Transparency New Zealand

Every charity needs to   show their accounts  and  the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, formed 5.12.200  is no exception  except  its accounts  went up on the  charities web site  in December with a annotation along side   saying restricted.

Over the weekend  they finally materialized.  No real reason to see them withheld  except for the  fact that I know  that I have paid   well over  $100,000 into  what was claimed to be  their coffers  but  which  now appears  to have   gone somewhere else.

Apparently Mr Wells had asked for the accounts  to be withheld.

I have gone through the  accounts available on the charities  web site and   put together the following   summary   (click to down load )   AWINZ accounts summary 

In the 2012  disclaimer they claim  under the heading  Contingent asset

ASSET
On 30 July 2008 Judge Roderick Joyce QC made an order in the matter AWINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following :
Damages– $57 ,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
decision.
On 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal struck out an application by Haden to appeal the High Court decision.
Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .

This statement is false in many ways and shows that the deception and corruption In Waitakere are still on going and shows that we do not have the staff with the necessary   ability or ethics to deal with such  corruption in   either councils or Government department. 

I must say   to be fair that if some one was to   do the right thing they would probably find themselves  out of a job, corruption in New Zealand is  that big.   Corruption like this is  actively concealed .

1. The $57,500  was awarded  in favour of Neil Wells only from litigation which did not involve the charity , or its trustees  in their capacity  of trustees of this   charity .
2. and although  this litigation was commenced when the old trust deed  was operative, the litigation was not undertaken  by the trustees of the 2000 trust
3. Neil Wells was the only person who could profit from the prosecution which  misled the court as to who or what AWINZ was  and treated AWINZ as though it  was a legal person in its own right  when  this was not the case.
4.  It is untrue to say  Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
5. The charitable trust   were not party to the litigation  they allowed their charitable funds to  be used  for personal gain of one trustee  which follows the fact that I have evidence that  in Waitakere City   he  used public resources for private pecuniary gain .. so why would  he not  use charitable funds  for  private gain ?
6.   Not only have the costs been fixed  they have calculated the interest and   collected   nearly $111,000   a further $30,000  is held in trust   and they have  a statutory demand for  $70,000  which includes the sum held in trust .
7. These claims have not been made in the name of   the trust  and have been made by Wells alone   and not as trustee of  AWINZ in fact I cannot recall  any of the court documents  for liquidation  or bankruptcy referring to AWINZ or trust or trustee.  .
8.  The high court matters were not against the trust they were against   the individual persons   and not the charity .
9. This charity   was set up   as a  trust 5.12.2006  is a different trust to the trust  which allegedly existed   from 1.3.2000
10.  The trust  set up 5.12 .2006   became a charity.  It did not  exist when  litigation commenced.
11.  Neither of these two trusts  the  trust deed 5/12/2006  or 1.3.2000 were the law enforcement authority  as the application the minister relied upon was    made 22.11.1999  some   three months  before the 2000 trust deed was allegedly signed and  the trustees other  than Neil Wells  had no involvement in any way with the law enforcement  authority
12. The trustees  of the 2000  trust had such little knowledge of the approved status (  law enforcement  status)  that   it had to be explained to them at their one and only meeting which occurred 6 years after the deed was signed and without any evidence of the trustees being re appointed. after three years  which is a requirement of the deed.
13.  Neither of these two trusts were the  litigants in the  court case.   Although  some of  the trustees were litigants  there    has never been any proof that they were together  trustees at the  time   as litigation commenced and  they had no evidence that they  had any   legla capacity  to act together as trustees   prior  to 5/12/2006 or together had responsibilities to the deed prior to 2/12/2006   and from that date they   could only act   with one other.
14. Costs have been finalized   for the court action which was  taken by three people who called themselves AWINZ but had no proof of  being a trust. ,
15. Wells commenced  liquidation proceedings on   Verisure  22 December 2011 by attaching a statutory demand to my Christmas wreath.
16. He had told  MAF in September that he was going to bankrupt me.  He was paid out  some $91,000   in mid June 2012   this sum does not show in the accounts   he appears to have  used charitable funds for self-enrichment  but  no one appears to care.
17. I was besieged by demands   $7,090.48 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day , $17.244.26 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day, $23091.47 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day,  a total of  some 47426.21, to be found over night .
    1. 28 June , 82,987.43   to be found over night
    2. 10 July  76,000  demanded by  Wells  and wells and others  to be paid   within 7 days
    3. As soon as he was paid  out  Wyn   Hoadley    went after me for   $16638 but no one bothered to tell me.    I still cant see where that sum  came from  because nothing makes  sense   it certainly is not in the demand  28 June  or in the  July demand  or  the June   amounts
    4. They succeeded in putting my company into liquidation   when they  failed to serve document   on me, they were caught out  and the   liquidation was reversed.
    5. This all occurred while I had proceedings  before the court   to set the  judgement aside because it had been obtained by fraud.
    6. They also attempted to bankrupt me  but the court allowed the money to stay in a trust account  while the   setting aside of the judgement is considered.
    7. He succeeded in releasing most of this money through the  liquidation proceedings.
    8. Neil Wells currently has  a statutory demand  out  against the company

    Evidence is available  upon request

  What the charities commission have done by allowing this  matter to stand is to  condone litigants   for setting up a charitable trust   so that litigation  can be funded from  charitable funds.

 It opens the door to   more corruption in New Zealand  simply because  many investigators  dont understand the  legal requirements of Trust .

The  chronology speaks volumes any other interpretation of fact defies logic anc common sense.  ther is no law or statute which supports   any  way that this chronology  is invalid.

Chronology

1.  22/12/1999  application for approved status  Neil wells tells minister of  agriculture that AWINZ will be legally incorporated.
2. 1.3.2000 trust deed signed  this copy came to me in 2006 from Brookfields, this trust deed is different to the deed which is supplied by   Wells to MAF  they go this version
3. The application  22/11/1999 is approved , not one of  the persons who signed the trust deed  ( apart from Wells)  AWINZ  despite not   existing gets  coercive law enforcement powers. Effectively Wells  has coercive law enforcement powers   in a pseudonym. the minister confirms  to Wells that this was the application he relied upon    
4. Neil Wells lied in court on this point  he said that the application had been made after the trust existed.
5. 27.4.2006  a trust by the name of  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand is formed    and is legally incorporated,  and obtains charitable status from IRD, this was  done  by myself and others  to prove conclusively that no  legal person by the nae of animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed. MAF  had believed it existed  and they needed to get the egg off their face because they simply did not check  they had trusted Wells 
6. This threw a spanner in the works for Wells and he now had to  cover up the fact that  the law enforcement authority did not exist.
7. 10.5.2006    the   only recorded  meeting of the trust 1.3.2000  which  by its trust deed should meet no less than 4x per year , trustees said they had not met  they did not even meet to sign the deed.! Wyn Hoadley becomes trustee   by invisible means.
8. 25 May  2006   Hoadley and Wells  see lawyers to have the    incorporated trust  removed from the register.   As proof of their  existence they send  a copy of the trust deed 1.3.200  for which trustees have resigned.
9. 18.7.2006 despite being told by the registrar of  incorporated societies    to challenge the registration in the  high  court  they decide to use  the district court  for intimidation and thereby   get a quick way to force  the name to be given up.
10. 5.12.2006   After trying to get charitable status Wells is forced into  a position  where by he needs a new   and current deed  as   the old deed does not qualify    so with half the original trustees    he    changed the purpose of the  trust and writes in clauses which allow the   funds he has to be used for the litigation  .

Its identity fraud 101  and  just because they all share a name  it does not mean that they are all the same.

All you need in New Zealand to commit charity fraud  is a law degree standing as a barrister   and  the charities commission    will like MAF  accept any BS you  put their way.

Every day people  are locked up for minor matter    but     slick words  manipulation of  words  and  confusion allow you to get away with crime.

I am continually surprised at the lengths  that    Government departments  and the Council have gone to  condone this corruption   shows    that  Corruption is not  just  condoned in New Zealand it is concealed.

See the  Mayor of Auckland brush off   the ” historic”  Corruption of Neil Wells , he does so unilaterally  and  without  allegedly knowing the facts Len Brown acts as judge  and jury. http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1   you will need to log in   it is free.

this is my  presentation Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013