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?

Leave a Reply