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
Trust = Credibility + Reliability + Connection
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
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.