second reply from council

From: Mike Giddey []
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.



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


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.


Grace Haden


Leave a Reply