Archive for July 2011
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
From: Grace Haden [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2011 2:03 p.m.
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
- who or what AWINZ the approved organisation was
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- Why a blank trust deed was accepted and if the legal implications of accepting an unsigned undated trust deed were ever considered.
- 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.
- Why this situation was allowed to continue after having been brought to the attention of MAF in 2006
- 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.
- 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.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz