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