Transparency New Zealand

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 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

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