Archive for February 2013
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
- 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
- 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.
- An email is sent 23/12/98 stating “Waitakere 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
- 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.”
- 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
- 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.
- MAF request a legal opinion on the involvement of Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. “
- we need to look back at the MOU it clearly states that the linked organization is Waitakere animal welfare.
- No definition is provided for AWINZ and AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
- 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.
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.
Subject: RE: complaint with regards to Wendy Brandon
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.
- with the authority which gave you the claim of right to divert me emails from the council computer system.
- 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
- The memorandum which you sent through to the person in charge of the computer system instructing them to divert emails from me.
- Any correspondence between yourself and Brookfields lawyers which pertains to me.
- 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
Last 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
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.
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.
From: Grace Haden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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
- When di d it take effect
- Under which legislation are you capable of doing this
- When was I advised of it
- Who is blocked from receiving my emails
- Who are my emails diverted to
- Who approved this
- 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.