Archive for July 2011

open letter to Graeme Coutts ,cc Sarah Giltrap & Nuala Grove

Open letter   to Graeme Coutts JP of Graeme Coutts and associates     and cc  for  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap to note  as some of this applies to them as well

 

In the past week I have received  some interesting  documents from the law society, sent to them By Neil Wells   with regards to the trust  that you claim to be part of.

Since then I  have spoken to you and suggested that you  should be seeing your own lawyer  as   the  legal action which you instigated against me was in  your own name   and this will hold you personally liable  for the outcome.

I note that Your “trust” has used  some $130,000  of charitable funds to pursue me through the courts  . These funds were obtained  from Beauty with compassion and   this is misappropriation of charitable  funds .

My crime  was to question   the existence of  an approved organisation, set up pursuant to section 122 of  the animal welfare  act 2000   which operated from Waitakere city council through the attached document –  mou waitakere .  That meant that   it had law enforcement authority and public responsibility .

There has been considerable confusion brought about   by Mr Wells as to  who or what AWINZ is  . AWINZ happens to be the name of the approved organisation   and it also happens to  be the name of a trust which was set up later as a cover up using you  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap

The biggest issue with the  2000 AWINZ trust is that   it had Mr Wells on it  and three   people  who  had no idea what was going on  , but their position and status in the community coupled with their impressive sounding names ( not my words  But Mr Didovich’s ) leant an air of legitimacy to the farce.

I raised concerns with you  and with Mrs grove and Sarah Gltrap ,  But you have all  followed  blindly and unquestioningly  so I have a few questions to ask you .

I have linked  a number of documents   so let’s start with the first two. You will notice that  two of  your  fellow trustees on the trustees deed 5 dec 2006  together are  the  only signatories  to  the    agreement   mou waitakere.which  was  between   AWINZ and  the dog and stock control at Waitakere city council and facilitated the use of  Waitakere  city council  staff    to volunteer their  council paid time   to derive an income for the trust which you claim to  belong to.

Strangely enough Mr Wells   who signed on behalf of AWINZ then went on to take over  the  council role of Mr Didovich   and Mr Didovich went on to become a trustee .Many  would say that this is a gross conflict of interest.

Mr Didovich  had supported Mr Wells  in the application for approved status   by writing to the minister  as though he was in depended from the matter didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere  and   then went out and collected the signatures of the  alleged trustees of this  trust deed .

If you now  look at the document mou MAF,  you will see that it places  legal obligations on AWINZ.    Had you not thought that it is strange that   all these obligations were fulfilled  By Mr Wells alone  without you , Sarah or Nuala playing a supporting role.

When I  questioned you in court with regards to the animal welfare officers  you didn’t even know what I was talking about. Nuala Grove is adamant that the  trust  did not have law enforcement powers  yet  Mr Wells  was busily prosecuting the public and banking the  funds which  came   back to AWINZ through   section 171 of the act,  into the bank account  which only he administered

Strange to that the income from prosecution does not show in the AWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06   and it is also strange that a supposed  law enforcement  trust had not met for nearly 2 years prior to this and by  its own statement on the minutes did not intend to meet again  until  nearly  18 months later .

I have to  question why a  trust meeting  was not called  when the  only person who was doing all the work  for AWINZ took on  the role  of manager dog and stock control.. why was the trust not worried about  this apparent   conflict  of interest from your own point of view? .  You being a JP and all should have ensured that there was some transparency and that would have  begun by   raising the issue in a meeting.

Too late now  can’t create the documents   Mr Wells has set things in concrete besides I am a bit over the retrospective creation of documents  by you lot.

Don’t you find that the AWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06   read rather  like a briefing ?  strange too that the  secretary Nula Grove  was  unaware that she had been   secretary  and now cant remember.  I note that the  minute were also typed by Waitakere council staff.. great way to keep your  trusts outgoings   down get the public to pay for  it .

I was on  a trust  with Neil Wells   in 2005 , the trust I was on  the Auckland air cadet trust (AACT ) ran  a building   , Mr Wells was  the chairman and  ran  things  very differently.   The trust was incorporated,  Trustees were  appointed according to the deed after they had been selected by the other trustees and voted on   which is very different to  the appointment of Wyn Hoadley  who was  chair designate a month and a half  before  the meeting.   a   and was appointed  pursuant to section  7.2(b) which is  section which does not appear in the original  trust deed, but  then the deed was missing was  found and went  missing again in 2007  but in    2008    by some miracle  we had two copies of the deed. Praise the Lord ! or  is that  praise modern reproductive technology ?

The  AACT  trust met  monthly, the trustees were signatories to the bank account and no one person had control, I was treasurer and could not  even have a pre signed cheque   yet in 2007 Neil Wells was still the only person operating the AWINZ bank accounts.

The AACT did not have  legislative powers or responsibilities  such as those shown in the mou MAF  which  wells signed as trustee.

If you signed the deed   why did  you not have a copy of it?   on the AACT Mr Wells ensured that all trustees had a copy of  the deed   and we  all ensured that the trust ran  according to the deed. – on that point why did  you say to me that there was no need to meet you were  not  that type of trust ? did  you not read the deed?   what do you think  ” shall meet no less than 4 times” per year means how  bad can some ones maths be  ?Every 2 years is a long way off!

Graeme  did you really know what you were doing?  Did Sarah and Nuala know  which way was up?  or was  it just nice to have your name associated with little furry things?. Did you know that ignorance of the law is no excuse  and that by your ignorance you may well have facilitated  a crime?

Why did you not question  the lack of correspondence in  the 2 years  since the trust last met?  seems like I knew more about your trust than you do . Of particular is of interest is the  lord dowding  document.    Over $100,000  was obtained between the meetings,  I know the exact sum that was received do you ? surely the reference to the bank account in 2005 would have had some involvement of trustees?

Graeme   You are the only one who is connected with the old trust  deed and the new one, you play a pivotal role  , and I wonder how you had a quorum  for the decision to   take legal action against me  , there appears to be no consensus or discussion from the trustees.. I guess you were just obedient and  nodded  when Neil Wells told you to and you kept your  eyes closed .

All three of you  Sarah Giltrap, Nuala Grove and You Graeme Coutts  were prepared to tell lies to the world  by giving a false end title to the   Lord of the rings trilogy   in the name of AWINZ  s reported by the aha  what did you and your trustees  do when you saw the aha letter or is this the first time you are seeing it?

Did you not  think it strange that Tom Didovich  and Neil wells  were  joined at the hip on this venture, did you not think it strange that  Didovich  the manager you were going to contract to  was collecting  and witnessing the signatures  to the deed?didovich affidavit may 07

But what amuses me most of all is that you are a JP  and  you have not  got the slightest clue of   matters  which pertain to your own trust. It appears to me  (and this is my honest opinion many would agree)  that the three of you  were selected because apparently  you don’t think  and  could be led by the nose.

Through your lawyer you  held out  that your trust  was the approved organisation, you instructed him   , apparently  you signed a document   which he had before he commenced  the proceedings.. surely  you must have had all the facts  before you  took me to court  and devastated my life and family?

Did you ever  ask your  lawyer Nick Wright  how  your trust came to be an approved organisation and exactly what that entailed? Statement of Claim

It is wake up time for you now   please  read the attached  documents   be aware of the damage you have caused  and   start acting responsibly  it may be your last chance  cant remain ignorant  for ever.

Ask  Neil  if you can look at the  minute book and see where you authorised   the use of the charitable funds  for the litigation and  ask him where you are indemnified. You may be in for a shock.

Graeme, this is mop up time    let’s  see what we can do to sort out the damage.. I am sure you don’t want to go through what I have had to go through  for the next 5 years .

The price I have had to pay  for blowing the whistle has been  far too high.  If you, a JP  had been  astute,   this would never have happened . You facilitated this   with your wilful blindness, your total neglect and ignorance of what it means to be a trustee  and an approved organisation.

You are a JP  you have obligations to the law   and to the public funds which   you have  misappropriated.( that is  a criminal matter )

You can no longer plead ignorance .  I have blind carbon copied    a significant number of people  who can bear witness to the fact that you are now fully informed , the same goes for Sarah Giltrap and Barrister Daniel Grove  who is  protecting his mother .

If you would  like  to meet  with me to discuss resolution  I would be willing to make that available to you even though you denied me the opportunity.

The same invitation is open to Sarah Giltrap and Nuala grove.

I will be posting this open letter on  www.Transparency.net.nz

Regards

Grace Haden

request for urgent ministerial enquiry

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2011 2:03 p.m.
To: ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’

Good afternoon  Mr Carter.

Open letter . For reasons of transparency  I will be posting  this open letter on my web site  www.Transparency.net.nz and  be circulating the link widely .

In 2006 I made a very big mistake in  becoming a whistle-blower .  I asked a simple question    “Why doesn’t   the animal welfare institute of new Zealand ( AWINZ )   which   was at the time an approved organisation under the animal welfare act , exist in any manner or form?”

This  saw me  being subjected to 5 years of the most unbelievable  court action  .. This court action would not have occurred if   MAF   had ensured that the  approved organisation  existed in some form or other.

I have corresponded with you a number of times  while you have been  minister for agriculture and feel  that n each and every occasion I have been fobbed off.

It started off with a question of accountability  and it still is a question of accountability     “ who  or what at any given time  was AWINZ the  approved organisation .”

It transpires that when I asked this question  Mr Wells then set about  retrospectively  covering up .

Mr Wells created another AWINZ .. a straw man     and claimed that this  was the approved organisation .

It has been  a bit like asking   who is David Carter.      David Carter is  a Minister and has ministerial powers .   But   there are no doubt other persons named  David Carter.. therefore the other  David Carter must be a minister too .

And then for interest sake we have a group of people  who combined call themselves David Carter    so they  each   then have the same    authority as  the Hon David carter do they?

As you can see   it si therefore   very important to identify just who   AWINZ is.   We are fortunate we have a photo of you and  your signature  represents  you  but this is not so with AWINZ.

Just for some background Mr Wells  had the luxury of  writing  the No 1 animal welfare bill and  had inserted into it   the  ability for  an organisation to become “approved “ under the act . He was then   employed by the select committee   as an independent advisor   during the transition period  of the bill becoming law.

 

All along Mr Wells was communicating with his associate  Tom Didovich    to set up  a structure which was identical to a business plan he had written for himself some years earlier. http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Teritorial-authority-Animal-welfare-services.pdf

He  then applies  for the mythical  creature AWINZ to  become an approved  organisation, having first  earned the trust of MAF staff and talked  with them about AWINZ to  give it the feel of existence.

The reality is  that in this country   it is generally  held that   a person taking on responsibility   consents to it  usually in writing  and   by putting their signatures to   a document.

So   who  is /are the signatories to the agreements   with government  for AWINZ.

Mr Wells made the application  .. unsupported by a signed deed or  authorisation  from any of the persons  he claims to be representing. See  http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/application.pdf he was the only signatory .

He never supplies  any information  proving the existence  of AWINZ and despite assuring the minister that it    “is being registered “ under the charitable trust act  it never is. The significance of registration  is that under the charitable trust act   registered  trust  attains independent legal existence   and becomes a legal person which enables an  appointed person to sign on   behalf of  the  legal entity.

In an unincorporated trust  the legal entities are the trustees who comprise it , the name is only akin to a trading name  which they assume.

When the application is turned  down   my MAF  it goes to caucus  due to the intervention  of  Bon Harvey  who at the time   was  labour party president. He and Mr wells had worked together in an advertising campaign which saw the KIRK govt into power in 1974.

The application is approved  in 2001

In Wells signs an MOU with  MAF  in 2003  http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mou-MAF.pdf as trustee  of AWINZ.. you have to wonder  where the signatures are of the other trustees    and why still no copy of the trust deed.  Also there is no record on the MAF files of   correspondence to   or from any of the other  so called trustees. And there is no  consent  for wells  to sign on  behalf of any other person .  I have seen the  files I have asked for this evidence  it does not exist.

 

The MOU  treats   the Animal Welfare Institute  of New Zealand as if it  is a legal  person  when it is not .  It is simply a name  how can the  government  contract  to an undefined name?

In 2006 I  question the  lack of existence of AWINZ  and with others  categorically prove that it does not exist by  incorporating an identically named trust under the  charitable trust act.   Mr Wells then  retrospectively  covers up   and embarks on a  relentless legal campaign to silence me.

I must be the only person in This country  who has  had to pay damages for having questions asked in  parliament.  I am also one of very few who has been sentenced without the claims against me ever having been proved. But that is  for another minister  and another day.

 

I wish to point out   that an unincorporated trust    cannot  get a loan, it has to be done through each of the trustees signing with the  lender.

An unincorporated trust cannot own property this is  done through the individuals who comprise it .

an unincorporated trust  has no transparency   and is an excellent vehicle for fraud.

But An unincorporated trust  can  apparently  have  law enforcement ability , the  right to  search , seize prosecute, collect penalties  .. all   from  a place where  no one know  who or what  AWINZ is?

I urgently ask you  to conduct a ministerial  enquiry into

  1. who or what  AWINZ  the approved organisation was
  2. By virtue of which legislation  did MAF  consider   the applicant “ AWINZ” to be capable of making an  application  ..that is how does  something which does not exist make an application? And why was this not fraudulent?
  3. How could that application  by  “ just a name “ come to be given law enforcement   ability despite  having  no  legal existence , form , definition, identity  or structure.
  4. Why no attempt was made by MAF to  ensure that  those named as  potential parties to  application  knew of  or consented to the  application , purportedly made in their names.
  5. Why a blank trust deed was accepted and if the legal implications of accepting an unsigned undated trust deed were ever considered.
  6. How  a trust which was retrospectively  created   using the same name as the approved organisation  came to be  recognised by MAF as the approved Organisation.
  7. Why  this situation was allowed to continue after having been brought to the attention   of MAF in 2006
  8. Why MAF has concealed their  inability to check if  an organisation exited or not  for all these years and stood by   in  silence  while  I  was hauled through the courts  By Mr Wells for  questioning the lack of existence of AWINZ.
  9. If john Davies, Marianne Thompson and Stephen Wilce  can be prosecuted  for having a false CV,  why has Mr Wells  got immunity for  making an application in a false name? why is this seemingly   condoned?

Legally as I see it the application for approved status  ,the manner in which the approved organisation   operated   points to only one things.. that prior to   May 2006 ,  AWINZ was  a trading name for Mr Wells .

Activities from  2006 onwards have  been the creation of a straw man  which has sought to confuse  every one and cover  up  that which  by most peoples definition is fraud and or corruption .  Just because there are some so called reputable persons involved  does not make it right .

This matter has dragged on    for far too long   No whistle-blower should ever   again have to go through  what I have suffered.   I fear that once again I  will be ignored  and  that will prove  to me that  this  government  condones corruption.

I hope that  I don’t get the cold shoulder  again .. there is much to be learned from this case which impacts on all new Zealanders  and our future as a nation.

Regards

Grace Haden

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