Archive for July 2013

The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

It has taken me a week and a steep learning curve  but I am happy to announce that I am embarking on  a new chapter.. Video..  This is my first attempt   or should I say the result of many attempts  its not perfect but  it sets out the story. I welcome feed back

Why is it that Criminals always claim defamation ?

Truth  3I refer to  earlier posts Truth is never defamatory   ,   Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims.   and why does Dr Gerald Waters protect con Mann Jonathon Mann?

We received a lawyers letter telling us to  stop   speaking the truth about  DR Gerald Waters.

It transpires that the very same doctor is  again in the news   this time with the head line  Waikato doctor fights convictions

I am becoming a bit tired of all these defamation claims by criminals.  I am still fighting one  by Neil Wells and have the evidence that he was  covering up  massive public fraud.

I was also  Taken to  court by Terry Hay     who instead used  false claims of harassment , he  has  been able to buy  himself  clear of the courts  to get these charges. dropped after fabricating a director and liquidator  see Download View as HTML 

He has now  apparently  gone back to his own ways by listing a further false address on the companies register . People are  like kids  they don’t change their way unless it hurts.

Nothing will change until we see  truth as a basis for claims in the court.  the court appears to be a vehicle to bankrupt those who  desire and open transparent and accountable society.

Defamation is  an archaic law  which was there to defend the aristocracy.   Defamation is only defamation if it is not true.

In my long running battle with Mr Wells  He has committed  perjury in the court   to   substantiate the allegation that  spoke untruths about him

despite bringing  the  perjury to the  attention of his associates and  his lawyer they are still wanting to scalp me.

Neil Wells  had  written and advised on new animal welfare legislation  which he used to  implement his  business plan

He made an application to the minister  on 22 November 1999  and attached a unsigned trust deed .

This is what he said in court   the relevant pages of the transcript are here Neil Wells perjury

This is what he said in court

The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until  then

This is what MAF

On 22 November 1999, Mr Neil Wells wrote  to your predecessor enclosing an application  on behalf of AWINZ  for declaration as an approved organization unser section 121 Animal welfare Act .

and the minister said  in official documents

In November 1999 you applied to my predecessor on behalf of the  of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) (AWINZ),for declaration as an approved orgnisation under section121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the ACT)

Now either Neil wells  is telling Porkies or   the minister and his MAF officials are.

The difference is  worth $300,000  to me  because if Mr wells  is telling the truth   then I have defamed him.

If Mr Wells is a liar  which I maintain he is    then   he has perverted the course of justice  and Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts have helped him  and  Tom Didovich has facilitated it.

What do you think?

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley Graeme Coutts & Tom Didovich

Wyn Graeme  and Tom                             Open letter to  Wyn Hoadley ,Graeme Coutts and  Tom Didovich  


 I am addressing this to you  as you are all members of the  charity which is financing  the  legal action   and  supporting Neil Wells.

 And  to  Wyn and Graeme   as you are both individually and in your own capacity   litigants represented by David Neutze independent of any involvement of any trust .

 I am concerned that when I send an email  to  your lawyers and l CC you in , your lawyers  do not respond back to you  and only to Wells.

 This to me is odd for a lawyer  who is instructed by you and is corresponding  on matters which pertain to you ,  this  makes it obvious that you  are distancing yourselves from  the litigation .

 This  really makes me   wonder if you understand what  the trust is and what the trust is not.  Basically that is what this litigation is all about.

I am concerned that  each of you  have  been told not to speak to me. The story you have been fed  has duped you  to the extent that you have never questioned what is going on, had you  questioned it  it would have been painfully obvious that I have been made out to be the  villain  when in reality  it is Mr Wells who is using you to  re write history to  turn his  illegal actions into  something more palatable.

 The heart of the issue is  the existence of AWINZ the law enforcement authority .   Neil wells made an application in November 1999 , when no  trust existed. 

 He gave false documents to the minister and caused him to  act upon them as though they were true.

 Neil Wells  derived a benefit from this action .. this makes it fraud.

 So by shifting the time frames and bringing other  people into it  he has  sanitised the transaction to make it a legitimate action.

    We have  chronologies every where   e.g  if I  was  gay  I could not get married this month    it would not be legal   and to claim legitimacy of a marriage  this moth   and getting a pecuniary  benefit from it wold be fraud.

 However  when the law comes into  force   gay marriage is legitimate and the actions  are sanctioned by law.    The same time frames apply to parking   driving from a certain age  etc..

 AWINZ   the law enforcement authority did not exist.. Wells needed to cover up     You have knowingly or through total neglect assisted in this .

 Proof of  Wells perjury to the court is   below .. this is from the transcript in court .. He has lied to the court by shifting the time of the application  from November 1999 to some other  time  when  the application was supposedly made  in a legitimate manner. 

 The only issue is  that MAF do not have any record or   knowledge of any other application   and  the minister in his letter to Wells 21 December  makes it  very clear that  the application is based on the November 1999  application  , this was  three months before any  trust deed was dated . the application was supported by a unsigned trust deed .

 For more see the affidavit  it has the evidence attached

 The transcript reads  these are three separate statements  which   totally influence the court .

 The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”


When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until  then

What is particularly serious  for  WYN and  Graeme  is that  your lawyers  are not representing you  they are only representing Wells  and by protecting his perjury they are exposing you to criminal  charges. Have they spoken to you  with regards to the email below and   the affidavit attached to   this  email?  May I suggest that your lawyers have a conflict of interest when it comes to   representing you  …unless of course you consent to their action of concealing Mr Wells perjury, in which  case you  become a party to   this. ( see section 66 crimes act  Parties are guilty of the offence )

 I do not wish to file criminal charges  against  each and every one of you   for being  party to the  various offences and for aiding and abetting the various  actions  of Neil Wells  which I  view as criminal offending  but  if you  continue to support Wells  and his actions then you leave me no choice

 It is time  that we bring this to an end  7 years , a marriage and $300,000    give me a lot to fight for  and none of this would have happened had it  not been for the support you gave both financially and  through your silence.   

 I welcome the opportunity   for  any of you to speak to me   so that we can resolve this matter, I can assure you  that  whoever assist will not  be  the  subject of  any  litigation from me   either  civilly ,criminally or in your professional capacity.

 I will also  in return remove   anything  which I have posted  and which pertains to you .

 I invite you to speak to your own independent counsel    and have them present  but the deal is  that you have to  be truthful and help me  bring a swift end to this mess.

 Ellis J  was  extremely  interested in my matter  and  reported that she found me credible , we  have reached the turning point.

 This is the  last offer that I am extending to each and every one of  you .   You  either  stick with  Wells  or  you look after your own neck .

 I will   deliver a copy of this to each and every one of you    minus the attachments  which you will have to  get from this email .

 I will also be publishing this on the  Transparency web site  so that there is  permanent and public  record of this offer.

 This offer will expire  4pm Friday 26th July   2013 or  as soon as  liquidation proceedings are commenced by your lawyers  .


Grace Haden


     Because truth matters


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Monday, 8 July 2013 5:11 p.m.
To: ‘David Neutze’;
Cc: ‘’;; ‘’
Subject: Hoadley wells Coutts

 Please find here with the documents which I have filed for tomorrow  affidavit

 I draw your  attention to the  frauds   in very simplistic terms as set out in the affidavit

 1.        Your clients had no standing.. You supplied a trust deed   dated1.3.2000  for Coutts, wells  ,Giltrap and Groves   and   used this  to show that  Wells  Coutts and Hoadley had standing  when in reality  Hoadley had never been appointed as trustee .

 2.       There is also the fact that  there was one lost   trust deed   now there  are two originals

 3.       This affects the strike out    Your clients had no standing  and could not have brought the claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. This in turn would have ensured that I won the interlocutrices not them  and my defence would not have been struck out

 4.        Neil Wells  had to re write history   the application  could not possibly have been made by the trust  which formed on 1.3.2000   so Neil Wells said to the court

 The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

 When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until  then

Do you not think that this is perjury   in light of  the  fact that MAF and the minister in official documents specifically mention that they rely on the application 22 November 1999!  Have a look the evidence is  there 

 Despite  what must be an obvious miscarriage of justice to everyone except Brookfields  you continue to   wish to put me  out of business   and take the last of my funds  while denying me a right   to seek justice .

 You are totally in breach of the  rules    and your continued action in this  litigation despite  rule 13.5.3   this   suggests to me  that  you are not   willing to uphold the rule of  law.

 Please also   explain how Hoadley   wells and Coutts became the law enforcement authority  .. there certainly does not appear to be any legal   basis  for their claims   .. how did it happen ????

 If  you had integrity and  were honest lawyers you would be acting as officers of the court  and be  setting this injustice straight

 Please note : I am not re litigating – just because my defence was struck out  does not mean that  your client  can deceive the court  perjury is perjury  even if a defence is struck out

 I am not being   vexatious  I have a right   to have been judged on  facts not  fiction


Grace Haden



     Because truth matters


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

Why do we bother to vote for Auckland councillors?

The Tail wagging  the  DogAt last  we can publish the new organizational structure for Auckland Council

The sound evidence which we have  has been collated over the years  and has been confirmed  by Bernard Orsman article  in his article Coney barred from review.

I have been totally amazed  at the  fact that  Councillors  don’t   know what the governance structure of Auckland council is  supposed to be,  I guess  that this is not totally unexpected when many  would be Councillors are elected for  attributes   other than their ability to understand governance structures.

Even on small  trusts and societies I  find that there is a general  ignorance of  the concept of  Governance .in some   situations people take on positions for their own egos  and they are  either  a leader   with their own hidden agenda  or a   willing to please type of person  who keeps a low profile and  just goes with the  majority.

This  is how it is supposed to be That is The   Dog wags Tail  not tail wags dog.

In other words the governance body  dictates tot he CEO and legal council  not he other way around.

The CEO  and chief legal officer are there to advise  and the Councillors decide DEMOCRATICALLY on the decisions  which need to be made.

It appears  to me that in   the three short  years in which  Auckland council has existed we have managed to  totally ignore the legislation which set it up in the first place   which is the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

We have to ask the question is Auckland council off the rails?  or was it ever on it ?

I may not be a lawyer  but to me  it is very hard to misinterpret  section 8

8Governing body of Auckland Council
  • (1) The governing body of the Auckland Council must comprise a mayor and 20 members elected in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001.

    (2) The mayor must be elected by the electors of Auckland as a whole.

or section 9 which sets out the Mayors  role .

Decision making is set out in  section 14 under section 14 (2)

this states ” governing body and the local boards are responsible and democratically accountable for the decision making of the Auckland Council. ”

I have gone through the  legislation and cannot find one  clause where  it allows  decisions  to  be  made by  council employees

Decision making

14 General scheme

15 Decision-making responsibilities of governing body

16 Decision-making responsibilities of local boards

17 Principles for allocation of decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council

So the  general  decision making process  set down by legislation

15 Decision-making responsibilities of governing body

(1) The governing body is responsible and democratically accountable for—

  • (b) the decision making of the Auckland Council in relation to the non-regulatory activities of the Auckland Council that are allocated to the governing body in accordance with section 17; and
  • (c) the decision making of the Auckland Council in relation to the establishment and maintenance of capacity to provide, or ensure the provision of, services and facilities (including local activities) by the Auckland Council; and
  • (ca) the decision making of the Auckland Council in relation to the governance of its council-controlled organisations; and
  • (d) the decision making of the Auckland Council in relation to compliance with section 101 of the Local Government Act 2002 (which relates to the financial management of a local authority); and
  • (e) the agreement reached with each local board (as set out in each local board agreement) in respect of local activities for the local board areas.

(2) Before making a decision described in subsection (1)(a) to (d), the governing body must—

  • (a) comply with any requirements of this Act; and
  • (c) consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

The underpinning legislation which  deals with  Governing bodies and chief executives is Local Government Act 2002 and the role of the CEO is defined by section  42 

He is defined as the chief administration officer , he is not in a decision making role and   he is there to implement the decisions of council.

What has happened is that  instead of  carrying out the decisions of council   the CEO and the  counsel for council  Wendy Brandon have  taken it upon themselves to lift the decision making   burden from the shoulders of Councillors by  blocking    emails and preventing  voters  from  communicating   with   Councillors.

The advisory  role  has become such that the Councillors have ceased to become independent  thinkers  and when one steps out of line every so often and wishes to take on their role seriously   they are denied the information  which they  need to rely upon for proper consideration.  as in the   article Coney barred from review.

I therefore cant understand why we have elections

It appears that the  true  controllers of Auckland    are

Doug Mc Kay  Mr McKay, 54, has an extensive background in leading large organisations in both New Zealand and Australia. This includes senior roles with Carter Holt Harvey, Lion Nathan and Goodman Fielder. Most recently he served as Chief Executive Officer at Sealord and CEO and Executive Chairman of Independent Liquor.

and Wendy Brandon

he is also   current director of the  following companies

Now strangely enough  he has close ties with the liquor industry  and there  is also a healthy representation of  his associates  from the  LD Nathan in the   Committee for  Auckland  who lobbied to get the super city  and   in the business round table   and chamber of commerce who were there to back them up  .

Leaves you wondering   who is the  super city  for ??  it sure as heck is not for  the residents.


David Neutze of Brookflields has lousy Bookkeeping and logic skills

bookkeeping for dummiesWhat degree of accuracy do we expect from Layers? it appears that for some  we don’t expect any.

Is near enough Good enough  or  do  we  believe that there is amoral  and ethical obligation for them to  place only true matters before the court.

It  is in my experience that David Neutze of Brookfields is extremely ” loose ” with his facts. In fact  the facts are  so Loose that they are not facts at all , like loose bowls  it is a load of S….

Today I received his  submissions  for the recall of  judgement

Its a  bit of a hoot   he  blatantly states that his maths  is spot on .  I had added the    items up   dozens of times   using different   means  and    continually got the  same result.

Now Neutze associate Lisa Walsh  says  that the  list that they put  in  to the court  for the  cost application was not a verbatim list   it appears  that I have left off an item..   Yes like I am clairvoyant ! .. always shifting blame good way to cover up .

But most  hilarious of all is that we  now have  a clear cut case of  double entry bookkeeping   we have one set of accounts which  they submitted to court   for   the  July 2012 period  and another  set that they sent in now for the same period   ..  the  content is the same  but the  totals are vastly different.    its only  a  $3,000   discrepancy    hardly worth  worrying about ?, I justhave to wonder why there are two sets of accounts any way.. bit liek the two sets of   trust deeds for AWINZ  one for me and one for  MAF    . yes  same date allegedly the same deed    but different content… don’t such things matter ?

So Neutze bookkeeping is as good as his concept of who trustees are   he is  employed by Wells and Hoadley alleging that they are a  trust  called Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )

Neutze Accepts proof that they are a trust based on a  trust deed signed by  Nuala Grove, Graeme Coutts , Sarah Giltrap  and Neil Wells .

He then takes legal action in the name of AWINZ represented by Wells Coutts and Hoadley    when  it has been spelled out to him by the  ministry of economic developments that  Wells  2000 trust does not have body corporate status.

Identity is the  key to the fiction behind this litigation  and just this week I picked up  a new word   Conflate  “the word is seldom used in a positive or neutral sense, but instead highlights a negative or careless blending of two otherwise disconnected ideas. To conflate  is to confuse “

Basically it  goes like this

Joe  the  accountant  wears brown shoes . Trevor wears  brown shoes therefore he is an accountant.

or John Smith is a baker    here is another John Smith  he must be a baker as well.

The David Neutze version is

AWINZ is a law enforcement authority  with  coercive public   powers  resulting from an application  27.11.1999

AWINZ is a  trust purportedly formed  by trust deed 1.3.2000  between  Coutts, Grove, Giltrap and Wells

His clients  casually use the name  AWINZ  therefore they are the  law enforcement authority and the trust.

It would appear  that  law and accounts  make  as much sense to  Brookfields  as gibberish does to the rest of us.. except  Brookfields  can sell this tripe to  courts and win.

I’m just the one  paying  the bills  for this Bullshit.. that’s NZ justice for you .

Personally I am over the lies.. without truth there can be no justice !

New Flash : Accounts  as explained by Lisa Walsh

The invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “C” to the defendants’ costs memorandum) shows that our total costs of attendances for this period were reduced from $12,964 to $10,516 (plus GST and disbursements).  The reduction related to attendances unrelated to this matter.

The schedule of attendances in relation to the invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “A” to the defendants’ memorandum in response to the plaintiffs’ recall application) lists all attendances before the reduction.  You will note that the attendances on the invoice also total $12,964.

The total of $16,532.17 on the schedule includes GST and disbursements.  However, this full amount was not billed to our client, in accordance with the reduction recorded on the invoice itself.


Lisa Walsh


Senior Registered Legal Executive


Brookfields Lawyers

DDI: +64 9 979 2219

Fax: +64 9 379 3224



19 Victoria Street West

P O Box 240, Auckland 1140


Note :    if indemnity fees  means  payment of what the client paid  then   I should not be paying  the inflated accounts  but actual costs. 

The world as seen By Brookfileds Lawyers -Turning fiction into fact

funnypictures96 Need some one to do the impossible  ? turn fiction into Fact     well look no further than  David Neutze of Brookfields lawyers .

Problem : client Neil Wells  had  had  written legislation for his own  business plan   and then made an application to the minister  in a false name   and falsely claimed that a trust was making  the application  when quite clearly no trust existed   and no one had signed the application 

So time rolls  by  and   in 2006  Mr Wells is caught out by  some questions which potentially  exposed this as corruption   so something had to be done fast , before he was fitted up for an orange jump suit.

So David Neutze to the rescue. Despite the fact that lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law (section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act) David saw a way of contorting  facts  figures  and   chronologies

The rule of law is defined by LexisNexis as “The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.”

 It turns out that  LexisNexis and  David Neutze  disagree on that  interpretation.

David  must be right because he has  managed  to get the support of the court  at  each  court event  and has successfully prevented me from placing evidence  before the court while he has  used  nothing  but procedures and  manipulations of the law  to  secure victory for his clients  Lawyers  Neil Wells and  Wyn Hoadley  and JP Graeme Coutts.

Contortion  of Facts

It is always easy if  you can put your side of the story and you   stop the other side from putting  evidence and facts before the court.  so  David    filed a claim  but  did not  file any supporting evidence.

He then got the court to act on this claim as though it was the truth  , He manipulates proceedings  so that  high costs are awarded agaisnt the other party  , then demands them at  2 weeks notice.

How many people   could possibly come up with $18,000   in two weeks ????   could you ????

With my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out for   being unable to find $18,000  in two weeks  for a claim which was essentially agaisnt a trust  and not  me , the   coast was clear for Neil Wells to tell the court what ever  he wanted  so that history could be re written. As a result  no  investigation has ever been  conducted into  AWINZ  by any authority ..    Get a  court judgement  and  you  can get off any crime.

the Fiction which  Neutze changed into fact  were

The application     made by Neil Wells  was suddenly made by an ” oral trust ”   and  because   Neil Wells told  the Judge that this application wasn’t the   real application  he said ” Any correspondence
with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .”  page 7  line 15

He went on to say  ” When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application , that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.

On page 10  he says ” In the formation of any Body Corporate or non Body Corporate there is a series of processes which ultimately create the existence of an organisation, and in the case of the Animal Welfare Institute, the various drafts of the Deed of Trust which were formulated in 1999 led up to the final Deed, but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then. “

Now this is what the Judge relied upon  as being true. You must admit  it sounds pretty convincing.. but what if it was  not true  ?

I have spent years   trying to extract  the  actual application  MAF have clearly indicated to me that the one and only application was the  22 November 1999 document   and this is confirmed in the letter from the minister  dated  18 December 2000  which clearly states that  it was The application     of 22  november which was relied upon.

what difference does this make.. Heaps

  1. Wells Lied to the minister
  2. there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
  3. Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority  which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
  4. Maf Never checked to  see if  an organization existed  and did not  check to see if those named actually knew what was going on.

Its like saying you have a degree when you fully intend to get one in the future, So if it was bad  for  John Davies and Mary-Anne Thompson to have false credentials  How is it Ok for a law enforcement authority to  be a fictional organization?  And why have I  been persecuted   for asking the  question .. “Why doesn’t the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  AWINZ exist ???? “

So  David Neutze  secures the  judgment  which    by law becomes a new version of fact , so  I  find the  evidence  that Wells has told Porkies in court _ David Neutze to the rescue and  stops me from  telling the court that it has been lied to  .

Are officers of the court supposed  to do that ???  at least  Neutze was honest when I  got them all by the short and curlies when they liquidated my company on a false affidavit.  he knew  that that game was up then  and  did the decent thing.. but  he cannot  read his documents and say  OMG   my client has lied to the court  and since  I am  an honest and respectable officer of the court I must right this injustice… No  Neutze keeps on covering up and stops  evidence from being presented.

I then find new evidence to prove that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were never   the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, their relationship was born from the need to create a trust when   Maf  was alerted to the lack of existence of their law enforcement authority .  Now Wyn Hoadley is a former Mayor  we could not possibly  imply that she had done something improper.. so  its much easier to Crucify  me.

so the  quick easy  formula  for  re writing   history is

  1. Hike up the costs on false  claims
  2. Make a demand for payment and seek to have  the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
  3. withdraw the false claims
  4. Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say  the statement of claim is true
  5. then   tell the court what ever you like and stop the other side from placing anything  before the court which could alert the court  to the fact that  they have been lied to.
  6. No problem with police  they don’t do  perjury any  way

   this is called justice.

NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED   AT ALL  ! History re written !


Contorting  facts   # 2

This is not “ Pulling the Wool over  the ministers eyes “

I have learned from Davis Neutze that  you are not pulling the wool over the minister eyes when you:-

1.       Make an application for law enforcement powers  to the minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999 and state that “  A  charitable trust has been formed by  Deed of trust as the “ animal Welfare institute of New Zealand’ AWINZ   when no such  deed exists.

2.       Claim that a trust whose deed was allegedly  signed on 1.3.2000  were the applicants  for the  application  three months earlier despite the fact that none of the alleged trustees ever signed their name  on the application .

3.       Tell the minister that “ A copy of the signed deed of trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with section 20(a) of the Deed.  .

a.       No trust deed is ever forwarded

b.      Ministry of commerce does not register  deeds  the ministry of  economic development does   and they  accept  certified copies.

c.       Section 20a does not exist in the trust deed  which materialises in 2006

NB: the Neil Wells who wrote the letter  had  recently successfully registered two trusts with the ministry of economic developments. ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD.

One of the claims of defamation was that I had said that Neil wells Pulled the wool over   the ministers eyes.   .. well that statement certainly was worth the $57,500  and 41,00 cost .Susan Couch gets $300,000  for being crippled for  life ,

Neil wells gets nearly 1/3 that for some one   telling the truth about him. What is more  he has used  well over $100,000  of charitable  fund s to get this money for him personally !


I was  also mistaken to believe that to become trustees a person had to sign a trust deed or some document but according to David Neutze it is perfectly acceptable for a trust

1.       not to meet  at all –(  not even to sign  the trust deed )  despite claiming to be a law enforcement authority with  coercive statutory powers

2.       Ignore the requirement of its trust deed to meet no less than 4 time per year  and record meeting instead once every two years .

3.       Have no  evidence of re appointment of trustees.

4.       Have a meeting  on 10 May 2006   and produce the  minutes 20/5/2011 after having told MAF in 2008 that  the  governance documents are missing due to hard drive failure

5.       Appoint a trustee through invisible means at a time when the trust deeds are missing. meeting  on 10 May 2006

To supply a different copy of the alleged trust deed to MAF   and claim it to be one and the same as this one


Manipulation of  Chronologies

The chronologies of these events were a stumbling block     so the process above was used  to


turn this  into this 
application for law enforcement powers   create trust 
approval process  application for law enforcement powers 
law enforcement powers granted  approval process 
contract with MAF law enforcement powers granted 
exposed  contract with Maf
draw up 2000 trust  deed  become charity 
 take legal action 
draw up new trust deed 
become  charity 

The difference is    simple   trusts need to exist  before   they can make an application  .

In summary Wells  who had written  the bill for and advised on the  legislation as  an independent adviser to the select committee ,   made an application for law enforcement powers  on  22 November 1999 and  allegedly set up the trust  which makes the application  three months later on 1.3.2000, there is no evidence  of this trust  ever having met or functioned . Tom Didovich  (Wells’s  associate) went to each of the persons to get their signatures  at their   respective work  or home addresses.   It is note worthy that in 2006 the  trust deed was missing,  as it was  in march 2006  right after it was signed  and Neil Wells  lied to the minister about  having  sent the deed off for registration

The second great manipulation of chronologies was with regards to the plaintiffs in the claim 

Get three people together for the first time on 10 May 2006  and without any formal documentation  adopted a trading name  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  and have them file legal proceedings  against a legally incorporated  charitable trust ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST  then  registered as  The animal welfare institute of New Zealand    and make claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. this trust was  a legal person in its own right registers from 27-APR-2006  three weeks before   the first meeting of Hoadley Wells and Coutts.

Rather stupidly  I presumed that   their legal name ( if they had had a deed ) would be  Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  or otherwise Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts  trading as  the  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.  While the incorporated legal entity  would be called by its legal name  which Is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand . perhaps we  shoudl not let Neutze  advise clients on contracts..   they woudl not be worth the paper they are written on if he cant identify who the real persons are and who  are trustees.

  1. I also mistakenly believed  that  the group which  existed  first  and legally  had  more rights to the  name than the   second informal  group  and that if they wished to contest the  rights to the name they should have followed the advice of the  ministry of economic developments
  2. and  at least had some evidence  that they were  a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???


  1.   By  claiming to be   a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley  wells and Coutts  suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
  2. they also sign a trust deed in December 2006 which is different in purpose to the original  trust deed   allegedly  signed on 1.3.2000  and claim continuity of trust when the first trust has never met or acted together.   AH!  the magic of bits of paper with words on them.
  1. The trustees of the  December 2006 trust become  a charity  and use charitable funds to   pay for  the legal proceedings   classic identity fraud….. Tom is a butcher        my brother is Tom he   must  therefore  also be a butcher.

Confused..   yes  you should be   it makes no sense  but the court has been led to believe its all  kosher  its what officers of the  court  do .. bet  he even goes to church on Sunday.


Neutze Takes Maths and accounts to a new level .. a low level that is

In April 2012 I took a  new claim   agaisnt Hoadley Wells and Coutts   for obtaining a judgment by fraud.

Not only did Neutze manage to get the claim struck out   Judgment of Gibson 10.05.13  he also managed to get the Judge to call me Vexatious  for attempting to  seek justice , al the judge needed was for   Neutze to place his victories before him. the mere fact that all the judges have rejected  proceedings  and   all but one    appeal was actually  heard is beside the point.

That appeal was  taken by my solicitor at the time Paddy Finnegan   who  I had to dismiss due to my marriage failing  s due to the stress  , My bank accounts wer  frozen and justice   was denied…  in the stress of it all I  battled on  and I have found lay litigants don’t  get a look n.  lawyers can  tell lies  but lay litigants  don’t get heard.

the cost order Neutze put in was the worst  accounting I have seen for a long time   see  here  costs application Brookfields

I have summarized what the issues are here

  1. CIV 2012-004-696   was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   each in their own capacity as individuals .
    1. The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on  accounts made out to AWINZ
    2. AWINZ is the acronym used by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a charitable trust formed on 5 December 2006.  This trust was not and never has been a party to these proceedings.
    3. No other definition for AWINZ is provided and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were ever AWINZ together.
  2. The accounts submitted , see costs application are for a number of   proceedings in both the High and District Courts, the accounts are intermingled to such an extent that matters pertaining to one litigation has been billed against another.
    1. As pointed out to his honour Peter McCutcheon (18/5/2012) and Translegal (22/8/2012) for whom items appear on this set of accounts were never involved in the District Court proceedings.
  3. The items under the heading 31/7/12  refer to a set of accounts  where not one of  the  items is Quantified as to value , it is  therefore impossible to  quantify cost claimed and the only conclusion is that  and the  sum of  $369  is ‘made up” .
  4.     The item  29 august which  is claimed as $390   states “Attendance on file regarding strike out application;” whereas on the accounts on which this entry is based  shows that  this billing was  for other matters  as well yet the entire sum has been charged  the  indemnity cost application .
  5.     The accounts dated 28/9/12 cannot be made to add up to $6232.50 this sum is in excess of $1035 of the total.
  6.     There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
  7.      Further the affidavit  in  support of  the strike out  which consisted of nothing  but  judgments which were readily available  was charged out  at $1805.
  8.  The calculations for  costs on the basis of the figures given in the attached accounts  made out to AWINZ do not add up  to  the sum claimed . The total  which  can be established is $12,434 and this sum includes items which  did not
  9. The lawyers for the defendants were aware of the fact that matters were charged out incorrectly as this was drawn to their attention through the submissions on costs, they did not choose to seek a correction and are therefore guilty of negligence.

In short  If you can understand Maths better than law    then you can deduce that  their Maths and  Law are on a Par.  its best seen in this document Cost itemised 

as can be seen there is a mere difference of  some $4,000  and a lot of unquantifiable items thrown in at that..  would IRD accept such accounting..  don’t think so !!!!!

I must congratulate Mr Neutze  he has proved that in New Zealand   it is possible  To win a court proceedings 

1.       with people who have no right to make a claim

  1. without producing any evidence at all

He has proved that you can take defamation proceedings and

1.       not need to produce one statement  allegedly made by the  other party

2.       Not show  who  these statements were made to

3.       Not show any alleged words in context

4.       Not allow the other party to prove the truth of the statements

5.       Deny  the   accused   any type of hearing  including a formal proof

6.       Strike out any action which the  accused takes  in an attempt to  get justice

7.       Produce false accounts to the court  for indemnity costs and gets them ( $16,000)   even though he falsehood is pointed out to the court

  1. Mislead the court and succeed.

The actions of  Mr Neutze have been such  that  I have to question   the integrity of the officers of the court  and  their responsibility to the law society   I will once again  make a complaint  stand by and watch the law society condone  this actions.

It should not  cost a whistle blower  on serious corruption the obscene  sum that it has cost me

We don’t  play Monopoly with people who cheat  so why should we let lawyers cheat in court !n


This must surely be case law  on how  to  win any case in New Zealand    a  country with proud sporting traditions  clean and green but where “justice”  keeps  it all under wraps.