Archive for May 2011

corruption not acknowledged in NZ

In Saturdays herald there is an editorial entitled Editorial: NZ’s culture of honesty one to be cherished, it states that corruption is foreign to the NZ  government .

I have taken the liberty of replying to the   this editorial  what is the bet I wont be published   so  I am publishing my response here .as  follows

Corruption simply is not defined in New Zealand and we have no agencies that specifically deal with it.  for 5 years I have been questioning  why we gave  law enforcement powers to a private  body which was not identifiable  and transpired to be just one person, the one person who  had massive input into the legislation  under which his fictional   “ body “   gained  massive powers of search seizure and prosecution  including retaining fines  which had a maximum of   $250,000 .

Our current and last Government have been great at concealing corruption  by saying” that is simply not happening” and walking away .

What few realise is that by ignoring corruption and condoning it you are allowing it  to grow.

Very soon countries like India won’t want to trade with us because we are so corrupt.

I have asked Mr key   several times how we question corruption     I have not had a reply

At least the countries who are perceived at being corrupt acknowledge that they are and have systems in place to deal with corruption. We simply ignore it.  And if you don’t define it then it’s not.

Inability to question corruption in NZ – open letter to John Key

Mr Key                                 Open letter

In 2006 I   was asked  to locate a  law enforcement  authority which had extensive legislative powers including prosecution and the retention of fines (  up to $250,000)  under the animal welfare act.

It transpired that  the  “ organisation “  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  ( AWINZ )  had no existence beyond a  trading name  or alias for the man who had written the bill leading up to the act and who had also been an independent advisor to the select committee in the hearing stages.

Neither MAF nor the minister for Agriculture at the time    checked to see if the organisation exited before giving it legislative powers .

Since then it’s been a cover up at the highest level    .

In 5 years  I have not been able to progress this matter.

I  have tried every Possible means for  having this corruption  addressed and have found that I have been effectively stone walled. I am a former Police sergeant and am a licenced private Investigator  my skills  in this department are definitely more  than  the average.

My Local MP   Rodney Hide    did nothing    he wouldn’t even see me about  it  and his portfolio was minister of local government.. it appears that he condoned the use of council staff  for a private  enterprise.    Rodney knew    about this matter  even before the 2008  elections   as he  was  actively helping me at that stage.

Your local National  MP Cam Calder  condoned it  by saying “what does it matter if they are not registered if they are doing the work”. The point is   that they were doing the work  but were using  council paid officers to  do it  and the money which came back went into privately held coffers.

Even former mayors and   current  councillors are involved  in the cover up  as are high profile lawyers  

This morning I tried to speak to someone in your office about it and was told to put it in writing

How many  times do we have to write in     how many years before we get your attention.

Why is national  actively  concealing this corruption  and why do  citizens  not have the ability to question  what is going on.  Only by accountability  can we ensure that our country  is truly corruption free.

Mr Key  could I please get a response from you  .. Do you condone corruption or  do  you seek accountability?   Could you please     assign someone to assist in this matter.

I have worked out  why NZ is the least corrupt.. we simply  don’t acknowledge it.   Let’s ignore it and it will go away.


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

How could A non existent private law enforcement authority survive for so long? Why condone corruption in Waitakere City?

Open letter to Rodney Hide

Dear Rodney

In 2006 I questioned the existence of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )  which was a private law enforcement  authority   with extensive prosecution , search and seizure   powers under the animal welfare act.

I was to  find that the  only person associated with AWINZ up until 2006  was Neil Wells the person who had written the   bill leading up to the legislation  and he had also been an independent   advisor to the select committee in the time leading to the bill becoming legislation.

While you were in opposition and   you were most helpful and even arranged for questions  to be asked in Parliament [1]

The questions   you asked   were with regards to a trust which Mr Wells claimed AWINZ to be  but it has now emerged that the trust which he claimed was AWINZ was nothing but a red herring and that AWINZ was  nothing more than  another name Mr Wells used for himself.

The time line goes like this

  1. Mr Wells writes the Bill which   facilitates organisations other than the RNZSPCA to enforce animal welfare.
  2. Mr Wells becomes an  independent  advisor to the select committee in the bearing  stages.
  3. Mr Wells makes an applicationfor AWINZ to become an approved organisation under the legislation which he has just contributed so much to .
    1. On page 2 of that document   he states “ A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand “ (AWINZ). It is being registered under Pa r t II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”
    2. In correspondence with the minister and MAF Mr Wells makes false statements and avoids the production of a deed.[2]
    3. In 2006 Neither Waitakere City or MAF have any documents   which have details  of the other trustees  and there are no documents which give  Mr Wells consent for persons to act on their  behalf   either jointly or severally .
    4. There are not trust deeds on file which back up the MOU’s being one with MAF which Mr Wells signed as a trustee    and the other with waitakere dog control which he signed on behalf of a non-existent organisation  Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand.
    5. In early  2006  There were no organisations registered  anywhere  by the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand    and Mr Wells was operating   this “ organisation from his place of work Waitakere city council dog control  where he was now manager.
    6. By incorporating the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  on 27 April 2006 we categorically proved that No other organisation by that name existed.
    7. Mr Wells then started a cover up campaign[3] , evidence which has come out recently proves that Mr Wells was in fact AWINZ  and that  no other person was involved in the running of it.

Mr Wells was the dog and stock control manager at Waitakere city council, using the name AWINZ to disguise the fact   that he contracted to himself he performed services which   were as follows.

  1. The staff under Mr Wells  control at Waitakere  dog and stock control  were  trained by him to be  animal welfare officers.
  2. They were warranted on recommendation of AWINZ
  3. In their paid time for the council  if they came across an animal welfare matter in the course of  their duties or were asked to attend an animal welfare matter ( which took priority over council work )  they would attend take, action  and reported the circumstances  to their council boss  Neil Wells  manager.
  4. He would pass it to the head of AWINZ – Neil wells  for authority to prosecute
  5. He passed it to the  barrister for AWINZ  Neil wells  who  would  do the paperwork and court work
  6. The money which came back by virtue of  section 171 AWA  was handed back to Neil Wells who ran a bank account in the name  of   Animal welfare institute  of new Zealand  for that purpose.  Fines under the animal welfare act  could be up to $250,000.

I was relieved when you won the seat  , You had been  so supportive when you were in opposition I  thought  Good something will happen now.

Instead I have not been able to get near you and was told by one of your  support staff that it is now  conflict of interest for you  to be involved.

Rodney  I would   very much like to know

  1. why it is a conflict of interest   ?
  2. why   AWINZ was able to continue to trade until January of this year?
  3. Why  you condone  contracts for law enforcement to be entered into   with unidentifiable  “organisations”?
  4. Why this has been concealed from the public?
  5. And what else is happening out there that the public have no right to know about yet   is paying for?
  6. Why do you no longer support the call for an independent commission against corruption?

I will be publishing a copy of this letter on the Blog and will be happy to  publish your reply .

Looking forward  to being ignored again

I thought it was funny when I called in  at your meeting last  night  and  the   idiot at the back told me to see my local MP,  it was great to be able to  say  I have tried   Rodney is it .

He had a good idea   why not let Mr Key know  so this is  it  I will let Mr Key know and  all the other members of our parliament and the press.

I will keep on pushing this issue through the election campaign  I am going to get this  exposed.

Get your spin doctors out .. I want some answers.


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at
[1] 19741 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

19742 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

9240 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

9241 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

9065 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

7723 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture

2 For clarification the false statements are

  1. Registration does not add months  , it is completed in  days
  2. It has nothing to do with IRD
  3. The undertaking  that AWINZ will be registered   was false.. It never occurred.
  4. He never sent a copy of a trust deed
  5. Originals are never sent  he knew this as he had registered other trusts
  6. The deed when it emerged did not have a section 20 (a)

3 By first  having me and my  fellow board members intimidated By xxxxxThen having a  very nonfactual letter sent by   lawyer David Neutze who supplied a  trust deed for a group of people  who  have never had any legal connection with the approved organisation   other than by inference. We offered to meet to discuss the issues, but as these people were not actively involved it was too difficult as these people were not aware of the true nature of the operation. MAF were now asking questions and due to the urgency  Wells had to come up with trustees and recruited  Wyn Hoadley Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Wells , without  documentary evidence of being a trustees took legal action  on fabricated grounds. ( Passing off and  breach of fair trading- They had formed a group  used the name AWINZ and   took action against our pre-existing legal entity .

[2] For clarification the false statements are

  1. Registration does not add months  , it is completed in  days
  2. It has nothing to do with IRD
  3. The undertaking  that AWINZ will be registered   was false.. It never occurred.
  4. He never sent a copy of a trust deed
  5. Originals are never sent  he knew this as he had registered other trusts
  6. The deed when it emerged did not have a section 20 (a)

[3] By first  having me and my  fellow board members intimidated By xxx Then having a  very nonfactual letter sent by   lawyer David Neutze who supplied a  trust deed for a group of people  who  have never had any legal connection with the approved organisation   other than by inference. We offered to meet to discuss the issues, but as these people were not actively involved it was too difficult as these people were not aware of the true nature of the operation. MAF were now asking questions and due to the urgency  Wells had to come up with trustees and recruited  Wyn Hoadley Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Wells , without  documentary evidence of being a trustees took legal action  on fabricated grounds. ( Passing off and  breach of fair trading- They had formed a group  used the name AWINZ and   took action against our pre-existing legal entity .

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley

Dear Wyn

I note that you are now a councillor at Thames District council and  find it ironic that you sued me in 2006 to  silence me  from asking questions  of  the  councillors at Waitakere city council with regards to the operation of   your “organisation”   which  was performing SPCA type duties  by using the  councils staff facilities and infrastructure.

I had been approached by a dog and stock control officer who was employed by the council who questioned the need for her to have a warrant under the animal welfare act and why the duties for animal welfare were being prioritised over council work ,during her council paid time.

It transpired that The animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) was a fabricated organisation   created by the   man who wrote and advised on the animal welfare act.

The legislation provided for approved organisations of which the RNZSPCA was one and AWINZ to become the other. It also provided a great source of income  to  Approved organisation by way of prosecution ( section 171)

In his rush to make the application for approved status, Mr Wells overlooked the fact that he did not have an organisation and   made the application in the name of a non-existent trust. There by making  the application in  a name other than his legal name   and  this   name not representing any one  else can only  be  his alias.

In 2006  after we discovered that Mr Wells  a council manager  for dog and stock control was running a  his fictitious organisation  in a situation of gross conflict of interest and parallel to  his   council responsibilities  using the resources and infrastructure of council and there by deriving an income which  only he was in  control of   and received this into a bank account which he operated in the name of his alias.

To prove categorically that AWINZ did not have any   known legal foundations, those with an interest in accountability, which included me ,set up a trust and incorporated it on the 27 April 2006 in the name  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

This made me a Board member of a legally incorporated trust which was Legally registered on the 27th April 2006 and had obtained charitable status with the IRD, being the only   legal entity by that name to have that status. There were  no other  groups recorded as using that name with IRD .  As with any credible  organisation we can produce the  document trail it is  found on the  purpose  of   transparency and accountability.

In May 2006 we applied for the trade mark AWINZ which was eventually registered to us unopposed.

In contrast you formed a relationship with Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts  JP on 10 May 2006 and called yourselves AWINZ . You have never  provided  any documentary evidence of this relationship and there has been no evidence that  you  formed a trust or became a trustee or took on  any obligations   to the approved organisation  other than by inference .

I recently received your explanation as to your involvement with AWINZ which was that you had been asked to become a trustee and   became both trustee and   Chairperson on 10 May 2006. This date is some three weeks after  the  entity I was a board member of was legally incorporated.

You went on to state that as a chair person you and the other alleged trustees   then instructed lawyers to  take action against myself and the board of the legally incorporated AWINZ  for passing off and breach of  the fair trading act, this is rather odd in view of the date which  after 5 years of litigation we have  finally been supplied with.

When  you sued for  passing off   one would have presumed that you  had prior usage rights, not  be part of an informal group which adopted the name  weeks after the other party was legally incorporated.

Any ordinary person could  tell you  that to have prior usage right you have to  pre-exist the other  entity and  logically have  proof of your existence.  As a barrister I would have thought that that would have been obvious to you too.

Before I even knew you were involved I was Intimidated by xxxxxx who  as it  transpires was an unregistered lawyer  who according to your  statement  had been instructed by you and Mr Wells  and ” the other trustees ”

The Letter signed By  David Neutze as then sent a short time later  to   the board of the legal entity AWINZ  which   made legal threats  based on false claims.

The letter was followed by a  trust deed which did not include your name   and Mr Neutze by inference    indicated that those persons named on the deed were his clients.He never checked and never questioned that  the  plaintiffs in the proceedings were not the same group of persons.

Now 5 years later   after you dragged me though court and destroyed my family through the stress of it all , I discover that you had no prior usage rights at all and that your claim in the statement of claim is entirely  fictitious.

What I would like to know from you Wyn is

  • What exactly did you join  on the 10th May  2006,  was there a proper meeting with minutes were other people there  or   did the date somehow  evolve due to Mr Wells  completing a form with the charities commission.
  • How come you have never been able to provide any documents that   prove that you were a trustee, If you didn’t sign any papers   how did you know you were become a trustee to a trust, how did you get an obligation to the deed.
  • Mr Coutts told me that the trust, he belonged to which by its own   documentation ( 7 (a)) ceased to exist on 1.3.2003, never met    so how did you become a trustee of this defunct trust?
  • How were you appointed given the fact that the trust never met?
  • If this this trust still existed, how did   this trust  which was allegedly formed   on 1.3.2000 have any obligations to the approved status given that none of the trustees  other than Wells had   signed any documents for the application   for approved status. And that there are  no documents any where which   bind those trustees to the   responsibility of running a law enforcement agency.
  • In  May  2006 you assumed the name  Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  then took legal action  against myself and  the legally incorporated AWINZ  which pre-existed your implied involvement  by  three weeks  – for passing off and  breach of fair trade. As a barrister   could you please   let me know  how someone who assumes a name later can sue a prior existing  legal  entity for   passing off
  • How we could have  been  breaching the fair trading act  when you had not traded using the name AWINZ prior to our existence.
  • How could you sue us without checking the validity of your claim?
  • In June  2006 I became aware that you were involved through a  donation flyer which had been sent out    with the dog registration papers  in 2006 .Sent to all dog owners in Waitakere city council.
  • Since you  took action against us a legally incorporated charitable trust for passing off and  breach of fair trade, do you not think that the logo you and your  associates  Mr Wells and Mr Coutts JP   adopted  was not a tad  similar with the  logo on the  Waitakere council dog control building?  And  could  also be seen as passing off and breach of fair trade?

Why was the new logo you adopted  so close to the ones on the council building and vehicles?

Why did you  use the council phone number for your  flyer   and why continue to use the postal address of the   council manager Mr Wells,  do you not think that that was a conflict of interest for him  ?

You signed the  donation flyer and the  following years flyer  . Legislation states that  “No trustees or society shall be incorporated under a name which is identical with that of any other Board  “ Mr wells had  a letter from the ministry of economic developmentswhich explained  this  point  . Please explain by what legislation or documentary  evidence you can supply which gave you the right to call yourself the chairperson of the board of trustees of AWINZ.

Mr  Wells  up to this time, had been the only person who  had any   discoverable associations with the  approved organisation AWINZ, he had written and advised on the legislation which facilitated the application he made in the name of a non-existent organisation.

Mr Wells was also the manager dog and stock control of Waitakere city council  having replaced Mr Didovich  who had signed the MOU with Mr Wells some years earlier, Mr wells was effectively contracting to himself , this contract had never received consent through council  and MAF believed that the agreement was with council  not a division of council and certainly not some one contracting to himself.

Mr Wells  a council employee  using the  council paid officers, facilities and resources derived   income   from the  function of the council officers in the name of AWINZ .

Even after you became supposed chair,  Mr Wells continued to operate  a Bank account in the name of his alias  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. He was the sole operator and   the account had no trust deed associated with it.

  • Wyn , as Former Mayor   and now a  councillor  of TCDC   does this mean that you support council officers  running a    private venture using  council staff and resources to generate income for   a group other than Council?
  • This practice internationally is  known as corruption  , in  taking action to conceal  the activities  of Mr wells and his  approved “ organisation  which in reality was no more than an alias for himself , do you not think that you may have been concealing corruption ?
  • Why did you as chairperson   not  have any over sight over the bank accounts  ?
  • What due diligence have you ever done with regards to the set up of the  “organisation “ you claim to be head of?  Why sue before you have done   due diligence?  And why did you  not wish to  discuss the  matter with me  or meet with our trustees to attempt to resolve it?
  • The legal action you took against me and  the legal entity  AWINZ was    to force us to give up the name and the web site, You have stated that the trustees of AWINZ decided to instruct legal counsel Brookfield’s.   Why then go to a law  clerk who  did not have a practising certificate.
  • Why not take the recommended  action  as advised by the MED in the letter Mr Wells had or could you not take this course because you did not have the evidence or the standing?
  • You always said it was urgent  is that  why Intimidation was the  chosen  method? Did you condone the intimidation ? You certainly did nothing to stop it!
  • Did you instruct the law clerk to  intimidate us  , did you check the facts  of the letter Mr. Neutze sent on   “your instruction “   and did you check the  “statement of claim for accuracy”
  • You withdrew your claim   after you had  brought about  some  $20,000 cost against  me personally all intended to  strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion with regards to  the  questions I had raised   about AWINZ. do you think that that was ethical . As an officer of the court   should you not have spoken up and advised the court that   you really did not have a  rightful claim  or standing?
  • In December 2006   some 5 months after you initiated legal action without seeking redress outside the court  you signed a trust deed , this trust eventually  obtained charitable status and retrospectively took on the role as the approved Organisation  .. could you  please explain how this is legally possible?
  • This  trust obtained   charitable funds  which were used in the litigation against me which  was conducted in the  name of AWINZ,  could you please advise  why  the lawyers  your trusts funds paid for were able to claim that your unincorporated trust was an  entity in its own name  and how  your  trust  established  5 months later got to be involved in the  litigation.
  • I  note that   on various sites you set out your public involvement   why do you never make mention of AWINZ ?

On it states

Wyn Hoadley, QSO, Barrister, Auckland Regional Council Finance Chair, Member Earthquake Commission, patron & trustee of various performing arts, sports, community organisations, long serving City Councillor & Mayor Takapuna City, previously Chancellor AUT.

Wyn seeks to build relationships between the WDHB and other community organisations to address public health issues and is a strong advocate for clear and balanced priorities for the communities of the Waitemata Health District.

I have 28 years local and regional governance experience, understand the issues and how to get things done. Wyn and husband Steve are TCDC ratepayers with property and flat in Pollen Street. Was previous Mayor of Takapuna City, Chancellor Auckland University of Technology, Chair Trustees NZ National Library, and National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, am a barrister specialising in resource management and public law, served on variety of boards, including Earthquake Commission, Transit NZ, Building Research (BRANZ), National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Civil Defence, and awarded Queen’s Service Order for Public Services (QSO) 2004.

Conflicts of Interest

I hereby disclose the following conflict of interest with the Waitemata District Health Board that may arise in the future: I am a Trustee of the North Shore Hospital Foundation, Trustee of the Three Harbours Health Foundation, and a member of North Shore Community Health Voice, and I give professional legal advice and assistance to persons and organisations involved in the health sector from time to time in my capacity as a barrister.

Wyn the past five years of litigation have hardly been on a level playing field, me a lay litigant up against   a number of barristers namely  Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells, David Neutze, xxxxx and Nick Wright.  You could say that the playing field was not level.

The  litigation has given me  great experiences  for writing a book on dirty tricks lawyers  play   ,  I would have thought that   so many officers of the court   would have won hands down without dirty tactics.. but I guess that only happens if you have a real case.

You have  had me in bankruptcy court  skipped the formal proof hearing for defamation  , filed a statutory demand on my business while claiming to be an incorporated trust   , opposed every application I have made   for appeal,  your lawyers have misled the courts  and    blocked a judicial review.    Is this justice?

I may have had a sporting chance if each of the lawyer had upheld their obligations to the court and officers of the court  and conducted themselves according to the  rules in particular  rule 13

13 The overriding duty of a lawyer acting in litigation is to the court concerned.

13.1 A lawyer has an absolute duty of honesty to the court and must not mislead or deceive the court.

13.2 A lawyer must not act in a way that undermines the processes of the court or the dignity of the judiciary.

Quite clearly the  past 5 years  have not followed these rules or the previous rules  which   also had similar obligations to the court.

I find it very hard to comprehend that someone such as yourself who claims to have humanitarian interest in animals can treat a fellow human being so badly. I have likened this to being assualted, if done  with a base ball bat  you would have been locked up  but as a lawyer  you can hide behind what is supposed tobe a pure reputaton  your queens service medal and your previus status as a mayor.

Wyn Integrity comes from within. You are by the values that you live by.  You continue to be a public figure  and give the pretence of being a person of good standing, to me it would appear that this is a façade.

Wyn I speak the truth  because I believe that the public need to know  who you are and  what your standards are   and if you have allowed council officers to run a private enterprise off council  resources before  will you  continue to condone it.

The New Zealand rate payers are being scalped  we want accountability and  transparency . You yourself are aware of their concerns

Wyn Hoadley: Give your 2c on council spending

Last year’s Inquiry into Local Government Rates followed public concern at rates increases and significant financial pressures facing local government. It recommended that local government needs to show more restraint in its expenditure and improve its planning function which drives this spending.”

Wyn You cannot  keep your reputation in tact  while destroying mine.    the truth will come out  , it is never too late to   apologise and make amends. My crime  has been to question corruption    corruption which  you have chosen not to question  and to defend.

I will publish any reply you wish to supply.

Yours  sincerely

Grace Haden

Did David Neutze check the facts before he acted?

The question is Does a lawyer need to check the facts before he   allows his name to be used or puts his name to a document.

The other question has to be  if he is  reckless with his facts and  damages some one else’s reputation  and life  can the lawyer  just walk away    as if nothing happened.

The past 5 years of litigating could have been avoided if David Neutze . had done his job .  Today I will show  how   he did not and could not have checked his facts   and that he made statements  that  even the most junior lawyer   would know to be  false.

Had Mr Neutze done his  job properly and  not  just treated my life  like a bit of paper    He would have saved an awful lot of misery for  me and my family.  It  appears however that winning at any  cost is the   intention   and that in the end  Brookfileds lawyers  through Neutze,  Wright and his then wife   saw it fit  to conceal  corruption .

Neutze involvement began by him signing a letter which we believe had been written by some one other than himself  , and  he signed  after  what he claims having satisfied himself that the contents were accurate.. I will show that he could not have looked very hard.

The letter to the  board of trustees of the legally incorporated AWINZ ( inc 27 April 2006)  is an interesting one, Let’s  examine the due  diligence that went into it.  Click here for the  Letter signed By  David Neutze dated 26 June 2006.

The letter reads “We act for Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and Neil Wells. For convenience, we shall refer to our clients in this letter as “AWINZ” and Mr Wells.”

Hang on , the entity which we had incorporated  was the only   legal  person which  existed in that name  , the incorporation on 27 April 2006 had proved this . So  who  or what was this AWINZ he was allegedly representing?


As we believe you are aware, AWINZ is a charitable trust created pursuant to a trust deed dated 1 March 2000

I  just love the way that lawyers use the  .. as you are aware   bit when they introduce something which  you had no prior knowledge of, and as  such this was the first time that he concept of a trust was introduced.

  • We knew that   an application   for approved status had been made by Mr. Wells on 19 November  1999,     This application clearly states   at point  2 ( page 2 )that a Charitable  trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act.

So  if  there was not a trust deed in existence at the time of the application  and they now  say that a trust was formed  on 1.3.2000   does that not make the statement in the application  false?  Or in other words an outright lie.

  • The other thing which has emerged over time is that   there has never been a document  which allowed Mr Wells to act for the people named on this deed , either  before  or after it was allegedly  signed. Not one of these trustees has ever been associated with the running or administration of the approved organisation and there has been    absolutely no connection with the is trust and the approved Organisation, other than inference at Mr Wells instance.
    • No copy of the trust deed was enclosed , when the copy belatedly arrived it was not a certified or verified copy and as such could have been produced by any one on any home computer.
    • There had never been a copy of this deed in the public arena which would have verified that it existed prior to the date on which it was supplied.
    • The deed was supplied by means of PDF a copy of this can be located at By right clicking the document and checking the properties you can see the preserved details of the author and the time the PDF was created they are NEIL Wells as author and created 27/06/2006 at 10:46:55 pm
    • Significantly the original of this document was not available for settlement conference ( it was claimed to be lost ) , Judge Cunningham was so disgusted with what was produced that she threw this document back at Mr Wright.
    • By the time we got to the Quantum hearing there were Two originals. Which contradicts with correspondence which Mr Wells exchanged with the minister in 2000 when he claimed that he had sent the original deed to the MED to have the trust incorporated.
    • As a fraud specialist I now that documents can be created to look like originals
  • In the absence of proof  connecting this “trust” to the approved  organisation  it can therefore be  deduced that apart from Mr Wells being part of  both of them  and them sharing  the same name   as the approved organisation.. there is no connection and the trust is a red herring as far as the  approved organisation is concerned.


and declared by the Minister of Agriculture to be an “approved organisation” under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 on 19th December 2000. In case you have not received a copy of the executed trust deed previously, we enclose this for your reference.

  • This statement belies the true course of events
  • November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for approved status in the name of a trust. There is no authority for him to act on behalf of any other person and it transpired that no trust exists
  • In the application he states the trust already exists and is in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.
  • This application is confirmed in the statement of claim ( and By MAF) to be the application which was subsequently approved for approved status of this thing called AWINZ.
  • The reality being that if a trust was set up later by the same name the trustees had no connection with the application because they were not part of the application nor approved their names to be used for the application

Processes need to be done in the proper sequence for people to have obligations. As it stood the application was false due to the fact that no trust existed at the time of making the application and there is no independent evidence that a deed was signed in 2000 and that these people were involved with the approved organisation application or subsequent status.

The evidence that I did get from Mr Coutts was that they had not met since 1998 when the proposal was first mooted.


You are, we understand, the Trustees of an entity also bearing the name “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand”. For convenience and to avoid confusion, we shall refer to that entity as the “Institute”.

  • I find it ironic that an experienced litigator with such impressive credentials as Mr. Neutze  does not know the difference between a legal entity and a group of people assuming a name.  He minimises our status by  giving our entity   a name  other than the  legal name and elevates the  unknown person and persons  who use the name AWINZ  to   claim the   name.
  • Legally an  unincorporated trust ( one not registered under any legislation )  is  identified by the names of its trustees    and then the words  as trustees in the  “ whatever name it is “ trust.
    • The statement of claim which was to  be filed later shows that Mr Neutze was aware of this  protocol . Even though on that occasion he was identifying persons  other than the trustees  for which the trust deed had been produced.
    • Mr Wells  was also in possession of a letter  from the registrar of trusts 21 June 2006 which advised him of his rights and his standing. And advised him of the proper course  to be followed

What is really strange is that Mr Neutze refers to AWINZ  but has  given contradictory evidence as to who or what AWINZ is.

The trust deed which was supplied states that there will be no less than 4 trustees  and that the trustees will be   retired after 3 years.  There  is no evidence and there has never been any evidence of continuation of trust  and as such  a trust which never met     had no proof of existing beyond 1.3.2000


We also understand that you have created a web site in the name of the Institute and have published certain material on that website concerning our clients AWlNZ and Mr Wells.

We are of the view that certain material published on the Institute’s website breaches the law of passing off, while certain other material published by Mrs Haden and Verisure Investigations Limited on the website and by other means is defamatory of AWINZ and Mr Wells

Our web site went out of its way to illustrate the differences between the legally incorporated AWINZ and the approved Organisation  which did not exist in nay  identifiable form  from which accountability could be sought.

  • Surely Mr Neutze  would  know that  we could not defame ourselves  and the AWINZ which he represented through his unidentified clients    could not  be defamed as it did not legally exist in that name.
  • Truth is never defamatory


AWINZ has asked us to explain our view to you ………

  • In this letter  and through the court proceedings Mr Neutze and his fellow brookfields lawyers  misled the court as to the nature and structure of AWINZ,  their client AWINZ    or who ever was using  that name    at that particular time   had no right to use the name  without identifying  who it represented
  • What Mr Neutze was asking us to believe was that he had been instructed by  Coutts, Wells  Giltrap and  Grove.
  • The court action he later initiated was for Coutts, Wells and Hoadley. These three people did not have a trust deed and according  to information we have now received Wyn Hoadley only formed this relationship with  Wells and Coutts on 10 May  three weeks after we had fully incorporated.
  • We offered to meet to resolve the issue but I think it is obvious that they  had an issue of getting people to identify themselves as trustees.


The legal Existence of AWINZ…….. a. This explanation is full of spin the words “as you are aware” places information which the writer wishes to assert as fact without any actual proof.

  • It is hard to believe that a senior litigation lawyer such as Mr Neutze  can believe that all a trust needs is “ an appropriate trust deed “  I would have thought that the words “Valid “  and ”current” would feature in there.
  • That the minimum number of trustees would be 4 yet there were only three names on the Statement of claim. One person who had no evidence of   being   part of that trust or any other trust.
  • Evidence has been provided by Mr Wells in his affidavit that the trust did not trade prior to 2005
  • Therefore the trust had no assets and after 2003 , without further evidence no trustees
  • Therefore in the absence of any other evidence the trust had ceased to exist.
  • Trusts do not have perpetual existence and they need evidence to prove that they operate according to the rules.


Passing Off It has to be noted that the legally incorporated AWINZ never claimed the approved status

  • The legally incorporated AWINZ went to great detail to point out how they were different.
  • The legally incorporated AWINZ could not pass themselves off as something which had no legal standing or definition, i.e. Not identifiable or locatable we know this because we had tried to find out who or what AWINZ was.
  • The web address that we were allegedly passing ourselves off as was owned by Mr wells. His web site was called First strike and animal welfare , it had the AWINZ logo on it.
  • AWINZ was the appropriate web site for our legally incorporated trust as we had the name and also applied un opposed for the trademark AWINZ a process which was commenced in may 2006.
  • The legal threats again were made for a fictional AWINZ which in itself had no standing.



  • The legally incorporated AWINZ had  pointed out that misrepresentations had been made at the time of Mr Wells making the application.  This has been proved as FACT .
  • Mr Wells name was mentioned because he was the person who made the application. FACT
  • Everything that was said was true – truth is never defamation
  • The public have a right to question where public funds are going and why a private law enforcement authority does not exist..
  • The statement which was cited was claimed to be false it has never been shown to be false to the contrary the truth of it has been proved.


ISP liability

  • The reality was that Mr Wells did not wish the world to know the truth about his alter ego AWINZ
  • He had written the legislation to facilitate approved organisations
  • He had advised on the legislation as a paid advisor to the select committee and as advisor to MAF
  • Approved organisations have huge potential for capital gain through section 171 of the animal welfare act in that all funds from prosecution go back to the approved organisation
  • Mr Wells was the sole operator of the bank account which bore the name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand , this  again is proof that  this was a name her used as an alias, there were no trust deeds associated with this account.
  • Mr Wells was also the barrister who prosecuted the animal welfare offences which the council paid dog and stock control officers came across in the course of their council duties, 1. Mr Wells the council manager would pass the complaint to
  • Mr Wells the head of the fictional AWINZ who would approve I for prosecution and pass it to
  • Mr Wells Barrister who after successful prosecution would give the money to
  • Mr wells CEO of the fictional AWINZ who would then bank it into the account only he had access to
  • The Web host provided me with copies of the emails from both Mr Wright and Wells who put pressure on him to drop the legitimate AWINZ as a client. More bullying
  • Wells and Wright were advised to get an injunction through the high court.. again a course they did not follow.


Fair Trading Act

  • A fictional organisation cannot be in trade all those who were involved with the making of the Lord of the rings were employed by Mr Wells .
  • Mr wells gave a false end title to the lord of the rings trilogy   and fell foul of  the American Humane society  , this is addressed in this letter
  • The American humane society complained that their registered end title had been used and that the statement that no animals were hurt or injured in the making of the film was false.
  • There is no evidence that the four people named on the trust deed ever traded as AWINZ . (they did not meet )
  • As it stood the beach of fair trading act claim was carried through to the court proceedings using a group of people who used the name AWINZ from a date which post dated  ( 10 may ) the formation of the legal entity ( 27 April )  and who had no proof of being able to claim the name AWINZ.



  • It is obvious from the dates which have been provided that this latter was written just  6 weeks after Mrs Hoadley allegedly became a trustee.
  • There was no evidence that she had become a trustee at this stage and the letter makes the inference that it has been written with the express knowledge and approval of the other trustees of AWINZ   sought to identify the   trustees – apart from Mr Wells
  • No one can give an undertaking to something which has no legal existence
  • The writer Mr Neutze did not identify who his clients were this is probably because he did not know who they were. Just as he did not know who they were he also did not check the contents before signing the letter.

What is your verdict on Mr  Neutze’s  due diligence ?