Open letter to the auditor General – please investigate
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.
-
- The application was made 22 November 1999 The act became law on 1 January 2000.
- 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.
-
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
- The application had a cover sheet on it signed by Neil Wells
- 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.
-
- No trust deed existed at that time, the trust deed which was provided with the application was unsigned and therefore not a trust deed.
- 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.
-
- 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.
-
- 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
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
- 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.”
- 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?
- Wells is able to reprimand MAF and completes his own caucus papers
- 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.
-
- 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.”
- 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 .
-
- No one else is ever seen to be involved prior to March 2006 .
- 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.
-
- Trust deed supplied to me by lawyer in June 2006
- 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.
-
- As covered above
- 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