Archive for November 2012

Wendy Brandon and the Wislang Case

A kind contributor has  brought  the The Wislang Case to my attention  . Wendy Brandon was  at that time Chair woman of the medical disciplinary tribunal .

The  detail of The Wislang Case can be READ ONLINE or DOWNLOAD as Adobe PDF.

This document  contains a  Quote from Sir William Wade

“It is fundamental that the procedure before a tribunal, like that in a court of law, should be adversary and not inquisitorial. The tribunal should have both sides of the case presented to it and should judge between them, without itself having to conduct an inquiry of its own motion, enter into the controversy, and call evidence for or against either party. If it allows itself to become involved in the investigation and argument, parties will quickly lose confidence in its impartiality, however fair-minded it may be. This principle is observed throughout the tribunal system, even in the adjudging of small claims before social security local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals by a departmental officer. Naturally this done not mean that the tribunal should not tactfully assist an application to develop his case, particularly when he has no representative to speak for him, just as a judge will do with an unrepresented litigant.”

I have seen in the handling of  the AWINZ matter  that Wendy Brandon   does not undertake investigations and  is even reluctant to   look at the   story from both sides , she has totally ignored my  pleas to her to  look at a simple document. The MOU   in which Mr Wells is both sides of the   agreement.

One would have thought that it would have been acceptable for Mr Wells to have declared his conflict of interest in his  application for  Mr Didovich’s position    But Wendy Brandon prefers to throw court documents  which were obtained   through fraudulent means  -at me  and   attack my character.

I have to wonder if Wendy still thinks that she is on a tribunal?  her  position now is   as a lawyer for council protecting the public interest.  It is in the public interest that   the  public resources are not used for personal gain.

One lesson I have   have learn is that when people cannot attack the issue they attack the person.

Wendy  why are you attacking me    and why are you advising the Mayor that he should not speak to me?  What agenda is hidden  why do we  hide  public corruption    why do you condone it?

If I receive a response from Wendy I will let you  know.. don’t hold your breath  I’m not.

Please read the Wislang case  it  speaks volumes.

 

Wendy Brandon continues to conceal corruption

I have received  a further reply from Wendy Brandon  it appears that attack is the best form of defense .  In the interest of transparency, the correspondence is below

 

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012 10:08 a.m.
To: ‘Wendy Brandon’
Cc: ‘info@ombudsman.parliament.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Catriona McDougall’; ‘kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Rob Stock (SUN)’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council

 

Wendy

 

You would not be re litigating anything.   There is a huge difference between    a defamation claim and   the claim  of corruption.    Why does it take 7 years to   bring corruption to the attention of council ?

 

The court has been used to pervert the course of justice   and as I have told you    there is a proceeding currently before the    court    for obtaining a judgement by fraud.

 

You appear to have a very back to front way of dealing with corruption .

 

I would presume that you have assessed the information which I have sent you   and that you are  now actively condoning the use of council premises    for private pecuniary gain  by council employees  and that you are condoning  council managers contracting to themselves. You are now allowing your office to be  used for the concealment of crime and I will be making a complaint to the law society accordingly.

 

You  are making  me out  to vexatious based  on the   uncorroborated evidence of Mr Wells  who was compelled to    deceive the court because of the  implications the truth had on his career.

 

You  are condoning the use of  council facilities  fraudulently  and   you are not acting  in the interest of the  administration of justice .

 

Questioning corruption has cost me  an obscene amount of money.  Do  you honestly think that  any one in their right mind will ever  question corruption In  council  again.

 

Those who are employed are  quietly disposed of by confidentiality clauses   , those who are not  employed like myself  are hammered into the ground  and totally annihilated  through persons like yourself  who will not  even look at the most basic  of  documents and asses  that there is something terribly  wrong.

 

Wendy  attack  has always been the best form of defence and by you attacking my  character and reputation using  judgements  which are before the court for having been obtained by fraud   are  denigrating me  You are attacking me  because you cannot attack the issue . the issue is that council   resources have been used fraudulently and  you  are ignoring  it.

 

You are doing everything in your power to  get me out of the picture.  You know  that  through your actions  Corruption will flourish in Auckland city   because you are condoning it.

Just let the rate payers pay more  so more   people  can   gain   privately.

 

This is a well-documented and researched  example of corruption  it is under your nose  and you don’t even want to learn from it..  that is not just ignorance  it goes to negligence.

 

A  lawyer  with integrity  would look at the documents  I have brought to your attention and  would  act  to ensure that councillors  are briefed on the perpetration of corruption in council   learning from the past prevents  expensive mistakes in the future.

 

 

How much more is going on and how much more are you condoning?   What is in it for You  Wendy?  Surely   your objective should be to  protect the  councils assets and resources  and ensure that they are being used for    a proper purpose. You are not  doing that Wendy   and it appears to me that you are failing the people of  Auckland.

 

I do have to  wonder who is paying your wages , strangely enough I thought it was the rate payers  not   employees within  council who   have your loyalty  to  ensure that corruption is concealed.

 

 

 

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

VeriSure

Because truth matters

 

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

 

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012 9:10 a.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Cc: info@ombudsman.parliament.nz; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz; Catriona McDougall; kennedy.graham@parliament.govt.nz; Mayor Len Brown; ‘Rob Stock (SUN)’; Councillor Sharon Stewart
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council

 

Dear Ms Haden

 

I refer to my email correspondence of yesterday and confirm that if you wish to complain about the responses you have received to your various LGOIMA requests of the past weeks, you have the right to complain to the Ombudsman.  I have read both of the High Court and District Court judgments (attached) and it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any re-litigation of matters that have been heard and determined by the courts.

 

As per below, I am satisfied that over the past several years you have received all of the information held by the former WCC in relation to AWINZ.  No new information relating to AWINZ has come into existence in Auckland Council. Given the very strong findings in both the District Court and High Court judgments, your continued requests are vexatious and are accordingly, declined.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Wendy Brandon

General Counsel

 

 

RE: request for urgent investigation by council

I had a reply from Council  Only after I sent a chaser through FYI  My response and Wendy Brandon’s email    here with

Wendy

Are you aware that the decision which you are referring to was obtained by fraud. It is currently before the court  to set aside the judgement .

Whistle-blowers have historically been targets for defamation claims.

In any case it has nothing to do with the  complaint that the  council premises , staff and infrastructure  were being used by the fictional organisation AWINZ which was in reality a   private enterprise run by the  manager of dog control . a form of corruption  called public office for private pecuniary  advantage.

As a lawyer  you would  be shocked at how the defamation matter  was  won.

It is extremely difficult to  win  if they use false claim to  create costs against you,  strike out your defence of truth and honest opinion , skip the formal proof hearing, use your affidavit in mitigation of damages against you   and  then  they commit perjury in their uncorroborated evidence.

I was in the LCRO with regards to the conduct of the lawyers concerned on Tuesday.  They were exonerated by the law society when  Neil Wells   provided the law society with fabricated evidence- relying on a council employee to  manufacture a minute   dated 2006  in 2011  when  overwhelming independent  evidence exists that the 2006  minute  had been lost in a computer crash .

In the meantime  all this would have been averted if the   council lawyer at the time Denis Sheard had actually gone and spoken to the  dog control officers and questioned why Mr Wells  did not declare his conflict of inters in  his application  for the position of manager animal welfare. Instead three council  employees were dismissed   because they  were seen as a threat to exposing this  venture .

AS council lawyer  you need only look at one  document to see the red flags    that document is the attached or available at    http://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mou-waitakere.pdf

  1. Animal welfare institute did not exist  it is not a legal entity in its own right, council did not  have a copy of any evidence of its existence.
  2. Wells and Didovich sign the MOU    Didovich for council  wells for the fictional organisation
  3. Wells later took over Didovich’s role     and became  both parties to this agreement   he never declared the conflict of interest in his application http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4-oct-2005-job-application.pdf

If that doesn’t have alarms   ringing  then I don’t know what will  ,, if you can condone such evidence without investigation  then  I have serious concerns about your integrity.

Didovich is   intrinsically entwined in this whole matter , he paid for  legal opinions  to facilitate the setting up of AWINZ , he paid Wells to set up AWINZ and  later became a trustee of a  trust which was used to cover the whole thing up.  Yet you continue to attack me !

Mr Wells re branded  the council facilities  so that the logos of the   council pound and AWINZ were identical.

this was not in colour  it was printed on a donation  flyer along with the council Logo

these Logo’s are still on the council   premises and vehicles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maf commented final draft audit 2008it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WCC page 9   all personnel  ( including the AWINZ  inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation  facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry  to monitor AW issues, this did  lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations”

Wendy if you can in all  fairness ignore  all the evidence   that I have put before you then you are   either incompetent or corrupt yourself.

You are all that stands between the public’s money being  misappropriated

If you do not act then I  take it then that you condone

  1. managers contracting to themselves
  2. changing the logos of a council  facility so that they are almost identical to  those  of their  fictitious entity
  3. making money from the   work of council staff as a side line

and that such  action  then  does not warrant investigation  .  You simply prefer to shoot the messenger.

Wendy as an in house   solicitor I am advising you  that   your obligations are to the rule of law and the administration of justice You have a legal obligation not to  use your office for fraud.  Section 66 Of the crimes act   parties to the offence   must strike close to the heart.  If you actively cover up the  corruption and the fraud  then   you are not only in breach of your rules of ethical conduct you will also become an accessory after  the fact.

I look forward to an invitation from you to meet with you so that I can place  all the evidence I have before you  . Ordinary people  get it they understand  they are appalled.

The reasons I have asked for more information is that   under the public records act   your records should be available and archived.  The fact that the records are missing on such a contentious matter is another   red flag which you should be noting.

The council has not once investigated this matter   had the council acted properly in the beginning   I could have been spared many years of   character assassination and a lot of expense.

 

I am able to come in  and see you tomorrow  or  next week     and I will personally place the  documents in front of you  which will  illustrate  that  there was a serious issue   in Waitakere dog and stock control.

 

Please let me know what time suits you and I will be there.

 

The council cannot condone corruption – If this corruption occurred  and you have allowed a blind eye to be  turned  then what else is   being ignored?

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

 

 

 

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012 3:29 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council

 

Dear Ms Haden

For the record:

1. I did not respond to a LGOIMA request from you within an hour. You made the request in question on 24 October 2012, and I responded on 2 November. On 5 November I confirmed that response. My response was made in good faith and I am satisfied that the WCC documents (dating back to 2000 and 2008) cannot now be located and possibly never existed. In one of your emails and/or your request you alleged that the information was “actively concealed” from Waitakere City Councillors and Council officers at the time so its not surprising that it cannot now be located, or its existence confirmed.

2. My response was given in good faith.

3. The information you have listed below is not the same information that you requested on 24 October. Accordingly, it has been treated and considered as a fresh request and it is refused pursuant to section 17(h) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, because it is vexatious.

4. This response to your most recent request is similarly made in good faith and because I am satisfied on the basis of my inquiries that all of the information held by the former Waitakere City Council in relation to AWINZ has been provided to you in response to the many, many requests for information you have made to both Auckland Council and Waitakere City Council since approximately 2006. I am also mindful of the Decisions of the District Court and High Court (attached) and the findings and orders made in those judgments, and your apparent refusal to observe due process either in the context of the court orders or the LGOIMA process.

5.    As always, you have the right by way of a complaint to an Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the LGOIMA to seek an investigation and review of this refusal.

Yours faithfully

Wendy Brandon

 

 

 

Do MAF’s Lawyers support the misleading of ministers?

Open letter to Mark Patchett  Chief legal adviser Ministry of primary industries

Good afternoon Mark

I refer to your  response to my OIA november 14 12 patchett

I  am unsure if you are familiar with the background of this matter

Effectively Mr Wells  the barrister who  drafted the  animal welfare No 1 bill and advised on teh legislation  at select committee level   had a business plan to amalgamate dog and stock control with animal welfare  Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf

 He made an application to the minster on 22 November 1999   using a pseudonym application.pdf

He made false statements as to the “ organisations ”existence and  No one checked to see if it  did exist.

the trusted Mr Wells

Just this week I received a copy of an equation for trust

(High)

Trust = Credibility + Reliability + Connection

Self-orientation

(Low)

If  Credibility + Reliability + Connection   are all worth 10 points    and the person has no  self interest   then  the maximum score is  30/1

In this case Mr wells self interest was extreme  10  you will note that  the trust fact or  became 3.

The correspondence I have shows that Mr wells had  great influence within MAF  and an open door with the minister .

AWINZ eventually   received  approved status  and Mr Wells operated this fictional organisation from  Waitakere city council premises using council  staff  and infrastructure without  Councils knowledge or  consent.   While MAF knew AWINZ existed on council premises, Council denied  that  it existed there.

In a MAF Audit  it was even noted that  the two merged seamlessly

While MAF  believed the city council was involved in the application it was not, only the manager Tom Didovich   was involved. didovich to MAF north shore.pdf    didovich to MAF waitak.pdf

When Didovich resigned from council he became  a trustee of a trust set up to cover  up the fact that AWINZ did not exist. This was necessary because I alerted MAF to the fact that AWINZ had never been registered under the charitable trust act,  that means  it did not  have body corporate status despite Mr wells repeated assurances.

Neil Wells took over Didovich’s position  but never declared his conflict of interest 4 oct 2005 job application.pdf  or the fact that he had signed a MOU with Didovich and  would be   in a situation of gross conflict of interest. MOU Waitakere.pdf

As a lawyer Mark  I am advising you   that   your  legal practice and role of  in house lawyer at  MAF  is being misinformed  and  deceived  and that the responses you are being asked to  give are to conceal fraud.

As an officer of the court you have obligations to the rule of  law  and the administration of justice . Legally you cannot be involved in the concealment of corruption and  Fraud  and I hereby wish to alert you to   the fact  that those instructing you within MAF  are  using you to  cover  up this public fraud.

I hereby ask you to investigate

For your assistance  you will find the  full chronology of events here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf

The hyper linked documents open

The chronology shows   just how  the minister and  MAF were deceived by the application

In six years  Nearly 7years   insiders in  MAF have covered this up.    It will only take   a cursory look at this from you to realise that something is very wrong  you can then    take a complaint to the police.  The police will not take a complaint from me as they expect the  Govt dept to act.

You have to ask yourself  how can  a trust make an application for approved status using an unsigned application  of a trust   three months prior to its documented  formation .

And how do   trustees of an unincorporated trust which does not meet    and have never signed a  document  relating to the approved status become  responsible for  the accountability of it?

Hence my question  with regards to  who represented  AWINZ at the various times.   Basically   no one knew. The only one in reality was Mr wells  using a pseudonym.

There are those within MAF  who know the truth  and   seek to cover this up, they have withheld crucial information for years.

Mark I sincerely hope that  you  are not going to condone the deception and fraud of AWINZ.   I just need one honest person  to do the decent thing.

If lawyers act according to the rule of Law  I would not have   been hauled through the court for  these past 6 years on this fictional claim of defamation. I simply pointed out that AWINZ did not exist    MAF should have investigated , it did not .

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

IF I  am dealing with a lawyer with integrity  you will be appalled to hear that questioning corruption has cost  me  over $200,000  and Mr Wells still has  designs to make me pay more.  The matter is currently before the court for  obtaining a judgement by fraud  . In the end the truth will come out.  No one pays  such an obscene sum of money for    exposing corruption and stays quite.

I will be making this  an open letter and will be posting it on Transparency.net.nz  along with  any reply you  wish to submit.

I am happy to talk to you and provide all the evidence you need.  You only need to look at the deletions in the documents which have been supplied  for they hold the answer.

e.g.  Maf provided me with this  12 june MAF copy   the  full copy 12 june Wells copy   shows the following significant deletion :”  Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation. I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.”

I have many more  examples   Basically there are those within  MAF   who are actively  concealing corruption  which they   were negligent  enough to  have facilitated.

The reasons that  Government departments have lawyers  is to ensure that  the organisation   acts with integrity.   I hope that you can step in and  look at this  and advise those who are  getting you to respond to me.   You  have a duty to investigate  this is  in the public interest.

I look forward to a response.

Regards

Grace Haden

Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012 4:25 p.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’Mayor Len Brown

Subject: request for urgent investigation by council

Good afternoon  Doug

I made a LGOIMA request from your   solicitor Wendy Brandon.

I admire her efficiency as  within an hour she had ascertained that the documents  I   requested  were not  available  she  stated “I confirm that the information you requested cannot be located and/or does not exist.’

As I cannot  doubt the integrity of your  lawyer , who is after all an officer of the court and expected to uphold the rule of law , and being a  council employee she  is bound by the provisions of the local government act  with regards to transparency , I have to accept her response  and  apply the implications of this response to  my LGOIMA request

It is not for the    counsel  for council to  conceal corruption . She has a duty to  ensure transparency and accountability  and as a lawyer her honesty and therefore her word  can be  assured.

 

What transpires in applying her response to the following request brings about serious issues of concern and I  ask the council to immediately investigate this  in the interest of the public.

 

The LGOIMA request  was as follows    I have added under each paragraph  what   the logical interpretation must be given the reply of  Wendy Brandon  …  I requested

  •  Documents  which show that council has investigated the  use of the   council facilities , staff and resources   by AWINZ.
  1. If the information does not exist this means that the council has never investigated, this is appalling   as it proves that the council is being negligent with  contracts,  conflicts of interest and allowing  the  public resources to be used for private pecuniary gain
  •  Documents  and policies which allow the  managers of    divisions such as  dog and stock control  to independently contract / sign agreements to third  parties and  the processes which need to be followed.  E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to   give these assurances on behalf of council?

 

  1. If the information does not exist this means that the council has not got any policies for  council managers and it appears to be a free for all , it must be of concern then that a  council manager signed an agreement which allowed a third party to use the councils facilities, staff and vehicles  for  free. This would not be a wise use of councils funds.
  •  Mr Wells  in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that   AWINZ was  going to take over the animal welfare services  please provide any  documentation discussion papers  etc  which  would have  given Mr Wells  foundation for this statement. ,  see application
  1. If the information does not exist this means that Mr Wells  misled the minister , The council now being aware of this  has a duty to  ensure that the minister becomes aware that the council   had no knowledge with regards to the AWINZ matter and that the parties who corresponded with him  n th guise of council had no  mandate to do so.

 

  • Invoices for the payment  of   Kensington swan for all  legal  opinions  requested by council or by Dog and stock control   for the legal opinions  in  2000  which persuaded the  Minister to   give approval to AWINZ  as an approved Organisation   links to the legal opinion are here   initial  opinion             Draft           final

 

  1. If the information does not exist this means that the council  manager involved   engaged Kensington swan  in his professional capacity  and  the council should make urgent enquiries as to who did pay for the services.
  •  Why council  continued to  push for AWINZ to be approved  when crown law  said that it was ultra Vires  and any minutes of any council meetings which  gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this  action.

 

  1. If the information does not exist this means that the council was not involved in the animal welfare aspects of the dog control  section and that  tis now calls for an urgent investigation in view of the  statements  from MAF which recorded that  AWINZ did operate from council premises.

 

  • What was Lesley Wears position with  council and was the question raised in the fax  located here    addressed  please provide a copy of the response

 

  1. It therefore appears that  Lesley Wear never received a response , I would however  have thought that council might have known who she was  since she was employed by council, perhaps this was overlooked by Ms Brandon, after all it was a lot of information that she got through in one hour.
  •  In an email Neil Wells  states “while that could have been answered immediately  by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide   all council documents which supports this statement  and  who in Waitakere city  was waiting for directions as to where the   Kensington swan letter should be sent to  .

 

  1. If the information does not exist this means that the council lawyer was  circumvented  and that the   legal opinion which was  obtained was not one which the council  had  requested or authorised , but had instead been requested by Mr Wells for his own purposes and apparently  paid for by  council. The  legal opinion swayed the minister as he believed that the legal opinion came at the request of council.  If this is not the case then it is important    and the minister should be   advised immediately that he has been misled.

 

  • All documents  after 2000 relating to animal welfare   were not  made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.

 

  1. If these documents are still missing then  Council  should be asking questions as to why all  documents  relating to the dog and stock control division are missing,   MR Wells the manager appears to have  an issue with losing vital documents, the governance documents for AWINZ were missing, the trust deed was lost more than once despite there being two copies  and now it transpires that  he somehow lost/ misplaced  all  the  animal welfare documents   for council, I would have thought that losing all the   documents for an  entire department would have been a matter of concern.  I now  of three persons who were sacked by council for a lot

Corruption is a serious matter  Doug.   This matter has been swept under the carpet for the past 6 ½  years , Your counsel in looking for this information and   discovering that it is all missing must  be seeing the red flags of fraud.  May I suggest that the council calls in the police or serious fraud office.

I  can assist  I have a chronology of  documents to simplify the matter,  I am a licenced private investigator and can tell you  that those documents disclose  the fact that council premises were being used by a fictitious organisation  called Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  and that   Mr Didovich  and Mr Wells colluded together to use the council  resources for private pecuniary gain.

My summary is  below, the hyperlinks  open the documents  shown  .

This letter will also be on Transparency.net.nz  so that those who are following this  matter can be kept in the loop.

I  would imagine that in view of the  information  which Ms Brandon has given me  that  it would be negligent of council not to investigate.

I am certain that this is the tip of the ice berg in council corruption  and  you will no doubt  uncover more  and thereby save rate payers millions.

As ever I am happy to assist.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

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

 

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 2:53 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Councillors
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Dear Ms Haden

As advised in my reply to your most recent requests for information, if you wish to make a complaint about Council’s response, you must direct that complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.

 However, I confirm that the information you requested cannot be located and/or does not exist.

As to the remaining allegations, Council must obey the law. There is currently an injunction in place prohibiting you from making any statements or allegations “reviling or denigrating Mr Wells”.  This latest round of emails and other correspondence contain statements that clearly fall within the terms of the orders being the same or similar to those that gave rise to the granting of injunctive relief.  Unless or until the injunction is dismissed, I am unable to take any further action.

Kind regards

Wendy


From: Grace Haden
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 2:08 PM
To: Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Councillor Penny Hulse; Councillor Cathy Casey; Councillor Richard Northey; Councillor Sandra Coney; Councillor Penny Webster; Councillor Mike Lee; Councillor John Walker; Councillor Sharon Stewart; Councillor Michael Goudie; Councillor Ann Hartley; Councillor Cameron Brewer; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Catriona McDougall; Councillor Alf Filipaina; Councillor George Wood; Councillor Des Morrison; Councillor Calum Penrose; Councillor Noelene Raffills; Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External); ‘Dick Quax’; Councillor Arthur Anae; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz; Wendy Brandon
Subject: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Open letter  and LGOIMA to  Mayor Brown  with regards to Corruption apparently  being condoned by counsel for  Council .

Sir, please find here with a  most condescending reply from your general counsel Wendy Brandon

I originally requested speaking rights   with regards to  serious corruption which occurred within  Waitakere city council, it involved public office for private pecuniary Gain and my   assertion is  backed with solid evidence.  I followed this up with LGOIMA requests    and second LGOIMA  seeking   the ability to   discuss the matter with a councillor

Instead of  solutions  I   receive a put down by  Brandon  who is severely neglectful of both her duties as  an officer of the law and as a  counsel to   council

The fundamental obligations of a lawyer are to the rule of law  and as such she is employed in a public capacity and  is all that stands between the exposure and concealment of corruption.

AWINZ  is an “organisation”  run by the  then dog and stock control manager  and existed on council premises   used the council  staff and vehicles  emblazoned with identical logos as used by AWINZ   the  “ organisation “ .

While council denied its existence   MAF at a time of  an audit  recordedit was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WCC”

 Effectively this independently  proves   my allegations  of  Public office for private  pecuniary gain .

Counsel  has responded to me and attacked me( if you can’t attack the  issue it appears that you attack the person )   ,  she does not get the point that the issue I am raising  has nothing to do with  any court action   but has everything to do with corruption within council.

Previous counsel for  Waitakere Denis Sheard denied  emphatically that AWINZ existed on the premises.  The independent evidence   which I have provided    to council on the 21st October  shows  that this was the case.

Wendy Brandon should  be asking questions  with regards to the MOU attached  and  be asking

  1. Why was the council lawyer was  not involved in the  drafting and  supervision of the signing of the MOU with AWINZ .
  2. Why was  Animal welfare services   able to enter into an agreement with a trading name( AWINZ  does not exist as a legal person )    and be questioning  the research  if any which was done  to establish  who represented the name  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The document  concerned is the MOU  attached and available here
  3. Why  was Mr Wells  employed by council without consideration  to the conflict of interest  this posed ,which by the way  was not declared on his application ,
  4. Further Counsel and  Council should be  aware that the  manager whom Mr Wells  signed this MOU with    became  a member of the so called trust which was set up as a cover  up  on 5 December 2006
  5. And was the council aware that  Mr Didovich had used council funds to pay Mr Wells   to  set up the trust ( this is one of many invoices .
  6. And that Mr Didovich collected  and witnessed the signatures  of the alleged trustees of the 2000 AWINZ  trust while he was on leave .
  7. 7.       Mr Didovich also wrote to  the minister approving  of the use of staff, he did this on the letter heads of  North shore and Waitakere city council . MAF were looking for assurances from council but only got these assurances from an accomplice a council manager without consultation through  the proper avenues in council .” 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).”
    1. It should be noted that Lesley Wear asked for an explanation, and questioned what the risks were for council  it would be  good to see if this  was ever addressed
    2. Mr Didovich  also   sought a legal opinion, which circumvented   the  councils solicitors    and obtained  the Kensington swan opinion.  When  crown law   opposed the involvement of council  in   the animal welfare work  due to  it being ultra vires   a second legal opinion was sought.  A draft was  sent back to  Didovich  and   then the final version   came back     which was a decision the minister relied upon… this  final  document   had information which indicates   significant input  from Mr Wells with his personal knowledge of the event on the select committee.
      1. Council should be asking why was the council lawyer left out of the loop ?
      2. What was the costing estimate how much did the  legal opinion cost?  And how was it paid, who authorised it.

I  sincerely believe that Council is keeping the lid on this matter because by  exposing it – it would open a can of worms.

By Way of LGOIMA  I request

  1. documents  which show that council has investigated the  use of the   council facilities , staff and resources   by AWINZ.
  2. Documents  and policies which allow the  managers of    divisions such as  dog and stock control  to independently contract / sign agreements to third  parties and  the processes which need to be followed.  E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to   give these assurances on behalf of council?
  3. Mr Wells  in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that   AWINZ was  going to take over the animal welfare services  please provide any  documentation discussion papers  etc  which  would have  given Mr Wells  foundation for this statement. ,  see application
  4. Invoices for the payment  of   Kensington swan for all  legal  opinions  requested by council or by Dog and stock control   for the legal opinions  in  2000  which persuaded the  Minister to   give approval to AWINZ  as an approved Organisation   links to the legal opinion are here   initial  opinion             Draft           final
  5. Why council  continued to  push for AWINZ to be approved  when crown law  said that it was ultra Vires  and any minutes of any council meetings which  gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this  action.
  6. What was Lesley Wears position with  council and was the question raised in the fax  located here    addressed  please provide a copy of the response
  7. In an email Neil Wells  states “while that could have been answered immediately  by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide   all council documents which supports this statement  and  who in Waitakere city  was waiting for directions as to where the   Kensington swan letter should be sent to  .
  8. All documents  after 2000 relating to animal welfare   were not  made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.

I wish to add that the  Ms Brandon  is not employed  to   conceal corruption and she has an obligation to  facilitate  transparency and  accountability , documents which I have obtained in the past show that as much as 40%  of the work  for   animal welfare services in Waitakere  was  being  Animal welfare work  which according to the documents I have was ultra Vires for council  .

Mr Wells  appears to have been   able to control and influence council and derive a personal income from animal welfare prosecutions undertaken as a result the involvement of  council officers working in council vehicles paid by  the public.  the evidence is shown in the chronology    this is   Public office for private   pecuniary income  a recognised form of corruption .

He effectively   ran  an SPCA type organisation   using council  staff resources and  vehicles.  All income  and no expense. And it appears that Wendy Brandon is condoning this .

No wonder our rates are  sky high.

A full chronology is available at http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf

Truth is never defamatory   I am not denigrating Mr wells  I am  stating fact  supported by the 5000 or so documents on my chronology     .

I have paid well over $300,000  because I did some pro bono work for a council officer  who questioned why she  was volunteering her council paid time to   AWINZ. Council responded by sacking her  and then taking her back to the ERA  on allegations of breach of confidentiality.  Others have been sacked and silenced as well , No wonder council  staff do not speak up   speak up and you lose your job.

Council should have investigated. It’s not too late they can still investigate  I have done the hard work   not just for free but at a personal  cost which is far too high.

It is through the neglect of council that I  have  had to endure 6 ½ years of litigation .

Is  Council  so irresponsible that it cannot see corruption  even when it is pointed out to them?  Is   placing gaging orders over  staff who  speak out  in concern  a  responsible thing to do ?How does that fit  in  with transparency????

By  doing nothing Auckland council is proving that  it condones corruption, this is a well-researched matter which proves  how corruption occurs in council  .

Auckland council by ignoring this shows that it  prefers to attack the messenger rather than  look out for the  interest of the public.   we pay the rates  we  should have accountability .

 

I look forward to  a civil response  and  the information I have requested supplied.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

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

Auckland council responds Via Wendy Brandon

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 2:53 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Councillor Penny Hulse; Councillor Cathy Casey; Councillor Richard Northey; Councillor Sandra Coney; Councillor Penny Webster; Councillor Mike Lee; Councillor John Walker; Councillor Sharon Stewart; Councillor Michael Goudie; Councillor Ann Hartley; Councillor Cameron Brewer; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Catriona McDougall; Councillor Alf Filipaina; Councillor George Wood; Councillor Des Morrison; Councillor Calum Penrose; Councillor Noelene Raffills; Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External); ‘Dick Quax’; Councillor Arthur Anae; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Dear Ms Haden

As advised in my reply to your most recent requests for information, if you wish to make a complaint about Council’s response, you must direct that complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.

However, I confirm that the information you requested cannot be located and/or does not exist.

As to the remaining allegations, Council must obey the law. There is currently an injunction in place prohibiting you from making any statements or allegations “reviling or denigrating Mr Wells”.  This latest round of emails and other correspondence contain statements that clearly fall within the terms of the orders being the same or similar to those that gave rise to the granting of injunctive relief.  Unless or until the injunction is dismissed, I am unable to take any further action.

Kind regards

Wendy

 

MY REPLY

Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 3:31 p.m.
To: ‘Wendy Brandon’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’
Cc: ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Richard Northey’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Catriona McDougall’; ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘Councillor Des Morrison’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External)’; ‘Dick Quax’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz’
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Ms Brandon

The  Questions I am asking are with regards to  an  “ organisation “ called AWINZ

You are not the subject of the  injunction  and I have  not said anything that is reviling or denigrating Mr Wells.  I am stating fact as  sourced from the documents   attached to the chronology.

I must complement  you on your efficiency to be able to  reply  to  my LGOIMA  in such a short time. It took you  less than  an hour to  deal with my questions  and you could not even tell me  who  Lesley Wear was   this just proves that you have totally fobbed me off.

To me this means that Council supports corruption and  goes out of its way to support/ conceal  corrupt practices.

 I would have hoped that any of the councillors  who have been copied in my have taken note and  seek accountability as you are the  representative for  the rate payers this is why our rates are so high  you allow  parasites to leach off our resources.

Regards

Grace Haden

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 3:57 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

 

Dear Ms Haden

Make a complaint to the Ombudsman if you wish. While I am not subject to the injunction, you are. As to your other comments, they are duly noted. I am not corresponding with you any further on this matter.

Wendy Brandon

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 4:49 p.m.
To: ‘Wendy Brandon’; len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Cc: ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Richard Northey’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Catriona McDougall’; ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘Councillor Des Morrison’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Wayne Walker – wayne@waynewalker.co.nz (External)’; ‘Dick Quax’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz’
Subject: RE: Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Thank you Ms Brandon

My I remind you of your   obligations under  section  4 of the lawyers  and conveyancers act   Fundamental obligations of lawyers

And Under the local government act 2002

S 10 Purpose of local government

The purpose of local government is—

(a) To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

(b) To promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.

11 Role of local authority

The role of a local authority is to—

(a) Give effect, in relation to its district or region, to the purpose of local government stated in section 10; and

(b) Perform the duties, and exercise the rights, conferred on it by or under this Act and any other enactment.

14  Principles relating to local authorities I highlight in particular  section 1(a) (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and (ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner.

 I request that you reconsider  your response as it appears that as a  lawyer  you are not acting  in accordance with the  rule of law.

You are actually facilitating   the concealment of  corruption and a public fraud  and   I see your actions  as  negligent.

Could you please  provide me   with an  explanation as to why    you believe that you are acting in a lawful manner and according to the  rule of law.  in an absence of  an explanation I will make a complaint to the law society  with regards to your conduct.

Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – Accountability      I seek accountability  for your  decision  .

Regards

Grace Haden

 

Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Open letter  and LGOIMA to  Mayor Brown  with regards to Corruption apparently  being condoned by Counsel for  Council .

Sir, please find here with a  most condescending reply from your general counsel Wendy Brandon

I originally requested speaking rights   with regards to  serious corruption which occurred within  Waitakere city council, it involved public office for private pecuniary Gain and my   assertion is  backed with solid evidence.  I followed this up with LGOIMA requests    and second LGOIMA  seeking   the ability to   discuss the matter with a councillor

Instead of  solutions  I   receive a put down by  Brandon  who is severely neglectful of both her duties as  an officer of the law and as a  counsel to   council

The fundamental obligations of a lawyer are to the rule of law  and as such she is employed in a public capacity and  is all that stands between the exposure and concealment of corruption.

AWINZ  is an “organisation”  run by the  then dog and stock control manager  and existed on council premises   used the council  staff and vehicles  emblazoned with identical logos as used by AWINZ   the  “ organisation “ .

While council denied its existence   MAF at a time of  an audit  recordedit was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WCC”

 Effectively this independently  proves   my allegations  of  Public office for private  pecuniary gain .

Counsel  has responded to me and attacked me( if you can’t attack the  issue it appears that you attack the person )   ,  she does not get the point that the issue I am raising  has nothing to do with  any court action   but has everything to do with corruption within council.

Previous counsel for  Waitakere Denis Sheard denied  emphatically that AWINZ existed on the premises.  The independent evidence   which I have provided    to council on the 21st October  shows  that this was the case.

Wendy Brandon should  be asking questions  with regards to the MOU attached  and  be asking

  1. Why was the council lawyer was  not involved in the  drafting and  supervision of the signing of the MOU with AWINZ .
  2. Why was  Animal welfare services   able to enter into an agreement with a trading name( AWINZ  does not exist as a legal person )    and be questioning  the research  if any which was done  to establish  who represented the name  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. The document  concerned is the MOU  attached and available here
  3. Why  was Mr Wells  employed by council without consideration  to the conflict of interest  this posed ,which by the way  was not declared on his application ,
  4. Further Counsel and  Council should be  aware that the  manager whom Mr Wells  signed this MOU with    became  a member of the so called trust which was set up as a cover  up  on 5 December 2006
  5. And was the council aware that  Mr Didovich had used council funds to pay Mr Wells   to  set up the trust ( this is one of many invoices .
  6. And that Mr Didovich collected  and witnessed the signatures  of the alleged trustees of the 2000 AWINZ  trust while he was on leave .
  7. 7.       Mr Didovich also wrote to  the minister approving  of the use of staff, he did this on the letter heads of  North shore and Waitakere city council . MAF were looking for assurances from council but only got these assurances from an accomplice a council manager without consultation through  the proper avenues in council .” 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).”
    1. It should be noted that Lesley Wear asked for an explanation, and questioned what the risks were for council  it would be  good to see if this  was ever addressed
    2. Mr Didovich  also   sought a legal opinion, which circumvented   the  councils solicitors    and obtained  the Kensington swan opinion.  When  crown law   opposed the involvement of council  in   the animal welfare work  due to  it being ultra vires   a second legal opinion was sought.  A draft was  sent back to  Didovich  and   then the final version   came back     which was a decision the minister relied upon… this  final  document   had information which indicates   significant input  from Mr Wells with his personal knowledge of the event on the select committee.
      1. Council should be asking why was the council lawyer left out of the loop ?
      2. What was the costing estimate how much did the  legal opinion cost?  And how was it paid, who authorised it.

I  sincerely believe that Council is keeping the lid on this matter because by  exposing it – it would open a can of worms.

By Way of LGOIMA  I request

  1. documents  which show that council has investigated the  use of the   council facilities , staff and resources   by AWINZ.
  2. Documents  and policies which allow the  managers of    divisions such as  dog and stock control  to independently contract / sign agreements to third  parties and  the processes which need to be followed.  E.g. Mr Didovich writes on behalf of Waitakere city council , what authority did he have to   give these assurances on behalf of council?
  3. Mr Wells  in the guise of AWINZ also told MAF that   AWINZ was  going to take over the animal welfare services  please provide any  documentation discussion papers  etc  which  would have  given Mr Wells  foundation for this statement. ,  see application
  4. Invoices for the payment  of   Kensington swan for all  legal  opinions  requested by council or by Dog and stock control   for the legal opinions  in  2000  which persuaded the  Minister to   give approval to AWINZ  as an approved Organisation   links to the legal opinion are here   initial  opinion             Draft           final
  5. Why council  continued to  push for AWINZ to be approved  when crown law  said that it was ultra Vires  and any minutes of any council meetings which  gave a mandate for this use of council funds.- plus any documentation which considered the cost benefit analysis of this  action.
  6. What was Lesley Wears position with  council and was the question raised in the fax  located here    addressed  please provide a copy of the response
  7. In an email Neil Wells  states “while that could have been answered immediately  by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” Please provide   all council documents which supports this statement  and  who in Waitakere city  was waiting for directions as to where the   Kensington swan letter should be sent to  .
  8. All documents  after 2000 relating to animal welfare   were not  made available to me, I request that these be made available for my perusal and copies as required arising from that.

I wish to add that the  Ms Brandon  is not employed  to   conceal corruption and she has an obligation to  facilitate  transparency and  accountability , documents which I have obtained in the past show that as much as 40%  of the work  for   animal welfare services in Waitakere  was  being  Animal welfare work  which according to the documents I have was ultra Vires for council  .

Mr Wells  appears to have been   able to control and influence council and derive a personal income from animal welfare prosecutions undertaken as a result the involvement of  council officers working in council vehicles paid by  the public.  the evidence is shown in the chronology    this is   Public office for private   pecuniary income  a recognised form of corruption .

He effectively   ran  an SPCA type organisation   using council  staff resources and  vehicles.  All income  and no expense. And it appears that Wendy Brandon is condoning this .

No wonder our rates are  sky high.

A full chronology is available at http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/full-chronology-AWINZ.pdf

Truth is never defamatory   I am not denigrating Mr wells  I am  stating fact  supported by the 5000 or so documents on my chronology     .

I have paid well over $300,000  because I did some pro bono work for a council officer  who questioned why she  was volunteering her council paid time to   AWINZ. Council responded by sacking her  and then taking her back to the ERA  on allegations of breach of confidentiality.  Others have been sacked and silenced as well , No wonder council  staff do not speak up   speak up and you lose your job.

Council should have investigated. It’s not too late they can still investigate  I have done the hard work   not just for free but at a personal  cost which is far too high.

It is through the neglect of council that I  have  had to endure 6 ½ years of litigation .

Is  Council  so irresponsible that it cannot see corruption  even when it is pointed out to them?  Is   placing gaging orders over  staff who  speak out  in concern  a  responsible thing to do ?How does that fit  in  with transparency????

By  doing nothing Auckland council is proving that  it condones corruption, this is a well-researched matter which proves  how corruption occurs in council  .

Auckland council by ignoring this shows that it  prefers to attack the messenger rather than  look out for the  interest of the public.   we pay the rates  we  should have accountability .

I look forward to  a civil response  and  the information I have requested supplied.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

second reply from council

From: Mike Giddey [mailto:Mike.Giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 4:22 p.m.
To: ‘grace
Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS on serious council corruption has been declined

Dear Grace,

Thank you for your request, which has been forwarded to staff who handle LGOIMA enquiries and who will respond to you in terms of the provisions in LGOIMA. Briefly, the organisation is aware that the general allegations you make have been heard by a court and determined by the court to be defamatory.

Regards,

Mike.

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 5:06 p.m.
To: ‘Mike Giddey’
Cc: ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’
Subject: RE: REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS on serious council corruption has been declined

Mike

I  think you have been talking  to Mr Wells,, Has he also advised you that there are current proceedings before the court   to overturn the decision as  new evidence shows that it was obtained by fraud

The facts of the case were never heard and any one   can win at defamation  in circumstances such as my case.

  1. The  alleged defamatory material was never produced
  2. My defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out be careful legal maneuvering
  3. The court never considered the alleged  defamatory   statements at all and  not in context.
  4. There was only one hearing and that was the  Quantum hearing very much like being sentenced without being found guilty first

What occurred is that Mr Wells  wrote the animal welfare bill  with specific intent of creating the possibility for approved organisations.  He was also  adviser to the select committee and used his privileged  knowledge to circumvent the intention of the law.

He made an application in the name of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand   an fictitious organisation.   He later set up a trust to cover  it up but any one can tell you that a trust set up  after an application was made cannot be the applicant.

The  former manager of   dog control was in on it and later became  a trustee of the cover up trust.

Mr Wells became the manager of dog control and as shown in the audit paper which I sent you a copy of  ran AWINZ in  a manner that it was seamless with council  .. read page 2

I have a ton of evidence but no one wants to see it because Wells misled the court and he appears to have   many  connections  in government and council alike.

While he was able to freely direct council staff and  ministry staff to obstruct me and deny me information  he had open access to staff and resources to do as he pleased  and make a  personal income.

All I request is for the opportunity to  meet with a Councillor   to show them the evidence rather than allow  council to rely on a court decision which was obtained by fraud and was never a hearing which considered the facts. ( quantum  decision  only consider how much ,they do not decide guilt  )

Could you please put me down for the next meeting or make  an appointment for me to produce the evidence  to a Councillor involved in   issues of corruption.

Regards

Grace Haden

 

response from council to speaking rights and my reply

From: Mike Giddey [mailto:Mike.Giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 3:38 p.m.
To: ‘grace
Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS

Dear Grace,

Your request to speak in Public Input at the Governing Body meeting on Thursday, 25 October 2012 has been declined by the Mayor under Standing Order 3.21.3 which states that Public Input is not to be used to speak to a matter that has already been considered and determined.

Regards,

Mike.

 

To: ‘Mike Giddey’
Cc: ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Cr Northey, Richard’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘penny.webster@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘cameron.brewer@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; Catriona McDougall (Catriona.McDougall@ombudsman.parliament.nz); ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘des.morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘noelene.raffills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Wayne Walker’; ‘Dick Quax’; ‘arthur.anae@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘brian.rudman@nzherald.co.nz’
Subject: RE: REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS on serious council corruption has been declined

Mike

I  wish to speak to the council on the fact that  Whistle-blowers are totally ignored .

This is a serious matter of council corruption and it is being ignored.

What I wish to present is new evidence which shows  conclusively that the councils own internal investigations and reporting mechanisms are not effective against corruption.

Here we have a classic case of  public   office for private  pecuniary gain and the council chooses to ignore it.

Could you please by way of LGOIMA provide me with all the information which you rely on   which suggests that this matter has been considered and determined

As far as I am aware this matter has never been formally   brought before councillors and has been   dealt  with only through administrative staff.

I request this under urgency provisions  as  I wish  to speak to the  councillors on Thursday, they should not be kept in the dark.

Regards

Grace Haden

VeriSure

Because truth matters

 

whistleblower requests speaking rights

Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:44 a.m.
To: ‘Mike.Giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’
Subject: REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS

REQUEST FOR SPEAKING RIGHTS AT THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL GOVERNING BODY MEETING – THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER 2012

– 10AM RECEPTION LOUNGE, AUCKLAND TOWN HALL.

Dear Mike

With Corruption issues on the agenda for    the meeting above, I wish to  seek  speaking rights  as a whistle-blower on council corruption.

I have documents which I wish to  present to show how council is ineffective in dealing with whistle-blowers   and consequently  corruption   continues to flourish  and  rate payers dollars are misappropriated.

I  have new and conclusive proof with regards to the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ) operating form  the council  premises  this evidence  is in the form of an   audit report done by MAF  as attached  and referenced as follows              final draft audit 2008

  1. Page 2  “it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are  all employees of WCC”
  2. page 9   “all personnel  ( including the AWINZ  inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation  facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry  to monitor AW issues, this did  lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations .”
  3.  page 13  AWINZ inspectors use WCC database.
  4.  Page 14 the inspectors vehicle was inspected..
  5. page 18  Location of audit WCC animal accommodation   the concourse

I  know that AWINZ  operated from the premises as I was  first approached by dog control officers who were concerned that they had to volunteer their council paid time to this organisation.  What made the matter worse was that the organisation  existed only as a pseudonym for the council manager who ran it.

 Council lawyers and council management have continually turned a blind eye to this matter.  I have evidence of  other instances of possible corruption  which without  proper attention will seek to  dilute the financial resources of council .

Regards

Grace Haden