Transparency New Zealand

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 23 July 2012 2:05 p.m.
To: Lyn Provost
Subject: request for investigation

Good afternoon

In 2000  a  fictitious entity was given law enforcement authority because  no one checked. This was to have been  a perfect fraud  all facilitated through  the lack of diligence . It existed for 10 years  and it was only  because of My questions that it was struck off,  I only questioned because I was being sued for defamation for    saying.. How come the animal welfare institute does not exist?

No one has ever undertaken an investigation into  how  the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand  , which did not  have any evidence of existence   in any manner or form was given  coercive law enforcement powers.  The negligence of the government  departments and the councils involved have  been  effectively covered up through denial.

No one knows  who  or what the Animal Welfare institute of  New Zealand ( AWINZ )   was  yet it appointed   persons to be  Inspectors under the animal welfare act, prosecuted  and retained the proceeds of the prosecution   under section 171 of the animal welfare act.

AWINZ did not exist  and  this meant that it  had huge   powers  but  no accountability to the public at all  because it  could not be sued. Yet no one cares.

The  requirements   for the application of approved organisations  are set out in   section 121 and 122   of the animal welfare act.

Neither MAF nor the minister’s office   carried out  due diligence into the  legal  existence of the applicant and for 10 year this fraud was allowed to exist in the  public arena.

The following is  my supporting evidence as to why MAF  and the minister failed to ensure that an applicant   existed and was telling the truth in the application,  in reality   there was no due  diligence on the  fundamental basic of the application.

The hyperlinks   will open the documents which  are referred to.

The application was accepted and considered before the  act became law.

1. 1.  The application  was made 22 November 1999  The act became law on 1 January 2000.
   2. 22 November 1999 predates 1 January 2000  

i.      Mr Wells in his evidence  to the court  on page 7 states  “The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .”

ii.      Paragraph 3 of the  MAF letter   to the Minister of Agriculture  clearly states that the date of the application was 22  November 1999

 Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  due to   the application  being made under legislation which did not  yet exist.

The applicationwas not made by the applicant, the applicant did not exist.

1. 1. MAF erroneously  considered  the  applicant to be a  trust  established allegedly on  1.march 2000   which is a date  some three months  after the application was  made,  they could therefore not  have been the applicants.
   2.  Since this trust was not registered  under any act which  gave it body corporate status , the real name of the trust was   (Name of trustees ) as trustees in the Animal welfare  Institute of New Zealand , the  name  Animal welfare instate of New Zealand was used by a number of trusts, and would be no  different to there being a number of  John Smiths, t In this case however  the  similarity in name was an  attempt to confuse and deceive.
   3. We know   that the Animal Welfare Institute  of New Zealand had no legal existence in its own right  i.e. it was not a legal person  capable of  suing or being sued in its own name    prior to 27 April 2006  because  we registered the legal name  and  we could not have done so  if   a body by that name existed.
   4. If no one existed by that name  then   the name  used  was not of the applicant  as the applicant    according to the criteria  it must be possible to verify the legal status of  the  applicant.     The applicant therefore did not exist  or was  a “ trading name “   name for an unidentified person or persons.

Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  as  the applicant  needs to have real   existence or be represented by real persons  giving their consent.

The application  document  was not signed.

1. 1. The application  had a cover sheet on it  signed by Neil Wells
   2. The application itself on   page 10  was not signed  this copy was  given to me  by MAF as  the  copy of the original application

 Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  due to the  document not being legally signed.

The application was  supported by a blank trust deed.

1. 1. No trust deed   existed at that time, the  trust deed which was provided with the application  was unsigned  and therefore not a trust deed.
   2. MAF acknowledged receipt of that document and referred to looking at  the terms of the deed in this correspondence paragraph 3

 Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  due to the fact that the trust deed  did not represent anything or any one  as it was unsigned.

No one ever asked for evidence from Mr  Wells  as to how he represented the applicant and how he was able to speak on its behalf.

1. 1. I have searched MAF’s files  done   copious OIA requests  and  no  documents have been  located  or supplied  which   shows How Mr Wells was  able to represent others or even the   trust which was  formed  three months after the application as made.

 Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  as Mr Wells  only had the legal capacity to represent himself.

None of the alleged trustees were ever contacted and their signatures were not obtained.

1. 1. I have searched your files  done   copious OIA requests  no  documents have been  located  or supplied.

Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  as evidence of the existence of the other persons   is mandatory  and  these person both have to have knowledge of the application made in their names and show that they consent to the application being made  as ultimately they would have  to shoulder the accountability .

Mr Wells   was accepted on his word  and nothing was verified from the councils  which he claimed  he would be contracting to

1. 1. a.      “MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work). “

i.            Documents were supplied  by Tom Didovich  the manager  dog and stock control purporting to be acting on behalf of both Waitakere council and North Shore council granting consent on behalf of Councils

1.  Wells tells MAF  “ AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is In being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.”
2. Wells tells minister  ““A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”

i.            There is no clause 20 (a) in any of the many version of the deed

ii.             Originals are not sent , Wells knows this

iii.            We now have two copies of the original deed .. so why was the other copy not sent?

1. Wells is able to  reprimand MAF  and    completes  his own caucus papers
2. Wells tells MAF to withhold information from me

Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point  as there was no agreement from Council to this  venture.

Mr Wells  gives assurances with regards to   incorporation which transpire to be false.

1. 1.  Wells tells MAF  “ AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is In being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.”
   2. Wells tells minister  ““A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”

i.            There is no clause 20 (a) in any of the many version of the deed

ii.             Originals are not sent , Wells knows this

iii.            We now have two copies of the original deed .. so why was the other copy not sent?

Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point   or  awaited  the  confirmation to come through , they accepted  their word of someone  who  had assured them in the application  22 November 199 that a deed existed,  when quite clearly it did not.

Neil Wells  got to completes  his own caucus papers , he had previously written the no 1 bill for this legislation and advised on it as   Independent advisor to the select committee,  there is gross conflict of interest  yet no one  questions.

Had the persons doing the   due diligence been  diligent ,the application  should have been rejected at this point   due to the gross conflict of interest involved in this matter.

 Mr Wells  single handedly ran a law enforcement authority  and no one   checks on  him or monitors this .

1. 1. No one else is ever seen to be involved   prior to  March 2006  .
   2. A massive cover up commenced in   May 2006     and MAF never questioned   the   fact that the   Governance documents  were missing when they did the audit. Yet Mr wells had governance  documents for the law society.  No one cares that  on right clicking  the law society document  the   properties show that it was created in 2011.

No accountability  was   called for   and  one person was left to  run his own  law enforcement authority unchecked  and no one cares? Where was the due  diligence in ensuring that the annual reports, checks and  audits ere being completed and submitted,  as it was the alleged trust did not even meet.

In 2006   when I  drew attention to  the above Mr wells  supplied  a trust deed  to MAF which was other than the alleged signed trust deed.

1. 1. Trust deed supplied to me by lawyer in June 2006
   2. Trust deed  supplied to me by MAF as being the deed which  they have  on file

i.            Difference is that  a  has all pages signed.   B  only has  first page signed and last pages signed.

ii.            The pages in between are  not  signed  at all and have been inserted afterwards. These are not part of the deed as they have not been agreed to by the trustees.

iii.            The deed is a red herring any way  but MAf wouldn’t be able to work that out.

No one ever  checked to see why the  first  page and the last  three pages were differ  and why the  central  pages in the deed were unsigned, as it was these pages  have not been accepted by the trustees     and they have just been slipped in   between the signature pages to make it look    genuine.  Does this mean that MAF does not  know how to look for  the red flags of fraud ?

MAF insist that  it is  a trust which  ran  AWINZ but No one has   questioned  how a trust can be formed  three months after it  allegedly applies  for law enforcement authority under a law which did not exist.

1. 1. As covered  above
   2. MAF has been totally incompetent in dealing with tis application   it allowed itself to   digress into argument about   law  and they failed to  check the basics.

I would  like to see a full investigation carried out    into this matter as I believe there is much to be learnt from this   Is this type of negligence still occurring, if so  it is  an open door to corruption.

Regards

Grace Haden