Archive for May 2012
Now a few weeks later, the Human rights commissioner has released a hard hitting report about the conditions that staff in the aged care industry have to endure. she likens the conditions to slavery. see news item and see full report
I sincerely hope that although I have not been paid for my work that the work can go towards something positive and shows the conditions and the allegations which persons such as my former client have to endure.
In New Zealand we have rights, however if you cannot afford the rights you do not have any. If you a a simple low income worker how can you be pitted against a group of business persons with a bottomless pit of charitable finances and hope to come out with your rights in tact.
Knox Home pushed my client to take her matter to grievance because they knew that through the secrecy which mediation affords they could put an offer to dispose of the worker in a manner which was both legal and economical . Nothing was done to address the real issues it was simply a process by which the aggrieved party was intended to ended up paying for her own dismissal.
I hope that situations such as these are also investigated, in my book it is plain bullying and if so called reputable persons support this line then you also have to wonder what else “their ethics” ( or lack of ) allow them to justify.
I will in time be publishing the full report on the dismissal process to show how it is done and how low income workers can use that experience to fight back.
The Elizabeth Knox Home and hospital is operated by KNOX HOME TRUST BOARD, the trust was set up in 1911 deed knox home with 15,000 pound for the trustees to use in such manner for the purpose of building and endowing and maintaining a hospital or home for the poor people suffering incurable diseases .
The deed leaves it open to the discretion of the trustees as to who should benefit from the home and now over 100 years later the home has morphed into a facility which is primarily for the aged.
The latest news letter lists the trustees as
Mr Warwick Peacock—Chairman shareholder FUNERAL DIRECTORS (AUCKLAND) LIMITED
Dr Alistair MacCormick- Professional Director, Management Consultant
Mr Andrew Smith..
Mrs Christine Hart
Dr Ross McCormick- TOHUNGA CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED
Dr Bruce Foggo- Dr in Palliative Medicine
Mr Bal Matheson partner Russell mc Veagh
Last year I was asked by a staff member to assist in a employment matter where Knox home had sent her the following letter . (Please note that this letter has been edited to preserve privacy of natural persons .)
What followed was five months interaction with Knox home and their EMA representative. It was at all times big money pitted against a low income earner. (Less than $15 per hour)
The trustees did not wish to know what was going on or become involved, I kept them in the loop and they condoned what was going on. I take this as proof that they believed that there was nothing wrong with their action and felt it justified.
The CEO who is an advocate of the Eden principle took charge of the matter .
My client was kept in the dark as to the allegations against her, no specific incidents were given to illustrate the allegations against her and we were told that the allegations were all in the supervisors head. When the Knox home management had a meeting without my client but with the supervisor, the 9 allegations became two. Proving that they had failed to investigate the matters in the first place.
Despite being warned on two matter My client was not provided with the minutes of the meetings, the incidents which had allegedly been referred to or any specific details of the claims.
The claims arose from the very first day the new supervisor took over and he had chalked up 5 allegations against my client on the first 4 hour shift but did not report these for a further month.. presumably saving them up for impact but failing to provide detail.
In my opinion my client was actually being bullied by her supervisor and my suspicions were confirmed when she reported that he had sworn at her and had punched her hand bag into a wall .( this is a reconstruction and Knox management insisted that we destroy this evidence of violence directed at my client )
This was a frightening experience for my client but Knox management tried to hold her responsible for this action.
We made a complaint to the police and it transpired that the supervisor was known to them . The police were very concerned that he was apparently employed without any pre-employment screening being carried out. A comment was passed that this person should not have been employed in these surroundings.
The supervisor “ resigned “ after this event but things were not going to go well for my client who on leaving work for her Christmas holiday , was given a letter on the 23rd December dated 11 November alleging more nonspecific issues that she could mull over , over her holidays . At a time of good will to men Knox Management chose to fire off an allegation without investigation and later transpired to be along the same vein as the earlier complaints .. all non specific.
It was obvious to me that Knox were trying to remove my client from her job , they were in my opinion not doing this ethically and even resorted to spying on my client using the security cameras , as she went about her duties.We have employment laws for exactly this reason but when money buys you rights and lack of money limits other peoples rights to justice then the law is truly an ass.
After having the meeting of the 17 January put off by management for a further period we failed to find resolution. We were actually told my a senior supervisor to hurry up and file the grievance and it became clear to me in mediation that the confidentiality in mediation was going to provide them with the opportunity that they desired.
The matter went to mediation and following this my dissatisfied client refused to pay me as the action by Knox had forced the bill up and she had not had her expected outcome , she told me “ I did not want to have to resign “
Faced with a former client who does not have 2 cents to rub together and account of now nearly $10,000 which reflected the 5 months work, I looked at constructive means of converting my many hours into $$. I could bankrupt my client but that will cost me more than it will deliver and seemed a rather harsh thing to do in the circumstances.
This whole scenario proved to me that the scorched earth policy is alive and well , it is one I have seen played out many time, where the rich , or those using trust funds , can write things off to a tax loss while forcing the costs to accumulate against the other party who does not have those benefits. The strategy forces the financially weaker party into submission due to their inability to pay more. In this case it worked my client has no money and cannot progress her grievance .
I am in the process of wring a number of e books and I believe that the correspondence and the manner in which this employment matter has been conducted is typical and of public interest to show how a dispute progresses and the stand which is taken . The fact that the Trust board and the management condoned this action means that there could not have been anything detrimental or unethical about the process in their view.
As a matter of courtesy I wrote to Knox home and advised them of my intentions of publication and provided them with an opportunity to purchase the material and the rights to the work which I had put in.
I was told by management that I was breaching confidentiality , I pointed out that I was not contracted to them in any way and invited them to show me how I owed a duty of confidentiality to them.
I gave them a period of time to respond they asked for an extension of time and I granted this , then half an hour before that time was up I received a phone call from the police stating that Knox home vial Jill Woodward had filed a complaint of blackmail against me.
I have responded to Knox home as follows
From: Grace Haden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012 3:52 p.m.
To: ‘Jill Woodward’
Good afternoon Jill
I have received a phone call from the police alleging black mail for the record blackmail is
- (1) Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent—
- (a) to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and
- (b) to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.
(2) Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.
(3) In this section and in section 239, benefit means any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.
Please advise where an when I have threatened in any way to make any accusation against any person or to disclose something about any person or to or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person .
I have clearly stated my intent and that is to be paid for the 5 months of work which I have put in.
You have failed to advise me of any confidentiality agreements I have with you and I believe that the e book will be a valuable public resource.
I will commence writing my e book on the weekend and hope to have it published next week .
I will also mention that you have made a complaint of blackmail to the police .
I further refer you to the bill of rights S 14 Freedom of expression
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
I will be availing myself of that right.
I accept by the events of this afternoon that you do not wish to purchase my work from me. May I remind you that I extended the dead line for a week to accommodate your trip to Australia and you have not had the courtesy to reply.
All I can read into this is further bullying. Directed at me this time. A charge against me would be good as it will well and truly get it into the press..
When things are dealt with properly surely there is nothing to fear? .. that is what transparency is all about.
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
I wish the above to serve as my statement to the police and would also like to know why they are in a rush to investigate me when for 6 years they have not looked at the serious corruption in Waitakere city .
My client in my opinion was subjected to Bullying by Knox staff , they condoned it , they condoned the action they took against her but now they are alleging that I intend them harm?
I have personally always found it a good policy to have ethics and hold to them could it be by this action that the Knox home management and trustees feel that what they have done is not going to be perceived as ethical in the court of public opinion? They can’t have it both ways. Or can the rich defeat the law and then use the police to obtain a gagging order?
When transparency is not welcome.. you have to ask the question Why?
Over the past six years I have been before the court because I questioned corruption.
Not just any corruption this would have been the perfect public fraud.
The only thing which could save the perpetrators neck was to discredit me, the inadvertent whistle blower. So enter Brookfield’s with the solution.
I have advised Brookfields of the situation many times but because they are not an incorporated law firm as defined by the lawyers and conveyancers act , they apparently can get away with it .. another one of those silly loop holes in the law.
This how they physically did it and I am making this complaint to all the lawyers int eh practice int he hope that one may have a conscience with regards to the rules.
First to barristers make a complaint to a law clerk, the dedicated law clerk springs into action after hours and attempts to secure a result through intimidation. ( hyperlinks reveal each segment of the story )
When this fails The law clerk gets her husband Nick Wright involved he happens to be a partner at Brookfileds (You will note from the link that he claims he is a solicitor in a law practice but if you look him up on the register you will find that its actually just false advertising- shows integrity? )
Nick Wright gets David Neutze involved, David is apparently one of those types who signs anything without checking and then when he does find out about the very big oops ,will go out of his way to cover up even to the extent of filing bankruptcy and liquidation papers on someone who has him before the LCRO on claims of negligence .
While there are rules of conduct for lawyers you will find that even large law firms like Brookfield’s are happy to take your money to defend the indefensible even if it means ignoring the rules all together.
Brookfield’s were very clever they managed to win a defamation case without the need to produce those awkward documents which really don’t say what they have claimed they say. Read the blog How to win with no evidence .
Basically if you take a leaf out of David Neutze book you can win at anything using his formula .
- File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
- use interlocutories to trump up the costs,
- demand the costs in a short time frame
- Have the defence on the remaining matter struck out.
- With draw the fictional claims.
- Skip formal proof
- Go straight to Quantum
- Deny any opportunity for appeal
- Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
- Continue liquidation and bankruptcy action even though the judgment is challenged on having been obtained by fraud.
The strategy in a way is a bit like that demonstrated by Rowan Atkinson in the skit Fatal beating You take something trivial and escalate it and take something major and trivialise it.
It was good to see that Ben ATKINS did not turn up at the high court this week and for the first time in 6 years David Neutze turned up in person. It would seem that Ben recognises that there is fraud involved but Brookfileds management are still happy to see the bankruptcy and liquidation go through despite the facts.
The last time I saw Ben ,he was holding a folder which contained the affidavit which I filed in support of the claim of obtaining a judgment by fraud , the folder had the name of the fictional organisation AWINZ on it .
This brings about another question since the funds which were used to pay Brookfields are charitable funds ( as shown in the annual returns ) how come only Mr Wells is claiming it in his own name.. is that not money laundering.. are Brookfield’s now complicit to this criminal act as well? Or are they so fixed on civil matters that criminal matters don’t matter? where do they get the imunity from to be using their office for fraud?
We would love to her from Brookfields .. why are you immune to the rules ?
2 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.
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
5.4 A lawyer must not act or continue to act if there is a conflict or a risk of a conflict between the interests of the lawyer and the interests of a client for whom the lawyer is acting or proposing to act.
- 5.4.1 Where a lawyer has an interest that touches on the matter in respect of which regulated services are required, the existence of that interest must be disclosed to the client or prospective client irrespective of whether a conflict exists.
- 5.4.2 A lawyer must not act for a client in any transaction in which the lawyer has an interest unless the matter is not contentious and the interests of the lawyer and the client correspond in all respects.
Proper professional practice
11 A lawyer’s practice must be administered in a manner that ensures that the duties to the court and existing, prospective, and former clients are adhered to, and that the reputation of the legal profession is preserved.
Misleading and deceptive conduct
11.1 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive15 anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice.
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.
4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
(d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.— that is court first client second .