Transparency New Zealand

Subject: RE: complaint with regards to Wendy Brandon

Wendy

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