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

Leave a Reply