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, Parre and Wright  saw it fit  to conceal  corruption .

Neutze involvement began by him signing a letter which we believe had been written by Vivienne Holm aka Parre , 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 http://www.verisure.co.nz/trust%20deed.pdf 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.

*******************

Defamation

  • 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.

*******************

Undertakings

  • 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 ?

3 Responses to “Did David Neutze check the facts before he acted?”

Leave a Reply