Brookfields How to win with no evidence – the background.
I have just made complaints against a number of lawyers and had wanted to make a complaint against Brookfield’s lawyers with the law society but found that because they were an unincorporated law firm I had no redress against them. I have written to Brookfields , ( their partners and their CEO) in the past and been ignored .
Just last night I found that Brookfield’s had blocked my email address , guess that is how you deal with issues first you bully then you throw up a brick wall. That is where blogs come in .
I am a whistle blower I didn’t mean to be , I simply asked some simple questions of the duly elected council members of Waitakere city council and of MAF with regards to an organisation which had law enforcement ability under the animal welfare act. This “ organisation ‘ transpired to be just one man a man who had written the legislation and had advised on it at select committee level. He was effectively running his private SPCA as a parasite off public resources using staff vehicles and resources paid for by the ratepayers and collecting the profits and banking it into an account only he had access to and held in the name of his alias.. animal welfare institute of new Zealand.
In my opinion it would make a perfect fraud it is so clever that even the best Grisham novel could not have dreamt up this plot. The secret of the success was a false application which would result in enforcing the animal welfare law and by virtue of section 171 see the proceeds of prosecution returned to the approved organisation.
This was not coincidental it had been plotted way back at least in 1994 and put into a business plan in 1996. The in 1997 the writer of the business plan had the luxury of writhing the legislation for his business plan and was employed by the select committee to see it through the transitional stage and pass into law.
The false application for approved status was false because no trust exited and no deed had been signed. The assurances in paragraph 10.4 were that the trust would be registered and become a legal entity in its own right. It was later to transpire that many other things in this application were total bull shit too.
MAF and the minister sought to clarify the existence of AWINZ and as these communications show , proof was avoided.( I eventually received the full documents if any one wants them I can direct you to them )
Early of 2001 the minster approved the application for AWINZ Inc to become a law enforcement authority under the act which the person making the application for AWINZ had written.
Strangely enough in searching the MAF files and in official information act requests, there was never any correspondence from anyone else who said that Mr Wells,( the person acting on behalf of the applicant ) could act on their behalf or on behalf of any other group everything ws done by him in the name of the fictitious AWINZ.
In 2006 I was approached by some people in my capacity as a private Investigator, they had concerns about the existence or rather lack of existence of AWINZ. There were two memoranda of understanding one with MAF and one with the previous manager dog and stock control Waitakere city . Mr Wells who had signed on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand with Waitakere was to take the place of Mr Didovich who had signed apparently without the authority of the city. And so in this agreement with council Mr Wells had obligations to both sides of the agreement something the council Lawyer Denis Sheard had no issue with.
There was not a register on which AWINZ showed and so to prove conclusively that we had not overlooked the existence we incorporated a trust by the identical name and were successful.
Our trust was incorporated on 27 April 2006 in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The incorporated number is 1809454. It is searchable on the register maintained by the MED.
Proving that AWINZ categorically did not exist and not being able to locate any group of identifiable persons who called themselves AWINZ at that time, we put up our web page stating that we were the only legal entity by that name and having achieved Donee status and having ascertained that no one else using that name had IRD donee status we advertised that too.
Now the dates are very important remember we were fully incorporated, That is our AWINZ was a legal entity in its own right on 27 APRIL 2006 by virtue of this statute ( see section 13 ) .
You have to wonder how a group which informally formed on 10 May 2006 without any documentation, can have a claim to having used that name prior to 27 April 2006 … Never fear Brookfields is here they are so efficient that they can do anything and on this occasion they used a partners wife , who was according to the law society a law clerk at the time .. to commence the proceedings by what I felt to be was intimidation * . to be continued….* this has been updated in 2019 after one year of defamation proceedings at my own initiative I felt intimidated when I received a phone call late at night and was told to change the name our legally incorporated trust and If I did not my private investigator licence would be in jeopardy .