Archive for January 2012

Misleading Justice

Lawyers are meant to  be officers of the court   and the court   is supposed to be a place for truth honesty  and justice. But that is where the fairy tale   starts and finishes.

I have   long used the equation for  corruption  as

CORRUPTION= MONOPOLY + DISCRETION -ACCOUNTABILITY

Looking at the   equation in terms of the court  we see that lawyers   are a group of persons  who through the very legislation which  allows them  to practice  also  have exclusivity  to the court .

The court is run by rules  and there are rules which    dictate how  lawyers should act in the  rules of  conduct there are  specific references to Fraud .

Assisting in fraud or crime

2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.

  • 2.4.1 A lawyer may assist a client in seeking to avoid or minimise any penalty or adverse effects that flow from fraud or crime.
Prevention of crime or fraud
  • 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice. This includes taking reasonable steps to ensure the security of and access to electronic systems and passwords.

But where a lawyer  alters  or  manufactures documents  they  have protection from  allegations by the following   section .

Reputation of other parties
  • 13.8 A lawyer engaged in litigation must not attack a person’s reputation without good cause in court or in documents filed in court proceedings.

    • 13.8.1 A lawyer must not be a party to the filing of any document in court alleging fraud, dishonesty, undue influence, duress, or other reprehensible conduct, unless the lawyer has taken appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable grounds for making the allegation exist.
    • 13.8.2 Allegations should not be made against persons not involved in the proceeding unless they are necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the allegations and, where appropriate, the protection of the privacy of those persons.
It can be argued that if a lawyer   alters or creates a  document as shown in this example on u tube   and he himself does not  gain financially from it then  the  lawyer is not committing fraud  as a  fraudulent  document  has two requirements   and that is   that  the document  must be false and  it is used  for pecuniary ( financial ) gain.
The correct offences which should be considered  are those which come under the heading  Misleading justice  in the crimes act.
When lawyers are not held accountable to the truth  either   by their  own society or by the police    then   we will not get the truth in our courts.
It follows that any decision made  on false evidence  will therefore  lack integrity .
It is time that we  called for  the  utmost honesty in our courts  and any one  who is  found swearing  a false declaration or affidavit  or any one  giving false  evidence  or  providing the court with   fabricated documents or evidence needs to be charged.  the penalties are there as a deterrent  but when no one is charged then the penalties are never  enforced.
the real problem in New Zealand courts  is  that  we  do not  enforce these  sections of  the crimes act as  we have  the issue     which is summarized in  John 8:7
This is the very reason why lawyers  cannot judge other lawyers  and   we need an independent commission agaisnt corruption.
The police in such cases do not prioritize this work as the police is now  a business and the priority goes to  ACC and LTSA who together fund the police   to ensure that  injury and traffic matters are dealt with  .
My recommendation to the  the person who posted the U tube clip  is to make a complaint to   the law society with regards to the lawyers concerned.    and if he has no  success there then   write to the minister of justice  and make her aware . If we all  independently bring our issues of corruption     to their  attention then they  will at some stage have to take notice.
Transparency New Zealand will happily  link to your  blog, u tube item or  what ever  you produce to prove the   offence.
Our aim is to give a public portal  of links  which illustrate    how often this occurs.
Please advise any one  who has suffered injustice that   you can put up a blog through WordPress,  put the evidence up there  and  we will   link to you .
this is the copy of the email I received.  may our  list begin

I have serious forgery problems commited by NZ lawyers, but NZ police refused to investigate it.

Please refer to my youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF5iht_EXEM

reply from David Neutze

Despite the fact that  I have  new evidence before the court   which shows that Mr Neutze is aiding and abetting fraud   he has sent the  following email through  a fellow   lawyer …  it appears that  a win is a win no matter how dirty  you play   and Mr Neutze has therefore  proved that he  plays dirty  .  But Lawyers  can apparently get away with murder  Mr Neutze is apparently a lawyer who will sign anything  without checking the facts.

its strange that the ordinary   Kiwi can see it  but Mr  Neutze can’t ….  the full story  can be found at

ANIMAL LAW MATTERS

From: Cathryn Curran-Tietjens [mailto:curran-tietjens@brookfields.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012 3:30 p.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: Re: open letter published on transparency.net.nz

Dear Ms Haden

Thank you for your call this morning.  I have now had the opportunity to make contact with David Neutze.

I can confirm that the sums demanded in the statutory demand are all judgment sums.  That is, they are sums that have been awarded by the Court.  In the event the amounts sought are not paid, then bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings will be filed.

As there is nothing further Mr Neutze wishes to add, please take this email as a response to your 7 January 2012 email.

Cathryn Curran-Tietjens

Senior Solicitor

Brookfields Lawyers

DDI: +64 9 979 2109

Fax: +64 9 379 3224

Email: curran-tietjens@brookfields.co.nz

Web: www.brookfields.co.nz

19 Victoria Street West

P O Box 240, Auckland 1140

NEW ZEALAND

(Legal Courier:  DX CP24134)

 

Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields

David Neutze specialises in the area of commercial litigation and dispute resolution. He filed the Statement of Claim for Neil Wells and the fictitious AWINZ without  checking the  facts and he has  again  signed  a statutory demand  without checking for accuracy .

The Brookfields web site states that “He is a LEADR accredited mediator and is an expert in alternative dispute resolution techniques”

As a  lawyer his duty  is first and foremost to the court  as an  officer of the court and this  accreditation with Leadr  would indicate that he  supports alternative dispute resolution  and the  associated ethics .

The following is my open letter to Mr Neutze.

Happy New Year Mr Neutze I trust that the festive season has been relaxing for you .

My festive season began with a statutory demand  being served on my companies registered office just two days before Christmas, attached to the front door right under the   Christmas wreath .

This is the second time   where you have signed a statutory declaration and  not checked to see if the contents of the document  was accurate.   The first was in 2007  when you claimed  funds from my company on behalf  of an  incorporated AWINZ when no such entity existed. 

This time too you failed to check your facts and for that reason the debt is disputed, something I have already raised with your client Mr Neil Wells of Te Kuiti.( who is  now using the  company name Animal law matters. )

As a private Investigator and former police officer I am “fact focused” and I do not expect any one to make a claim when they do not  rightfully have one.  You represented Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   who together claimed to be trustees of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

Evidence which has now been produced by Mr wells clearly prove  that at the time  of commencing litigation  these three people  had no documented evidence or any evidence at all for that  matter a being  the trustees  of AWINZ.Wells letter to the law societyAWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06

These people took action against myself  and as a trustee of a incorporated trust and legal charity  by the identical name  and claimed passing off and breach of fair trade.  The evidence which has been provided  by Mr Wells for the law society   ( and  had not made available to the court)  proves that these people first came together  on 10 may 2006  when the entity I was a trustee of was legally incorporated on the 27th April 2006. Therefore without  prior existence and no proof of legal existence how could these three people  possibly have  hoped to succeed in  the case . Significantly they withdrew after racking up nearly 20,000 in  costs , costs which were used to strike out my  claim of truth and honest opinion on the alleged defamation .

The defamation case was somewhat unusual, there  was absolutely no evidence , no proof of publication ,no proof that any person  had received the alleged documents  but significantly the alleged statements  were later  proved true through an independent audit conducted by MAF  which Mr Wells then fought long and hard for to have withheld.

Now that I have  the new evidence  and have the documents before the court seeking a review you emerge   and have the  judgment  of judge Joyce sealed while the matter for review is still before a high court judge.

Emblazoned on  the documents  are  the words “judgement on trial by  judge”.  Could you please be so kind as to advise me  when the  trial was, I recall  that there was a direction for you to file a new statement of claim and from there you   ignored the directions of the court and took the matter straight to  Quantum.  Thus I was found guilty without there ever being any determination as to the facts in the statement of claim in any way.

When I tried to appeal you prevented   the appeals by misleading the court   with regards to AWINZ and  by  attacking character.

I tried to   produce new evidence which would show that your client had committed perjury at the  quantum hearing but you sought to have my evidence disallowed  claiming that the evidence was not relevant to the statement of claim, which it was not ,but it was relevant to the  only evidence which  was  given.

The questions I had raised with regards to the law enforcement authority AWIINZ  had nothing to do with your alleged clients , it transpires that  the law enforcement authority at all times was just Mr Wells who wrote the legitimation for his business plan    and when  I raised questions   which would expose his otherwise perfect  fraud  he  had to create  the fiction being  that  the  AWINZ trust  allegedly established in 2000  , but whose deeds had never seen the light of  day ,was the approved organization  and thus the  logic which was applied  was a fallacy  and can be recorded as follows

This was later  improved on

  • We have produced some papers  in 2011 to show that Wyn Hoadley was a trustee in 2006 if you  right click on this document you will note under properties that this document was created  in 2011
  • In the  audit report Mr wells had claimed that all documents prior to 2008 were lost , therefore these minutes are   very suspect.
  • according to the   minutes the trust deed was missing at the time  and Hoadley  was appointed without any documentary evidence  under a  section which did not  exist in the  deed which was eventually produced/reproduced  but  her appointment  without signatures or any formal documents except a suspect minute entry alleges  that she became a trustee  on 10  may 2006
  • The trust  deed dated 1.3.2000  by its own conditions terminated 1.3.2003 but without any evidence  and  without  adhering to the trust deeds conditions  we just pretended that this  trust continued to exist, It was missing in any case and we still have to question  how we had none  then had two  , which is an issue I have previously raised.. Please if you are going to tell lies  be consistent Mr wells and watch the maths.
  •  fallacy   =therefore Wyn Hoadley  was not only a trustee  of the trust  established 1.3.2000 but she was also   the chair person of the approved organisation.

But wait there is more

When  the  litigants tried to   claim charitable status  they found that  they needed a trust deed.  So they signed a new deed  together with  Tom Didovich who had been the former Waitakere city council manager  who had allowed AWINZ to be established  on council premises  and use the staff and infrastructure ,  without the  knowledge and approval of   council.

This new trust became a charity and posed as the litigants ( which it was not )   and used the charitable funds  to pay the lawyers bills.  These are the same  funds which Mr Wells through this latest  statutory demand is claiming as his own. AR002   AR003 AR004   AR005

Not any of this  would have occurred if you  had taken the time to check the facts before you acted, you have never made resolution available except through  intimidation, there has never been a lets meet and discuss. , it appears that you have relied upon mr Wells word and have not sought to  validate any of the claims.  Even with the demand for money  they were not due  then you seal them and your first approach is with a sledge hammer .  Are these the tactics of Leadr negotiations?

I am asking you now as an officer of the court and  a Leadr accredited mediator  to go through the facts. I have previously  requested you to check your facts,  and I have  tried to contact you  with view of meeting with you and discussing  the issue  so that you  who instigated the proceedings but has otherwise remained at a distance  could be  fully informed with facts rather than   hearsay.

You may wish to refer to the Rules of conduct and client care for lawyers they  state quite clearly that your role is to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

Chapter 2 states

 A lawyer is obliged to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice.

  • 2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.

2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

Proper purpose

  • 2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.1

Assisting in fraud or crime

  • 2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.
  • 2.4.1 A lawyer may assist a client in seeking to avoid or minimise any penalty or adverse effects that flow from fraud or crime.

Chapter 11 Prevention of crime or fraud

Prevention of crime or fraud

  • 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.

Mr Neutze  If I have  my facts wrong  could you please provide me the evidence which shows that I  am wrong and how I am wrong.

What I am seeking from you is   documentary and verifiable evidence  that

  1. The approved organisation AWINZ was the trust  and conversely that the   trustees Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts and Neil wells  were each aware  of their role in the approved organization  and had proper accountability to the   obligations of  the law enforcement authority
  2. That  Wyn Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts   together were trustees of the  approved organization  and   traded prior to  27 April 2006  using the name AWINZ so as to  validate their claims  of breach of fair trade and passing off.
  3. That  the  Charity AWINZ  pursuant to the  charities act  was the approved organisation
  4. Evidence  as to how the members of  the charity had obligations  to the provisions and law enforcement   responsibilities of   the  approved organisation
  5. That  the  Charity AWINZ  were the litigants  and the obligations  they had to pay the accounts to brookfields.
  6. the Brookfields invoices to AWINZ  which AWINZ  was the  client? Neil Wells  as sole trader   and  law enforcement authority, The trust established in 2000, the litigants  or the  trust set up after litigation began.
  7. An explanation as to why the charity   which according to its  annual returns AR002 AR003 AR004  AR005   paid for the litigation  and was allegedly part of the litigation , did not  file the  statutory demand   and why instead  it was filed in Mr Wells own name – does this not indicate that he is seeking to privately benefit from the  costs incurred by the  charity?  And How is that not fraud?
  8. The copies of all the alleged  defamatory statements attributed to me  and allegedly sent out by me ( they must be on your files surely? )   and proof  in view of the audit report  which shows that my statements were defamatory  or known to be false.
  9. Copies of the  authorities referred to in  Mr Wells letter to the law society
  10. The date of the trial  referred to in the statutory demand notice  and an explanation why the  quantum hearing  has now become a trial. ( I am using  the definition of trial  as being the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue )
  11.  Please  also advise  what definition of the word Trial   you are using.

If I do not hear from you   by Friday 13 January  2012 4 pm , I will presume that there is  nothing wrong with my facts  and reasoning. and that you cannot provide answers.  I am seeking this information  by way of discovery  which you have always prevented.

If you do not have any of this evidence  then you should be asking yourself   some serious questions  about how  this has gone on for so long without evidence.  You are the officer of the court  your reputation is at stake  and you are the one who can rectify the matter.

You have an obligation to justice   or is your obligation to   facilitating fraud and assisting in  assisting fraud and corruption

If you cannot find the evidence which should be there  and you  do noting  then  it proves that the  case against me has been malicious  and that  your pursuit  of me  or my company for the  sums claimed is  not  legitimate  and that you   are knowingly using your office   to facilitate fraud.

I request the information as  described above  from you  pursuant to section 8.4. (b)  rules of conduct – the information relates to the anticipated commission of a crime or fraud and If you only do a little bit  of   diligent inquiry it should become evident to you that  your services have been used to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud  then you can release the information  to me   by virtue of section  8.4(d) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer’s services have been used by the client to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud and disclosure is required to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the interests, property, or reputation of another person that is reasonably likely to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of the crime or fraud

I look forward to hearing  from you   2012 will resolve this issue    either you are a straight lawyer or a crooked one,  If you are straight  you will take action now  and   turn this mess around.

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden