Archive for April 2013

MORE BULLYING BY AUCKLAND COUNCIL

trellisHas any one else noticed  that Auckland council just makes up the law?

Auckland city and now Auckland council are of the belief that they can inspect swimming pools when ever they like and   charge for it.

The law with regards to swimming pools and fences   is  found here

the obligation  for the council comes from  section 10

10 Obligation of territorial authorities
  • Every territorial authority shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that this Act is complied with within its district.

You won’t  find any section which states   that  they will come round every three years, Basically section 11 provides for the fact that   if the council reasonably believes that the pool  no longer complies then they have a right to  an  inspection.

OPEN LETTER TO AUCKLAND COUNCIL HARASSMENT BY COUNCIL CONTINUES.

I have never refused to allow an inspection   on the grounds that   the pool no  longer complies.

I have had pool inspectors turn up at my house unannounced , when I ask them  why my pool does not  comply they cannot tell me, all they say is that it is due for inspection.  THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN STATUTE AND I WILL NOT ALLOW COUNCIL TO  MAKE UP THE LAW.

They pull out  a warrant card and tell me that they have a warrant.. well sorry wrong kind of warrant  the only  warrant which applies  for a forced   entry to inspect is one issued through the court. If you cant tell me  why you want to inspet  the  pool  what are you going to tell the court ?

A record of my correspondence with council can be seen here

  1. Swimming Pool Compliance and Inspection 17 may 2010
  2. OIA LGOIMA request where do councils get the po..19 may 2010.
  3. Council abuse of powers and lack of accountabi. 8 june
  4. correspondence to council 20 june
  5.  harassment by council 20 june pm
  6. harassment by council 22 july 2012

I cannot recall ever receiving a response on these issues  and thought  it had dies a natural death until I  received a letter from debt collectors for  $250  for  Auckland council .

When I took time to find out what it was for  it transpired  to be for the pool inspections which I was  never  aware of.

I have  very publicly   displayed the issue here

Mr  Jan Bernard 19 april from Jan Bernard claims that the notice that was  sent to me on the 6th June  was not responded to  .. well I am not sure what I did in this email but I  was as sure as eggs   responding..   via his boss. Council abuse of powers and lack of accountabi. 8 june, perhaps there is an issue of communication within council    or perhaps my emails were blocked again.

When the officer came on the 20 th June  he  actually came faster  than the post,  council could have saved  some postage   by  getting him to hand deliver the document he relied upon for entry… I never got it till later  that day. .. again I corresponded with council

correspondence to council 20 june

harassment by council 20 june pm

So they inspected the pool  area from the outside, two days later .. why could the officer not have done that on the 20th?   when they came back  despite my further  correspondence and ignoring it  they found my neighbors offending trellis  , I was totally unaware of this  until they came to re inspect  on the 20 th July –  why couldn’t  they have dropped the notice in my letter box  they walked right by it.

So the  first time I hear about  any of this is on the  22nd July , What was also incredible  was that   they  managed to time this so well with the liquidation of my company which was being  carried out  by their  former employee through false affidavits

This was the very first occasion I was aware of this inspection , I  immediately took the issue up with the neighbours and they removed the trellis. And was it also  coincidental that the  pool inspector   wore a Waitakere  uniform.? Waitakere is where the corruption I  uncovered occured…  am I being  got  at  I  am a whistle-blower  and council is beating me up  nothing short of bully boy tactics. I honestly wonder is Wendy Brandon  is coordinating this Where is she on  giving legal advice to council.. No legal process has been followed AT ALL !

I thought that that was the end of it,  I never saw  an invoice    until I get   a debt recovery letter.

I think that if the council can  go to these lengths with me  then they can also look at dealing with my LGOIMA requests which have been unanswered  and the   7 years I have lost   because I stumbled on corruption. CORRUPTION WHICH THE COUNCIL I S ACTIVELY CONCEALING FROM THE  PUBLIC.. THE REASON OUR RATES ARE SO HIGH!.

Council certainly is not acting in a  adult manner.

I have had my emails blocked, I have been harassed  all because  I  Identified corruption in council and council prefers to keep this under wrap.

I again make this a LGOIMA request    and ask that council deals with the  LGOIMA requests in my    emails  as listed above 1-6. and an explanation as to  why  an invoice was never sent and why this matter went straight to debt recovery without  advising me that there was even an invoice.

We also request  and explanation as to your rights to release personal information from council records to  the debt recovery company.

I AM SENDING THIS TO  ALL MEDIA  ,  ALL COUNCILLORS, THE MAYOR CEO  OMBUDSMEN .

THIS BULLYING MUST STOP

Why is it so hard to question corruption In NZ ?

So afterbang-head  banging my head agaisnt a brick wall for 7 years I start another round with the ombudsmen.

Take it from me  don’t ever question  anything  that looks   tin the slightest way corrupt  In New Zealand  if you   do  your life will be in tatters.  I speak from experience.

It appears to me that   every one knows how useless the ombudsmen s office is  so   councils regularly refuse information..  why should they comply ? This way they can conceal corruption and buy time.

So here I go  again

   

Request for Investigation by Ombudsmen                                         17/04/2013

I have  recently made three requests   to Auckland council for official information and one for  a breach of privacy

 I am being totally ignored.

I made the request via the FYI web site   and can be seen on the site http://fyi.org.nz/request/adoption_of_cats_from_concourse#comment-245

http://fyi.org.nz/request/rebranding_of_waitakere_animal_w

  and an earlier request http://fyi.org.nz/request/animal_welfare_instituteof_new_z

Having questioned this gross corruption many years ago and seeing new developments and questioning this  I  have found myself   being harassed by the council and  my  information requests rejected.

Wendy Brandon Counsel for council   saw to it that my emails were blocked this included an email which I had sent to the duly elected representatives complaining about her action

 This email can be seen http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/02/15/update-on-wendy-brandon-counsel-for-auckland-council/

 While there has been no apparent independent enquiry into   the actions of Ms Brandon, the  Ceo of council  who  has been at the centre of this   had the privilege  of investigating himself   see http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/04/03/doug-mc-kay-investigates-himself-and-responds-to-councillors/

I now find that  a block wall has been thrown up in my path   and all my  LGOIMA requests are being  refused  while  I am being harassed  by council.

I first wrote of the harassment   in July last year http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/

 When the council  discovered that my neighbour had put a trellis up against my back fence.  Rather than tell me, I  found myself the  subject of a revisit.  I found it   ironic that the officer was a Waitakere  officer who should not have  been inspecting in Epsom .. do I smell a rat  yes a large one. Especially as this occured   at he same time as my company was put in to liquidation when  the   papers were  not served on me 

I believe that this was deliberate harassment as it occurred simultaneously as the liquidation of my company though non service of  documents.

I now have   a debt collectors letter  demanding $250  for that inspection  when I have never seen an invoice for the inspection  and only saw the inspector  who re inspected  and  who had not bothered to tell me that my pool did not comply. I am a failure  I don’t have x ray vision or  esp.    I simply did not  know that my neighbours had put up a trellis on the other side of the fence.( which incidentally  would not have supported a cat let alone a child )

It has been 7 years  since I questioned   the use of council facilities by a manager for private pecuniary gain, 7 years of shear HELL  .No one cares a dam  that people can write legislation for their own business plan and  use council facilities to run the  operation.. all we care about is concealing corruption.

The ombudsmen’s office has been singularly useless and the office of the auditor general likes wise. It comes as no surprise that both are members of Transparency International ( New Zealand )    and both the office of the auditor general and  the ombudsmen  appear to be condoning corruption  rather than taking action on it.

Now the Mayor has written the matter off as historic and publicly stated that he will not investigate despite the fact that he knows nothing about the matter… see   http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1

You will need to log in to see the  video .

Counsel for  council stopped  me from   reading  from my script  which is located here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013  and  falsely advises   the mayor that there is an injunction that prevents me from speaking about   the fictional AWINZ , when there is no such injunction in place.

Ms Brandon  has also sent out emails   to Councillors in which  I was the subject matter  and  the comments were wrong and defamatory,  she is ignoring  my requests  for  a  copy of the email .

It is very hard to convince me that  New Zealand is the least corrupt  and I ask the  Ombudsmen to investigate the following.

1.        The conflict of interest in the ombudsmen’s office and  the office of the auditor general being members of transparency International New Zealand   an organisation which  has  only just after I prompted them  listed a set of  rules September 2012 Transparency Times

2.        The harassment by Auckland council  as set out in http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/07/22/harassment-by-auckland-council/   and the subsequent debt recovery action when  no invoice has ever been sent to me.

3.       The   investigation of  Doug Mc Kay into himself  with regards to the withholding of emails   and  also with regards to his lack of action or even acknowledgment of my complaints with regards to  Wendy Brandon   being   documents which will open  from the following links

a)      15 feb email complaint email

b)      request 1

c)      Request 2

d)     Request 3

e)      Request 4

f)       Request 5

g)      Request 6

h)      Request 7

i)        Request 8

j)         Evidence 1

k)      Evidence 2

l)        Evidence 3

m)    Evidence 4

n)      Evidence 5

o)      interpretation 248 crimes act

p)      Note 1

q)      Note 2

        And r)  http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/04/03/doug-mc-kay-investigates-himself-and-responds-to-councillors/

4.       The manner in which Brandon appears to control council and   has miss instructed  the may  with regards to  any injunctions in place and the  effect of them as  shown in the video clip  http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1

5.       The lack of provision of information   for the LGOIMAS as mentioned from FYI  web site

a.       http://fyi.org.nz/request/adoption_of_cats_from_concourse#comment-245

b.      http://fyi.org.nz/request/rebranding_of_waitakere_animal_w

c.       http://fyi.org.nz/request/animal_welfare_instituteof_new_z

 

     6. an investigation by the ombudsmen into the   8 issues  out lined in 3 above

Had the office of the Ombudsmen done its job properly in the first place I would not have had to endure all of this    it appears that the ombudsmen’s office  is doing little to prevent corruption in New Zealand.  It has allowed  MAF to get away   with  giving law enforcement authority to a fictional  organisation  and then  allowed it to cover up.It has condoned  Waitakere  council  in  not  acting  when  employees use their office for private pecuniary gain.

I find it amusing that your logo is fairness to all.  I am a whistle-blower and    you have proved  to me that whistle-blowers   do not even get the support of the ombudsmen in new Zealand.. its all about promoting the perception of us being the least corrupt.

So here goes another round of me banging my head against the proverbial brick wall   I  wonder how many years you will take this  time to write this off.

  But we can all rest easy  the perception is that there is no corruption   its  just  idiots like me  who walk into the trap and   have their lives ruined because they  think New Zealand  has a hard line on corruption when in reality we  just sweep it under the carpet.

The truth will come out in the end.

copies of this  is going to the international press  I am sure    with NZ in the news for tax havens  they will  be interested in seeing  how NZ conceals corruption.

Grace Haden

                                                                                                                           

 

Transparency International New Zealand if you can’t join them expose them.

corruption ruins livesI have long been critical of  Transparency International New Zealand mainly because they will not let me join and have never   given me a valid reason for  not allowing me to join.

I have not been given the opportunity for as much as an interview  and I have to wonder why a person such as myself is not  allowed to join transparency International  which  has a logo on their web site  which  says  corruption ruins lives.

While  Transparency International  claims that they are there to assist those who have suffered at the hands of corruption  Transparency International New Zealand  treat me as  Persona non grata.

I believed that this warranted a closer look into  Transparency International New Zealand  .

My first port of call was the  companies office and I found that   Transparency International ( NZ)   did not have   any rules filed there

Now this is significant  as   incorporated societies are unique in the manner in which they can govern  .. the rules which the registrar has accepted are the only rules which apply.

Therefore  we are at a bit of a loss  to  see  what the rules are.  I have inquired with the  registrar   and they advise me that those documents  were lost in a fire .. strange I thought that   such records could not  be lost,  the records after all are only duplicates and the originals  can   be copied again and the documents sent in.    I have done a  full OIA  in the name of transparency to find out when and where the fire was.

The Registrar  kindly directed me to the charities web site    where indeed we find a copy of  what is allegedly the rules.  Except   for the fact that I consider any constitutional document  which has not been signed  as being just a bit of paper with words on it.  This is a copy of it it is  called Charity Rules.

I note that there is a further copy of the rules  on the transparency New Zealand web site.  These rules  Rules-Transparency-International-New-Zealand-Dec-2009 were allegedly passed in December 2009 and are   different to the   rules on the charities site  they are again  unsigned.

I took a trip down memory lane  and dived into the internet  archives  to find  yet a third  set of  rules  06 11-06 Transparency International (NZ) Inc Rules  which referred to a fourth set of rules  which may or may not have been the original rules.  yes and each is different and  due to the lack of filing with the registrar not one of the rules which Transparency International NZ operates by is valid.

I also note that  on the   incorporated societies registration  the address for transparency International  still shows as being Level 4 James Smith Cr Cuba & Manners Sts  Wellington, we know that they have moved from there  but they get around this  by stating their post office address  on the charities web site as their street address.

But what is funnier yet  is that the  registrar of incorporated societies has their address as  PO BOX 5428   and the charities commission  show it as Po Box 5248  Perhaps that is why I cannot join Transparency International, I pay attention to detail and they do not.

I comply with the law and they appear to be totally ignorant of the law for  the running of their own incorporated society. with so many  high ranking  government officials on board  you wonder   if any one looks at basics ? If they cannot see the  issues  with their own  organization how  could they spot corruption if they fell over it.

the    directors  were states on one  set of rules as

  • David Macdonald, former Auditor General of New Zealand.
  • Murray Petrie, public sector management consultant, former NZ diplomat and former IMF official.
  • Trevor Roberts, senior lawyer.
  • Dr Rodger Spiller, Mg. Dir. Money Matters; and, Director, Centre for Business Ethics and Sustainable Development, Auckland.
  • The Hon. Hugh Templeton, former Minister of the Crown.
  • Mel Smith, former Ombudsman.
  • Marcus Pelto, development and governance advocacy consultant.

This brings me on to the subject of the obvious connection between Transparency International NZ  and  government .. as if that isn’t half obvious  with the above.

According to  the financial statements  the office of the auditor general has given them $15,000 for research  and the s office  of the ombudsman is a member.

I also found  two documents   one  stating  advocating the  strengthening of trust for the state service sector  “TINZAGMflyer27-11-07v2

and the other  the  power point presentation from Suzanne Snively  tinz-suzanne-snively-fraud-survey-nov-2011 in which she states

  • New Zealand is Perceived as a High Trust Society
  • Transparency International is the Monitor
  • Transparency International New Zealand (TI-NZ) Looks after New Zealand’s Reputation
  • Reputation is a Driver of Prosperity

I now understand  why I cannot join.

Suzanne Snively is protecting the reputation of New Zealand  she is being positive about it. People like myself  are seen as negative because I point out the corruption.

I have a strange notion that by pointing out corruption  you  can fix it , its like cancer  lets ignore it  and  you will die.  lets treat it  early and you can live.. now  that’s radical !

Corruption is like Cancer.    the corruption I suffered was  due to the    illusion of a trust being thrown into the picture..  If transparency International cannot understand or  even run their own  organization legitimately  how could they even begin to understand the corruption I am involved with.

Perhaps I should just take the IQ lowering pill and it  will all go away.

People  who think that pretending   that new Zealand has no corruption  and being positive about    there being  no corruption are not doing any one a favour . Its like  a mother always  saying” of course that’s Ok little Johnny “and then wondering why she has raised an axe murder.

I have  never asked transparency International to investigate my matter , I do believe that  through my experience I   can help set  systems in place which will assist New Zealand on the path away from becoming the corrupt  country it is recessing into. Why should some one else go through what I have had to enure?

But instead   lets  just talk to the people  who  run the   government departments  and ignore the so called Customers    who have had a raw deal… that is actually called  customer feed back  .. its what improves   companies and societies alike.

it would be nice if Transparency International (NZ)   lived up to its principles  which  were stated as March 2010 – TI(NZ) Guiding principles

  • oppose bribery and corruption vigorously and openly but  not investigate individual cases;
  •   work co-operatively with individuals, corporations ,governments and international organisations in the fight against corruption;
  •   operate on the basis of sound, objective research and  analysis in a democratic, non partisan and non sectarian way;
  •   seek funding that supports and does not compromise our ability to address issues objectively and freely;
  • cooperate in building, working with and supporting the work of the Transparency International Secretariat in Berlin and support other national chapters particularly in the Pacific region;
  •   maintain a balanced and diverse governing body.  ( wouldn’t this mean that you also have victims of corruption on board ? )

But in the end If you cant joint them  you  have to beat them  ..    If  those who have had their lives wrecked by corruption are not welcome on Transparency International because we point out  corruption then we  have to build Transparency New Zealand   will you join me ..

 

 

Doug Mc Kay investigates himself and responds to Councillors

I have received  the  copy of the report which Doug Mc Kay CEO   of  council   sent through  on the issue of diversion of emails it  is  located here Ms G Haden case management response

I  have responded   as follows

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

To the Mayor and all Councillors

Please find my response to Mr Mc Kays unsigned  report re case management below

First I find it ironic that he has investigated himself, which is far from transparent   or acceptable.

Secondly Mr Mckay  is factually  incorrect and I rather suspect that the whole thing has been written by Wendy Brandon general counsel  for council whose actions I sought to   complaint to councillors about . Due to her diversion you would not have received that email it is located on line  at this link  Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon.  I believe that it is significant when such an email is diverted  away from those it was addressed to .

There appears to have been a lack of consideration for the fact that the councillors are not employees of the council, they are the governing body.  We have to wonder just who is making the decisions and who is calling the shots. It may be that we can dispense with councillors and just put the general counsel in charge, she does not appear not be accountable to anyone.

It is unfortunate that  I stumbled upon serious corruption in Waitakere city council ,A life changing  event . I was approached by a council officer Lyn Mc Donald QSM   who wondered why she was  “ volunteering her council paid time  to what she believed to be  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand( AWINZ )

I am a licenced private investigator, ex-police Prosecuting sergeant; it is my place to ask questions.  Lyn was dismissed for having spoken to me at least two others were similarly disposed of.

It is significant that I was approached recently by a council employee who agreed about what I had said about corruption but   I was told that they dared not speak up due to the fear of losing their jobs.

Anyone who hears my story will take it as a strong message to keep quiet about the goings on in council.

Being a former police officer and foolishly thinking that council would act responsibly I checked AWINZ out and  discovered

  1. That although the Animal welfare  institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )had law enforcement powers equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA , it did not exist in   any independent form  as a legal entity.
  2. The only identifiable person associated with  was Mr Neil Wells , the council manager dog control, who had written and advised on the legislation which had enabled the fictional AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority .
  3. Prior to taking on his position as manager he had  entered into a contract for  the use of council facilities and staff with  his accomplice ,the previous manager tom Didovich  and when  he  left  council Mr Wells took over the   job without declaring the fact that he was  entering into a situation of gross conflict of interest
  4. Wells  re branded  the council complex and the  vehicles   to Animal Welfare  and used  the same Logo   with the words “institute of New Zealand”  written below it  , this ensured that no one really knew if the  council premises were those of AWINZ or of council Please note the lack of  colour in the  AWINZ  logo  is due to it not having  being printed  in colour

animal welfare waitakereawinz logo

  1. He had told   the minister that AWINZ was going to take over the  council facilities  but council was never consulted and approval  for the venture  was  given only by  the division manager Mr Didovich and not the governance body. ( Didovich later became a trustee in the trust which was used to cover up the matter )
  2. Council officers using council vehicles spent as much as 40% of their time doing animal welfare work,   offences  under the animal welfare act were prosecuted By Wells as barrister  and the money earned was banked into an account which only he administered. ( section 171 of the Animal welfare  act allows fines to be returned to  the  “ approved organisation “ fines could be up to $350,000)
  3. Internationally this is known as form of corruption known as public office for private pecuniary gain.

The reality is that AWINZ did not exist.  When a person claims a degree or qualification they do not have we all decry it. Here we had a law enforcement authority which was in reality only the man who wrote and advised on the legislation making an application in a pseudonym and later constructing a trust to disguise this. Yet this is OK ?

I foolishly expected Waitakere city council to investigate the use of its premises for  other than council business  and I  even more foolishly expected MAF  to admit that they had been deceived as to the existence and structure of AWINZ and had given coercive law enforcement powers to an undefined trading name.

Instead both MAF and council have gone to great lengths to conceal this corruption.

I have not breached  any injunctions and I have not defamed any one in making these statements  I make them  knowing that I have a truck load of evidence to support what I say . I am happy to present the evidence to any of you who are interested. Any issue of injunction is an issue for me  not for council.

I am  further concerned that the interpretation of events  which have been  conveyed to you  by the CEO  are so inaccurate  that  it means that he has no concept of the seriousness of my complaint  and  to that end I ask that   I can work with councillors  and appointed staff   and step you through the evidence so that   there  are no misconceptions about what I am on about, that way the  fraud can be exposed going forward  it will not come back to haunt anyone who  has from this point on turned a blind eye to it .

Mr Mc Kay States “There is also significant history relating to Ms. Haden and her correspondence with both the previous Waitakere City Council and the Auckland Council. “

 Just after the amalgamation into the super city, the fictitious AWINZ lost its law enforcement authority and Mr Wells left the council. I was aware of Mr Wells’ relationship with Bob Harvey and hoped that a new council would ensure transparency and independence.

 “This mainly relates to legal issues and the volume of correspondence received from Ms. Haden. Given the legal risk involved, it was decided that Ms. Haden would be case managed by Wendy Brandon General Counsel and this has been in place since last year.”

 Mr Mc Kay  doesn’t make it clear   who decided  that I should be case managed   and he does not  state where he gets  his powers from to make decisions for councillors  and affecting  Governance. We appear to have lost sight of the structure of council Governance sits at the top.  Governance that is the councillors hire a CEO who then employ the solicitor and the rest of the staff.

It is particularly   serious when one of the emails diverted was one in which I made a formal complaint to governance with regards to Wendy Brandon.  This email has apparently gone only to her, this is a wonderful way for employees to   prevent accountability for their actions, this alone is a serious matter which should be looked at.

The” legal risk” is  the risk which Wendy Brandon has identified as  potential  liability for the manner in which council have  treated me a whistle blower on an issue of serious public corruption. In any real scenario   and in a perfect world  I would be eligible for compensation for the neglect of council to deal with corruption.

On the other hand   I just want the 7 year nightmare to be over and have my name cleared. I am however not prepared to give council a waiver for liability as  their actions or lack of actions has  cost me an obscene amount.

I note that what I have said over the years has not fallen on deaf ears, the latest example being the rebranding of the Concourse facility from Animal Welfare to Animal management.

animal welfare 1animal management 1animal welfare 2animal management 2

 

 

Because Council  has failed to  do the proper thing  and investigate  and stop a further  four years of  fraud I have had to  endure 7 years of litigation  , my family has been torn  apart and  a 23 year marriage came to an end due to the stress forced on me due to council apparently  condoning corruption. If council can do this then there is   a serious issue .

 

Had council acted in a responsible manner they would have investigated this and dealt with it as diligently as they do with swimming pool fencing and parking tickets. The evidence was there I know because I have it.  It just takes someone to act but to do so would prove liability on the council and that is why I am a risk.

 

One has to ask if it is the   job for counsel for council to   conceal corruption when it is in reality her responsibility to ensure that   the rule of law is followed.  By allowing council to   act in a corrupt manner she is acting according to law. The more that  Ms Brandon  has acted to  conceal corruption the more she has to do  to   influence Councillors  because by her  own actions she is becoming an accessory after  the fact  and  is acting in the concealment of crime.

 

Ms Brandon is therefore in a serious situation of conflict of interest.  If you accept that corruption has occurred then she will lose her job, it is better to dump on me than for her lose her job she is does appear to  be  pulling all the strings.

 

The fact that the corruption has been allowed to be concealed  since amalgamation proves that corruption is on-going  as the  same mentality   persists.

 “Since approximately 2006, Ms Haden has sought information from Waitakere City Council and subsequently the Auckland Council  in relation to a Trust Animal Welfare of New Zealand (AWINZ), and its Trustees.”

 This statement is incorrect   .  The questions I asked  was  with regards  to the manager of dog and stock control running his own business  from council premises,   the two ran  parallel so much so that  MAF stated that they could not see where council  ended and the private  enterprise began.

Put simply Mr Wells was running an RNZSPCA equivalent  from council premises,  but  unlike the RNZSPA which   pays  outgoings and receives income  Mr wells  did  away with the  outgoings  by   being a parasite off council resources using  plant staff , infrastructure , the profit  was  for personal gain only he operated the bank account which was in the trading name of AWINZ, no trust deed was associated with  it.

He concocted a trust   which he claimed was AWINZ but  there is no  evidence that this trust was the law enforcement authority or even ran  AWINZ , significantly there were two trusts, the first trust  Tom Didovich collected the trustees signatures whilst manager of dog control  and he  became a trustee of the second trust  when the holes in the argument  for the first trust became too large to patch.

Mr Wells and the former Manager Tom Didovich are   entwined in this project and deceived the minister and council alike. I have evidence that council funds were used to set up Mr Wells’s private business venture .

“ Ms Haden alleges ‘corruption’ on the part of the Trust, and its trustees.”

No the trust did not exist, hence there were no trustees involved with the running   of the operation of the council   premises the trust is   a diversionary tactic a identify fraud used to confuse and deceive. The only persons involved in the actual corruption in council were the two managers of animal control   Mr Didovich and Mr Wells.  No one has ever bothered to interview the staff about what was going on. No one  has ever quantified how much  it cost the rate payers  to run the Animal welfare  institute of New Zealand from council premises.

No ordinary company would allow a  manager to run  his own business  from the premises   using the companies infrastructure staff an  time.. so why is it Ok  in council ?

 Her allegations have been tested in both the District Court and the High Court and found to be baseless. Her campaign against the trustees persists in the face of an injunction prohibiting her from persisting with her ‘denigration’ of the trustees.

 No my allegations have never been tested in the court.  Mr Wells took me to court on defamation claims; he used false claims to drive up the costs, and then used these costs to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion.    The matter went straight to sentencing and no evidence alleging that I made any statement or in which context I made the statement was ever produced and these were never tested against the truth.

The case is now back before the court as I have extensive evidence that the judgement was obtained by fraud and misleading the court.

The only matter which was appealed was the striking out of my defence.  I was placed at a disadvantage as Mr Wells used Charitable dollars to fuel the proceedings   I was going through a separation and had bank accounts frozen on me.  Anyone who has been through our legal system will know that this places you at a disadvantage.

New Evidence came to hand only after the judgement was issued.  Without funds I have been fighting teams of lawyer’s hell bent on keeping the lid on this corruption as   several highly regarded persons would find themselves behind bars.  It is better to destroy me than it is to make the true criminals accountable.

The court matter has nothing to do with the fact that council premises were being used for private pecuniary gain. The council has never gone  through its own records   to see how  its animal  control officers  became warranted under the fictional AWINZ and why so many lost their  jobs  in “ confidential “ circumstances .

“ She has made numerous requests for information and over the years every piece of information that both councils have that relates to that issue, has been provided to her or she has been advised that it does not exist.”

 Information was initially withheld from me, I had to get the ombudsman involved   and after that I was allowed to access files at both MAF at Waitakere council.  Interestingly enough large chunks of Waitakere’s documentation with regards to animal control were missing.

When I collated the two lots of information I found that there was much contradiction between what was being said to MAF and what appeared on the council files.   This required LGOIMA requests to clarify. The Lgoima requests would come back vague and this would require a further request.

As I drilled down   through the documents more and more discrepancies were revealed, I sent some documents to Wendy Brandon to evaluate and it was at about that time that I was told that I could not have any further information.

She no doubt saw how dangerous the information I was receiving was as it showed time and time again that MAF and council both had a different version of events.

Instead of using it for resolution she used this information of concealment   as she realised that what I was saying   was true.

I believe that her actions are those of concealing and condoning corruption.

  “It is the view of General Counsel that the orders made by the District Court and the High Court forbid Ms Haden from publishing any material that repeats the various allegations examined and dismissed by the Courts. Any further publication in breach of those orders constitutes a contempt of court.”

Wendy Brandon has not interpreted  the  judgement correctly , the judgement is dated  2008   I have   published  many articles   I  have   brought them to  Mr Wells attention  and not once  has  he  claimed that I am breaching the injunction  or claimed that I am denigrating him.

It is ultimately for no one else but the party who has the injunction, to enforce it, it is no concern to the council and if council is that concerned about past employees injunction then council should also be concerned with the actions of that employee and the corruption which surrounds his activities.  The injunction is not against council.

I have documentary evidence on which I base all my statements and everything I state is   truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

In court I had fewer rights than a criminal   and I have had a penalty of far greater proportion than any fraudster would receive.

You have to ask yourselves  why Is Wendy Brandon going to these lengths to conceal corruption , this should be a case study at the very least to prevent  further events of this nature an honest and diligent  lawyer would ensure   that council  runs  corruption  free, that  ultimately is  in the best inters of the   law which governs council.

Principles relating to local authorities

(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

(a) a local authority should—

(i)                 conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;…etc

Since November 1st 2010, Ms Haden has sent nearly 500 emails to Auckland Council, nearly all of which have been sent or copied to General Counsel. All of Ms Haden’s emails to council have been read, assessed for action, and retained in council’s records.

 Ordinary people and lawyers count differently, I send one email to 30 people I count it as 1 email.  Lawyers count it as 30.  I have not sent 500 emails and I believe that this is an attempt to vilify me.  I am guilty of one thing..  Questioning corruption  which appears to be the ultimate crime.

I did not include Wendy Brandon in my emails and the statement by Mr MC Kay therefore serves to prove that the management of my case was handed over from Waitakere city to Auckland council, it is therefore grounds for me to assume that  Auckland council through the  staff who were instructed  by Waitakere   have continued to conceal corruption.

 “ Ms Haden has been advised that no further correspondence will be entered into in relation to her campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. “

 I do not have a campaign against AWINZ and its trustees. AWINZ has never had any independent legal existence and there is  now more than one trust called  AWINZ plus several more groups who have used the trading name .

My issue with council at all times has been  the corrupt use of council facilities by staff and the concealment  and apparent condoning  of corruption by staff.

 “Ms Haden runs a number of websites and does communications and she publishes all correspondence on her websites.”

 This almost sounds sinister, I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Ltd, I operate the web site Transparency.net.nz   and anticorruption.co.nz   you will find the evidence supporting my claims on those sites. I believe that corruption cannot flourish in a truly transparent society and I also believe that corruption ruins lives- it  did to me and my  family  and  all I did was  question  something which  any rate payer should be able to  question.  In so doing I have become the villain in the piece.

I ask each and every one of you  – Are you going to allow council to continue to conceal corruption or are you going to ensure that  rate payer funds are used for a proper purpose .This is your opportunity as the governance body to draw a line in the sand and take a stand on corruption.

If you  do nothing then you do not deserve to represent us the rate payers .No one said it would be easy  but corruption should not be tolerated , our rates  are   too high and  there  has to be diligence  in how   council is governed.

In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on the transparency web site  so  that all rate payers can see how this is dealt with . I am happy to come and present on this matter to   you to show how it occurred.

Yours sincerely

 

Grace Haden

 

Transparency NZ call for more transparency from Transparency International

SusanSnivelyTransparency International have turned my application  for membership down for the third time.

Suzanne Snively   sent a reply  on behalf  of TINZ   declining me once again. It appears that she  does not like the comments which I make with regards to transparency International  she has however never  pointed  which statements  she is referring to    and she has not  told me  which  sites in particular she is looking at, it could well be that  she is looking at some one else web site and attributing comments to me. Suzanne you are not being very transparent.

This led me  to looking at the   constitution of transparency International .An incorporated society  only has one set of operative rules  and those are the ones  listed on the register of incorporated societies  and  those are the  copies of the   rules which the registrar has accepted.

Imagine then   my  surprise  when I found  that  Transparency International New Zealand  does not have any rules listed with the registrar.Does this make them unconstitutional ?

I phoned the societies  registrar this morning and confirmed that they did not hold a copy of the rules…. see the page as it appeared 2nd April NZ Companies Office – View Details transparency international    not  very transparent I would have thought.

There is a copy available on the charities web site  but it is not an official copy , not good enough  we think for   transparency International which has so much international clout.

Transparency International  New Zealand  are represented only  by some 70 people  10  of  whom are directors  making 1 in 7 of them  directors.  http://www.transparencynz.org.nz/index.php/about/governance

Those listed on the  governance site   represent  amongst them the large  accountancy companies   and appear to  be well connected with    Government  and  big business, the representation is mainly of  the rich and famous , those of us who  bang our heads  against the corporate walls   are not welcome.  It is after all about perception   and we bring too much reality  and insist on accuracy.

By way of example today Transparency International  Via Suzan Snively published a press release  No+Complacency+for+Corruption-TINZ-PR.

In just the first three lines  we at Transparency New Zealand  struggle to find  a verifiable comment

1.  there is no such  act as the Public Service Act

2. the state sector act is dated 1988    which is not  100 years ago

3.And   to the best of our knowledge there have been no  surveys done here or internationally with regards to   the integrity of public sectors   in a setting which allows comparisons to be  made.

We have written to Suzanne and requested clarification  we will update  you   when the reply is received.