Archive for February 2013

Wendy Brandon strikes to silence me again

hear see speak no evilI have to  question  what Wendy Brandon  is  doing jumping to the deference of  former employees.  To me  it indicates  that she is actively concealing corruption .

I have wondered why we actually bother electing  our Councillors    why not just have  Wendy Brandon in  charge.  Today she pulled rank on the mayor andmisled him by alleging that I could not  give my  address to council because there was an injunction  out to prevent me from  speaking out.

Funny  but I don’t  recall an injunction with regards to AWINZ  and there  is certainly no injunction which stops me  from   referring to council documents and   pointing out  the  discrepancies between  them.

My address to council can be found here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013

As soon as I got the word AWINZ,  Brandon jumped up and started talking to the Mayor.  I was told  that I could not continue because there was  an injunction.  I pointed out that AWINZ does not exist, it never has existed  and there is no and  can not be an injunction against something which is not a real.

There appeared to be  considerable apathy with regards to corruption , the two ladies who gave  an earlier address  on the Mt Roskill   buildings drew far more questions than serious corruption.  Wendy had done her work well.

I later got an  email purporting to come from her  which  said  “HAHAHAHAHA Grace. I’ve told EVERYONE you are crazy and they believe me. In fact I’m getting you locked up HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…Tadpoles in small ponds get eaten up by big fish yum yum yum!”

This was  the second such email I have received from  what purports to be her the earlier one said “Crazy cow. Soon they will come to lock you up…”   very professional if this is her  . Guess to some people it is a crime to speak up about corruption.

I had sent Wendy the two documents  which  i later  attached to my presentation  , I had thought  that   if she was only half competent as a lawyer she  would have seen alarm bells ringing   lets look at the  Memorandum of understanding   and the  job application for Neil Wells and I will show you what I mean.

As you  will see  the MOU is  between  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   and the  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere ( “the linked organisation ” )

1.  The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  did not exist in any real or identifiable form  apart from being a trading name for Mr Wells  alone and later a trust which  he set up to cover up  but  got the dates all wrong.

2. The  so called Linked organisation  was  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere

The agreement was  for  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere  to provide inspectors and resources to AWINZ, this agreement had not been passed through Councillors or  the council solicitor.

Neil Wells signs  on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand,  no mention of a trust or of him  being a trustee. The council  lawyer never had a trust deed on file, but then aparently he was not in the loop.   Wells  signed in the  name of a fictitious organization a pseudonym for himself.

Lets look  at the job application  this  application was made when Tom Didovich( the signatory sor the so called Linked organisation) had to leave the services of Waitakere.

In his application Wells states  “ In animal welfare compliance, by successfully leading a pilot programme with MAF
and Waitakere City Council. This led to the formation in 1999 of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and established an alternative to the SPCA in animal welfare law enforcement, which is able to be extended nationally. The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

 Lets identify the   spin This led to the formation in 1999

  1.  In court Wells claimed that  the  ” oral trust had formed in 1998, but  supplied a deed showing that  the trust  deed was signed in  2000 . I still have difficulty  getting  my head around the fact that the  people who  allegedly formed  a trust in 2000  made an application for approved status the year before the deed was signed.but then do such time frames matter?……apparently not
  2. As to the argument of an oral trust   the  people came together in   late 1998  when Wells was paid  by Didovich with council funds,  to set up a trust   this is the concept he came up with:  note that  one of  the trustees was the city itself.
  3. An email is  sent 23/12/98  statingWaitakere City Animal Welfare is setting the standard and to assist its future progress as an approved organisation it is proposing the Council should create a trust with which it will work in harness. An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. The Council’s final decision on the Trust will be in May”… You wont  find any records of this in council minutes  its all done without Councillors approval. Bit like the truck that was bought a few weeks ago… makes you wonder who runs the show
  4. Things change  quickly  and although we were told  in December98  that the trust existed  by  19 January 1999 Neil Wells tells MAF that “It has now been agreed that Waitakere will no longer be in the trust.”
  5. Neil Wells who had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act  is  also employed as ” independent adviser to the select committee  to  advise on the animal bill at this time  and  it appears that at this stage he has not  declared his conflict of interest. Why should he he was after all writing and advising onlegislatin fro his business plan  .. apparenlty that is quite acceptable here in the least corrupt country see territorial animal welfare authority
  6. While  MAF  lawyers  were confused by the entire set up  the council lawyers appear to have been completely oblivious to  what was going on  and the elected representatives even more so.
  7. MAF request a legal opinion   on the  involvement of  Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
  8. On 14/2/99 or there about Wells writes To MAF  stating that  AWINZ will be a charitable trust, this indicates to me that AWINZ has not  as yet been set up and therefore there is no oral trust.
  9. MAF ‘s legal adviser  returns a negative  response   and the Maf staff  become uncomfortable with the entire venture, in the mean time  council has been left out of the loop entirely.
  10. MAF produces a document  involvement of territorial authorities AWwith regards to  the involvement of  Territorial  authority staff  in animal welfare which if councillors had seen would have caused them to reject  any proposal from wells, hence  they were on my opinion left out of the loop.
  11. Tom Didovich the manager of animal welfare then   seeks to have Wells  complete the  documents  for   animal welfare there by   taking the council lawyer out of the loop  and this  set teh scene for  Didovich to directly contract with Wells.
  12. When a trust emerged in 2006 , although back dated to  2000 ,  not one of the persons   other than Wells had any involvement with the running of AWINZ, in fact they did not meetand significantly in the minutes of the  only recorded meeting since the trust  was allegedly set up , he explains to the trustees  what an approved organisatin is  .  Despite the fact that their deed  said they would meet 4 x per year they   had never had a recorded meeting and allegedly last met  two years earlier.

 Lets identify the   spin  The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

  1.  we need to look back at the MOU   it clearly states that the linked organization is  Waitakere animal welfare.
  2. No definition is provided  for AWINZ  and  AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
  3. therefore this statement is entirely false Wendy  do you  tolerate lies  in   job application? Perhaps I am pedantic about this because I do  pre employment screening  and to me truth in an application  is essential, if an employee tells porkies in the application then he/she is not going to b honest with you further down the road

No where in  his job application  does Neil Wells refer to  the MOU  that he signed with the previous manager  whose job he is now seeking.     Wendy  is this not a conflict of interest that you  expect   prospective employees to declare ?

Do you not care either   Wendy  that  section 171 of the animal welfare act  which Wells wrote and advised on,   allows for the proceeds of prosecution to  be returned  to approved organizations?   Fines are up  to $350,000   Wells was using   your staff    to  locate offenders  which he then prosecuted himself and  banked the proceeds in to a bank account only he had  access to.

Wendy  does it not concern you   that  all the correspondence   for animal welfare  went missing from  2000 – on, do you know  what a red flag in  fraud is ? or are you there to protect  some council employees? I had rather hoped that you would be protecting  the rights of  the rate payers to open and transparent  governance.

Wendy   thsi is a perfect example of corruption in council , much can be learned from it,  if you  ignoe it  it only serves to prove that you  condone corruption  ?  If you  condone corruption of teh past you will also  condone corruption of the future.. as I said coruption is like cancer   you can thave just a little bit .. once you have it  it spreads.

 

update on Wendy Brandon Counsel for Auckland Council

WendyBrandonSubject: Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon

To the Mayor and   Councillors

Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon and full investigation of her conduct.

Please see the email exchange below the regards to my emails  to councillors being Diverted.

This is particularly serious in that I  have been questioning corruption in council for the past 7 years and  my innocent questions to Waitakere city council about the use of the  animal facility   at the concourse  by  an organisation called AWINZ. ,( which in reality was a trading name undefined   person or persons)

The then manager  of dog and stock control  ,who got his position  without declaring his conflict of interest   with regards to  AWINZ   sued me   to silence me.   I now have proceedings before the court  to overturn the judgement which was obtained by fraud.  The lawyers involved in these proceedings  and whose actions are  subject to the    court decision  are also one of the  big  five suppliers of   legal services to council .(BROOKFIELDS)

I have been prevented from obtaining speaking rights  and then when I complain about the  actions of counsel for council  I find that she has  diverted  my emails to her email address only.

I have a truck load of evidence on the corrupt use of council premises  and Wendy Brandon is fobbing me off and  claiming that I am contempt of court  when   the evidence I am presenting is in the words of MAF in their  Audit report http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf  and  states

“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

Rate payers money  was being used   for a private enterprise  and Counsel for council   both past and present have covered this up.

I happen to think that this is serious .. what else is being covered up ?

Just this week I gave submissions to the local government   electoral  committee and asked  why  we bother with elections  when it appears that   the council lawyers  run the place.  We could actually save a lot  of money.

If council was run as a business  Ms Brandon would be placed on suspension   while the  investigation into   the diversion of emails    is investigated  especially when these emails are  complaints about her action. What else is she concealing from councillors ????

I know for a fact she is also blocking  LGOIMA requests, not just mine  but those of  other people as well .

As a rate payer  I like to think that the people we  vote into  council  are the ones  who are in control  and not the hired help. I also have an expectation that the council which  enforces laws on the residents   also    complies  to the law  with the same vigour  and    not by ignoring   section 14 of the  local government act 2002 by acting in an  open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.

We should be encouraging   whistle-blowers on council corruption my story is  enough to  ensure that any one will remain silent.. the cost has been too high  and  there are those who would rather discredit me than  look at the fact. If you   are not sure about me  ask ALF  ,   we worked together   in the police  he is aware of my ethical standing.

It is interesting  that what I   questioned years ago   appears to be   exactly what is going on today ,   council employees   stepping out of line  and acting  as if they own the council.

I would  love to address all of you on  corruption in council  ,  I am not defaming any one, I  am speaking the truth and   can present it as pure fact , I have no doubt  that what I will reveal will be  an  eye opener  and will enable  you to  will be able take action to prevent t  rate payers money from  haemorrhaging  from the council coffers.

Regards

Grace Haden

 

 

reply to Wendy Brandon Counsel for Auckland Council

Subject: RE: complaint with regards to Wendy Brandon

WendyBrandonWendy

I wish to clarify the fact with regards to AWINZ.  I am not on a campaign and I’m not in contempt. I have asked questions from council repeatedly with regards to the   right  of  “AWINZ “ to operate  from council premises .. AWINZ  does not exist  it  is a fiction  created by the then manager of dog and stock control . I cannot be in contempt   for questioning something  which  does not exist and something for which there is no court order.

Council has never investigated this use of  council resources for private pecuniary  gain   and it has been covered up  by both you and  the previous  counsel for council.

I am the  victim of gross injustice  , I questioned serious corruption in council  and   was sued  for it in circumstances where I was denied a defence and the uncorroborated evidence of  the council  manager is the subject of a  perjury complaint.

The matter is now before the court  to overturn the judgement  which was obtained by fraud.  The evidence to  show that the judgement was obtained by fraud was evidence which   the council manager sought to have withheld from me.

To get the evidence it has been like extracting hens teeth.    Had Waitakere council and Auckland council conducted an investigation at any time  they would have found   that  the council premises were  being used   for other than council business.

This is evident from the audit report of MAF   which states  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”   these words are not mine  they are the words of MAF source http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf

You appear to have  a fixation about concealing this corruption in Waitakere  and  then on top of it you do business  with Brookfields  who are  heavily involved in   the court action and against whom I have  lodged complaint with the LCRO and the Law society.

I make a complaint about your actions  and you see it fit  to  have my emails diverted so that they only go to you , where does that fit  in with the ethical requirements of lawyers ?

Please provide me with the authority which   enabled you to do  divert me emails     You have an obligation to  the law  and  as  Counsel for council you  have to ensure open and transparent  governance as set out in the  Local Government  act.

I consider your actions to be a gross conflict of interest and corruption.

I am somewhat confused by your statement

 I also confirm that all of the information, records, reports, correspondence and material that is the subject of your ongoing requests has been provided to you by Auckland Council and its predecessor local authority, Waitakere City Council, or it cannot be located, or it does not exist.

I know that I did not obtain  everything that was in the Waitakere animal welfare  file  so   how can you make the statement  above ? It appears to be a fob off to me, I am sorry if it is an inconvenience to you that I ask for transparency on a very serious matter of council corruption.

I have asked you to look at just a few documents, if you were only  a half competent lawyer  those documents   would have had alarm bells ringing.
The evidence and the questions are set out  in my  email and blog entitled  Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption
The evidence which proved  that your  council manager was involved in corrupting  are  in your  own documents  you  have no place in protecting   employees, former employees or  fellow lawyers.  You are paid by the public and  need to protect the public from what was a perfect fraud.
I am writing to you in an effort to   deal with this  before taking it to the law society  ,   I look forward to you providing answers  to the following   urgently Please provide me( by way of privacy act )  and  as a provision of the lawyers and conveyancers act  rules of conduct.

 

  1. with the authority which  gave you the  claim of right to   divert me emails   from the  council computer system.
  2. With   copies of all my emails  which   did not go through to the person or persons  to whom they were addressed  and were intercepted by you
  3. The  memorandum which you sent through  to the  person in charge of the computer system instructing them to divert emails from me.
  4. Any   correspondence between yourself and Brookfields lawyers which pertains to me.
  5. I would  like you to  address  the  criminal offences  section 248-253  crimes act   what I am looking for  is your evidence that proves  that you did not   breach any of these provisions of the crimes act when you   sought to have my emails diverted. I would also like to know   how  these criminal offences fir in with your interpretation that “Such diversion is entirely legitimate and simply a practical measure to ensure that your correspondence is managed appropriately”

Looking forward to your prompt  reply

 

Regards

Grace Haden

Wendy Brandon has my emails diverted to exclude councillors

WendyBrandonLast year I published several articles critical of  the actions of Wendy Brandon Counsel for council , I was concerned  with her position of being  judge and executioner and acting in   what appears to be an autonomous manner with the affairs of council and by passing the  input of  those who have been  duly  elected to represent the  rate payers.( of which I am one )

the issues which I  have raised are serious  ones  and  issues which affect her  employment as counsel for council.

the following are links to some of the issues I have published and include emails which I  have sent to  councilors  asking for an independent investigation into corruption.   With Gate keeper Wendy in the way   serious public corruption is being swept under the carpet.  the following are  my topics as they were posted from early  November 2012

Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption

Auckland council responds Via Wendy Brandon

Is Wendy Brandon concealing fraud ?

Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption

RE: request for urgent investigation by council

Wendy Brandon continues to conceal corruption

Wendy Brandon and the Wislang Case

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW

One of my LGOIMA requests which she refused  was for  the job description that she is employed under .

It is also not lost on me  that Brookfields Lawyers  who have been very keen to keep the lid on the  public corruption  which I  have been questioning are listed amongst the highest paid  lawyers used by council see reference here

the following is the  confirmation from Brandon herself that my emails are diverted to her , so much for democracy    it would appear that we have a hand full of   council employees   running rough shot over the democratic process and the one person whose actions I am questioning is the only one to receive my emails!

It realy leaves me  with one question  WHO IS RUNNING COUNCIL?  Why bother with an elction process when  we could just run it  with a lawyer in charge instead of  a whole heap of people.

From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 8:43 a.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: Diverted emails urgent lgoima/privacy act request.

 

Dear Grace

 

Emails to elected members and other council staff are often filtered to ensure the most efficient use of their time and to ensure that council resources are applied to best effect. Councillors, for example, have dedicated support staff who manage their emails on a daily basis. All of the elected members and senior council staff to whom you write receive large volumes of emails every day. In this situation emails from you to the various and numerous addressees have been blocked to all council addresses except my own since November 2012. You were advised at that time that all correspondence from you will be retained in council records but no reply will be sent. This applies also to all LGOIMA requests, in respect of which a failure to reply is a deemed refusal that may be referred to the office of the Ombudsman by way of complaint.

 

Please note that there is no legal requirement for emails sent to a council email address to be delivered unfiltered to that or any other particular email address; any email sent to an elected member’s email address or any other council officer may be treated as having been received by council for LGOIMA and other official purposes.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Wendy Brandon

 


From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 5:22 PM
To: Bruce Thomas
Subject: Diverted emails urgent lgoima/privacy act request.

Forwarded to Neta

It has been brought to my attention that   emails from  certain people are not being deleiverd to the councillors   and or council managers that they are addressed to.

By way of privacy act and LGOIMA  could you please urgently  advise  if there is  a block or diversion on my email  address or any of the email addresses I use.  If so

Is a block or  diversion

  1. When  di d it take effect
  2. Under which  legislation are you   capable of  doing  this
  3. When was I advised of it
  4. Who is blocked from receiving my emails
  5. Who  are my emails diverted to
  6. Who approved this
  7. Please provide all correspondence relating to this  action/ decision.

I  seek the answers to these questions  under urgency as it effects  my right to transparency and justice.

 

Regards

Grace Haden