex wife  and Michael Chapman they have a good chunk of the  body corporate market.  It would appear that when  some  appartments get rid of him they  end up  being managed by one of his associates   as in the case of Soho .

Mr Chapman-Smith has made  submission to the  select  committee   which is located at this link

Further court action is recorded in these judgements  although the  news clippings  and  blogs would indicate that these are but  a small representation of the litigation.

It would appear that the  issues faced  by   those owning apartments  administered by  Chapman smith  have the same issues as those administered by his ex wife Paula Beaton through her company Body corporate administration .

the court cases   We have found are

BODY CORPORATE 329952 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-007484 30 April 2010

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-6294 17 March 2009

VANDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V KIM TE RANGIAOUNUI JOHNSTONE LOGAN AND GLENNYS ANN LOGAN HC DUN CIV 2009 412 000219 27 November 2009

More blogs on Strata Title Administration

And I Also found a   site  called Strata Title Administration which uses the same logo as Paula Beaton uses

Company directorships of Chapman-Smith

AKARANA REAL ESTATE LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on March 2, 1988.

AUBREY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE LIMITED (Struck Off) – Appointed as a director on September 12, 1990.

AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on September 6, 2007.

BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on June 8, 1999.

CONDOR 96 LIMITED (Struck Off) – Appointed as a director on December 19, 1995 and resigned on May 31, 1998.

CONDOR HOLDINGS (N Z) LIMITED (Struck Off) – Appointed as a director on June 17, 1991.

C-VU MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on September 29, 2003.

ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on September 11, 2009.

FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on April 1, 2005.

FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on May 14, 2008.

HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on June 8, 2004.

LABYRINTH HOLDINGS TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on November 30, 2009.

LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on April 29, 2005.

OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on May 25, 2010.

PANCKHURST ENTERPRISES LIMITED (Struck Off) – Appointed as a director on February 24, 1992.

STRATA REALTY LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on March 2, 1988.

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on December 12, 1988.

VANDA INVESTMENTS LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on September 30, 2003.

VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on November 20, 2006.

ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Registered) – Appointed as a director on September 1, 2005.

His fellow share holders  are

Philip Alan Ian LOCKYER   21 Tui Street, Oneroa, Waiheke Island

Also owns

ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 May 2008

AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

PHILL & CAROLINE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Director, Appointed 08 Jul 2005

SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Mar 2010

FRECKLES LIMITED Shareholder, 99% Individually Held

LOCKMOORE LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 100% Jointly Held

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 15% Individually Held

PHILL & CAROLINE TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Shareholder, 50% Individually Held

EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 Sep 2010

ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 11 Sep 2009

FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 04 Aug 2009

C-VU MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 16 Apr 2008

Paul William ROUX

3/60 Rodney Street, Howick, Auckland ,

owns

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 13% Individually Held

BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Ceased Director, Resigned 14 Aug 2009

Michael Brent WILLIAMS 47 Sayegh Street, St Heliers, Auckland ,

owns

RECRUITING PARTNERS LIMITED Struck off, Shareholder, 50% Individually Held

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED Shareholder, 5% Individually Held

RECRUITING PARTNERS LIMITED Struck off, Director, Appointed 12 Apr 2006

Chapman=Smith  shares   directorships with  Simon PRIDDY

BROOK STREET INVESTMENTS LIMITED Director, Appointed 10 Oct 2006

SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 30 Mar 2010

BROOK STREET INVESTMENTS LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Director, Appointed 14 Sep 2010

BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Director, Appointed 24 Mar 2010

OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED Director, Appointed 21 Jun 2010

PRIDDY took  over the administration of the Soho apartments after Strata was removed

SOHO MINUTES SHOWING STRATA BEING SACKED

we wonder if the people at SOHO  realise that the   manager is still effectively the same with a different label.

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED owns

AURA MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

ECLIPSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

EMBEDDED NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

FAIRFAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

FEDERAL APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

HARVARD MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

LUNA BODY CORPORATE LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

SOHO MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

VOLT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

ZEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

BODY CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Shareholder, 100% Individually Held

USE OF FALSE NAMES  as copied from http://stratatitlefacts.blogspot.com/

Strata own the building managers apartments in several of the buildings Strata manages. It is not Strata’s or Michael Chpaman Smiths name as the owner – no K. XU is at least one of the aliases used. Why the need for a false name? Why does Strata’s Manual allow false names – what is someone trying to hide?

It appears that  mr Kang  XU  owns a number of properties   being

XU, KANG Harrison Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

XU, KANG Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

XU, KANG Campbell Road, Onehunga, Auckland

XU, KANG The Strand, Parnell, Auckland

XU, KANG Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

XU, KANG Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

XU, KANG Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland