I had a reply from Council Only after I sent a chaser through FYI My response and Wendy Brandon’s email here with
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
- 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.
- Wells and Didovich sign the MOU Didovich for council wells for the fictional organisation
- 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.
these Logo’s are still on the council premises and vehicles.
Maf commented final draft audit 2008 “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 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
- managers contracting to themselves
- changing the logos of a council facility so that they are almost identical to those of their fictitious entity
- 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?
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.