Archive for December 2013

Is the AWINZ Charity complicit in fraud on the courts ?

 To the trustees of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand – Tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil Wells.  And to the  party to litigation   Hoadley Coutts and Wells

23 December 2013

 Ben Atkins   of Brookfields  has told me to pay the $19,000 cost demand payable to AWINZfor the legal action  for obtaining  a judgement by fraud into  a bank account number National Bank of New Zealand  060 968 0067 4 77 00, this is  the bank account  used by the  charity  animal welfare institute of New Zealand, it is not   the account for  Hoadley wells and Coutts  parties to the  litigation .   

Before I pay this money into the account  I  wish  to inform all those associated with the charity, the person running  the account  and those  party to the legal  action ,of the implications of receiving these  funds which have been  directed to be paid for deceiving the court.

 For 8 years there has been much obfuscation about who AWINZ is.  I have evidence to prove that the charity the law enforcement authority   or the former trust.  The charity does not run its own bank accounts Neil Wells does and the trustees are not running the charity in any proper manner.  They are not even meeting.

 In 2007 there was no trust deed associated with the national bank account   I am certain that the banking ombudsmen will help sort that one out.

The  account was in the name of a person who does not exist- animal welfare institute of New Zealand .  Neil Wells was the only person running the account and the account was not a trading as account.

I will not pay into a bank account of a non-party without some assurances and without the full knowledge and consent of those whose account it is being passed off as being.  I will not hand over that sum of money and then find that those who have a judgement against me    demand the money again in their personal capacity. 

I am therefore looking for   a letter in which Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as   the defendants agree that the money is paid into a designated account of a non-party being the trust which they are  trustees of  together with Tom Didovich . ( the charity )

As the account is that used by a registered  charity, I request that all of the trustees of the charity  AWINZ consent to the money being paid into that account  and that they accept full responsibility as trustees for  receiving the money which  has been obtained through deception on the court and perverting the course of justice.

 I note that the lawyers have gone on leave and so   will deal with the parties involved direct as the lawyers appear to be totally confused as to who is who. The lawyers in any case were not instructed by the charity but  by Hoadley and Wells  at a time when no trust existed. I   will show there is no continuity to a previously formed trust.

In 2009  Hoadley Wells  Didovich and Coutts  all signed  a document namely a financial return on the charities commission which read

On 30 July 2008 Judge Rod Joyce QC made an order in the matter A WINZ 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.

As at 16 December 2009 damages, costs and interest due stood at $117,903

The Trustees have entered a charging order of $100,000 on properties jointly owned by Haden.

Resolved 20 December 2009 “  

Now my issue is that  I have paid some $200,000  to Neil Wells  alone, not in his capacity as   trustee   and I have paid  $16,000  to Wyn Hoadley in her private capacity   and according to these “true and correct” accounts   you have a charging order over my property.

I would like to know which property you have a charging   order over and I would   like proof that it has been  removed, I also want  all references of any debt to the trust  removed as  I have never had a debt to the charity .

I also dispute that there is any money owing to the charity   and I do not wish to put money into the charities account   thereby giving reality to their fiction. I will put the money in that account if I get acknowledgment   from all the parties as to why I am placing into that account.

The whole thing has been Identity fraud 101 and    all those who go along with this are complicit in obtaining a pecuniary advantage through fraud and perverting the course of justice. Facilitating something is enough.. each one of you  is a party to this   fraud.

I  will expect a response from each of you  by 4 pm  31 December .

Before you sign your life away I  wish you to be aware of the evidence  I have  which   I will use next year  ( in private criminal  prosecutions if  necessary )  that   will prove that you  do not have a leg to stand on  for claiming to be the law enforcement authority   or the 2000 trust

In 2006 I  was approached by an animal welfare officer employed by Waitakere  city council  she wanted to know who she was volunteering her council paid time  to  as she was uncertain as to who AWINZ was. I found that AWINZ did not exist and no one had a trust deed.  AWINZ   was a law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act,

We registered a trust  called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  on 27 April 2006  and through this registration proved that no other  legal entity  existed by that name. Neil Wells wanted our trust gone and was informed of the process by the  registrar of  society’s , he chose  litigation  in the district court  and coercive means.

AWINZ operated from Waitakere city council premises using the council staff to   run its business and prosecuted those who fell fowl of the animal welfare law.( this money went into the  same account which your lawyer  now  wants me to put nearly $20,000 in to- this  account  was operated By  Neil Wells alone).

The vehicles, signage   and buildings at council had been re branded by the Neil Wells to look very much like the Logo which AWINZ the law enforcement authority used. There was talk of the   council assets to be transferred to AWINZ as is recorded in the audit report page 4.

Neil Wells had been Manager since 2005 when he took over from Tom Didovich the previous manager who had corresponded with the Minister of primary Industries and had given consents and approvals on behalf of council for matters which council had not been properly   consulted on.

As a result MAF and the minister were of the belief that  it was the councils desire to  take on animal welfare functions  in reality   it was Mr Wells personal desire  one that he had recorded in a business plan.  

I asked    questions as to AWINZ role and contracts with Waitakere Council and the existence of   the law enforcement powers which were obtained after Mr Wells had written the animal welfare bill and consulted on it as independent advisor to the select committee.

In July 2006 Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts commenced legal action,   using clever ploys such as false standing and striking out my defence of trust and honest opinion in defamation proceedings they have managed   to re write history and    confuse facts   .

I now  don’t know who I am dealing with  I believe that there are various parties all called AWINZ    and  various ones have used the bank account  which the   lawyer has given me a number for .

  The groups are

1.       The people who came together   paid for by Waitakere  council to form a trust with Waitakere  council in 1998

2.       1999.The AWINZ which Neil Wells and Tom Didovich told the SPCA existed in 1999, the  one that they  claimed funds from the  community well being fund for  or the one which gave a notice of intent  and a made an application to the minister

3.       2000 The  trust deed   for which there are two versions  One given  to me in 2006, the other sent to MAF in 2006  trust deed MAF version

4.       The AWINZ which monitored the Lord of the rings  and  gave the  false and title

5.        The AWINZ  which received law enforcement powers and the  Awinz which Wells represented when he signed   the MOU Waitakere  and  MAF

6.       The Awinz which met June 2004 which only Mr Wells   knows about.

7.       The AWINZ which opened the bank account and obtained the IRD number and obtained the $100,000 beauty with compassion.

8.       The  people who posed as AWINZ as litigants  June 2006( no trust deed existed  no  evidence of being appointed )

9.       You  . the people who signed a deed 5.12.2006   the  trust which became a charity   and  although you    were not connected to the bank account  let Neil wells and Christine wells operate the bank account which  you were supposedly trustees of.

Not all AWINZ’s are the same   they share a common name but there has to be real verifiable evidence to connect them.

In 2012   I  took action  against Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts  for obtaining a judgement by fraud  but  because their lawyers obfuscation  and  reputation   had more  impact on the court than the 700 odd  government documents which I had collated ,  my claim was struck out   at a cost of  some  $35,000 this and the  preceding  matters won by deceit has resulted in payments of $200,000 which has  mainly been collected by Wells himself in his own capacity.

Wells has been hell bent on bankrupting me and liquidating  my company  we have had three  attempts at liquidation and  in the courts own words it has been done in a very aggressive manner.. so much for animal   welfare .. can’t be nice to humans.

The  latest round the invoices were made out to AWINZ, for them to be made out to AWINZ that is  the charity  then the charity must  be   itself involved  in the   perverting the course of justice , and  I would very much like to establish if   all of you   that is the  December  2006 trustees  consider  all the AWINZ entities  1-9  to be  you .

According to the charities web site you are the trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand  a charity registered 28/09/2007 after you all signed a trust deed on 5 December 2006.

First of all you need to grasp that AWINZ is not a  body corporate  it is nothing more than a  name adopted by various people, in this case you  and only from 5 december 2006 . The trust therefore provides no protection for you for any act done before that date or for actions outside the scope of the trust deed.   

AWINZ cannot sue or be sued only the people who comprise AWINZ can sue and each does so based on legal documents which   support their claim of being legitimate trustees.

I cannot see how you can be a continuation of a trust allegedly formed  1.3.2000   as those trustees never met Let’s look at the audit report and associated document  in detail to establish some   facts which you yourself ( through the lawyers )  have promoted.

 The Affidavit of  Tom Didovich  which sets out the fact that he ( while holding he position of manager  Dog and stock control of Waitakere city ) drove to each trustee and obtained their respective signatures , this proves they never got together at the start and could not have  ratified the  deed.

the  2009  an audit report released by MAF- the audit was  conducted on AWINZ the law enforcement authority   looking at   section  4.1.2

we found  that despite being set up in 2000 AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004 . Since its inception (and at the time of the audit) AWINZ has held 4 Trust

Board meetings – we found that four Trust Board meetings held since 2000,three of.

the meetings minutes were not signed by the chair  and the one minute that was signed was for a meeting which did not have a quorum of trustees “


Neil Wells kindly supplied the minutes to   the law society they can be located at the  following links  

  1. minutes  10/5/2006
  2. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting  
  3.  Minutes 14/8/2006

The minutes which we don’t have is the June 2004

We know that the 2000 trustees did not meet when they signed the deed( see Didovich ’s affidavit ) , we know that there were only ever 4 meetings  the earliest was 2004.

The 2000 trust deed calls for the trustees to be reappointed   by 1.3.2000. This trust never met, did not have minutes, passed no resolutions held no assets and by its own terms ceased to exist 1.3.2003

Therefore the meeting in 2004   was by an unknown group of persons or person.

Now let’s look at the   Application for approved status 22 November 1999 how could this application have been made by those whose only act was to sign a trust deed  1.3.2000 , it is  customary for people to sign  such applications  to show that they consent to  it being made in their names.. This is not for a Sunday school picnic this is for law enforcement powers.

How could your deed   5 December 2006 revoke that deed when it was defunct   from 1.3.2003, there was nothing to revoke

In correspondence with   the AWINZ lawyer  Ben ATKINS  it  has become clear that  your lawyers think that AWINZ became the law enforcement authority   as set out in paragraphs 50-52 of their submissions  which read


“In paras 57-59, Ms Haden alleges that Mr Wells deceived the Court in “many ways” and in particular, she alleges that Mr Wells misrepresented that an application to the Minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999, was not the final application made. We assume that Ms Haden is referring to Mr Wells’ evidence given in Court when he said that MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until 1 January 2000, when the Animal Welfare Act 1999 was passed. Mr Wells went on to stay that a formal application could not be lodged before that time and that when the Act was passed, a formal application was made, and the trust deed was signed (refer CB p 340, L8-23).  Note how your lawyers cleverly  still put the application before the  signing of the deed , things just don’t happen in that order. 


Ms Haden’s claims of perjury in this regard are simply without any foundation. Mr Wells was entirely open with the Court about the formation with the trust and the application to be registered as an approved organisation. He noted that the November 1999 application was made, and this was attached to Mr Wells’ affidavit sworn 10 December 2007 (refer CB p 324, para 31 ). Further, the application was subsequently formalised, after discussions with government officials and further correspondence. In particular, Mr Wells sent a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture on 25 March 2000 to address various issues that had been raised, and to formalise the application (refer CB p 138- 144).


You will note that in the letter dated 25 March 2000 om page 7  Wells stated  Having provided all the additional information requested  over the past 3 months we trust you are now in a position to provide  approval in  our original application of November 1999.”


So how   can    the persons involved in AWINZ the law enforcement authority become involved without putting their names to the application?  The assurances were at all times that AWINZ was a body corporate a legal person in its own right… It never was… This has a major impact on   the administration of justice   it is creating a false person and by consenting to being part of this you are implicated and  for the actions for keeping that illusion alive  . The audit report quite categorically states bottom of page 5 AWINZ has not  been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . Neil Wells  deliberately deceived the  Minister  in his letter  25 March 2000


 A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause  20 (a) of the Deed.”


You will note that your deed or the deed of the defunct trust which you claim to have followed on from  , does not contain a section 20  a


Your trust and  the  2000 trust were never incorporated  so it was not your deed that was sent in to the  Minister  for registration  and  clearly was not the deed which Mr Wells was referring to.  So how could this be YOU !!!!!!


Conclusion: It is therefore   a different AWINZ    which   became the law enforcement authority

In the audit report Wells  contradicts his  own evidence to the court  Neil  is quoted as  saying on Page 4  Neil Wells (AWINZ Trustee) explained in his original application for AWINZ to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (dated 22 November 1999) that in 1996 AWS(animal welfare services made a strategic decision that “a not-for-profit body to act as the interface between community and service delivery” be formed. This strategy led to the formation of the animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), whose objective was “to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ the AWINZ trust  was established in March 2000.”


Wells also claims    that the objectives of AWINZ “was ” to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to  be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ You will note that there is no mention of this objective in the  trust deed    1.3.2000  which   you claim to  have as your origins that this objective is  expressed.


Neil Wells further stated that the principal purpose of AWINZ was to promote the welfare of.

Animals, and its aims were “to provide a national body to which Inspectors will be properly answerable”. How can that happen   through a trust which   did not meet   at all!!!!!!  Look at yourselves   you don’t meet you all know that  Neil wells is the  only person  who deals  with AWINZ the rest of you are there  to cover up .


 On that point  You  did not meet to change the  terms of the  trust deed which you signed, there are no minutes which show a resolution to change the objectives,  there are no meetings  after 5 Dec 2006   which  resolved  that you should become a charity .  I will get a full investigation into this you have been most fraudulent. Trustees have legal obligations   including the requirement of a meeting to decide to take legal action.

I believe that the only explanation is that the trust 1.3.2000 was not the law enforcement authority and Neil wells was   it all by himself and all the rest is a cover up to pervert the course of justice  something you have all conspired in.


There are many other   points I could raise which   have come to light due to the audit report    but I won’t go into that now   after all it is Christmas.

Those who want to save their necks   can do so now. I will hand over   the  $19,000 +   subject to being told   by all parties to the proceedings  that they consent to  it being  put into the  charities account   and acknowledging that the charity is  receiving  the money and know that it is money obtained by crime  in light of  this  detailed  letter.

I will not be responsible for any accrual of interest due to your delay

I will release the money as soon as  I have the assurances  and  also an explanation as to why  the charity is claiming the funds as theirs in the annual report  when they are not a party to the proceedings and how   they came to put the caveat over my property  , or if they did not put a caveat over my property  why they  filed false accounts.

 If I don’t hear by 31 december 4 pm   I will assume that You will not be responding   and won’t   be making any  demands on me  due to the fact that   you  are collecting the proceeds of a crime.

   Since its Christmas. Anyone who does not  wish to   be  prosecuted criminally next year   can come clean, I am sure the police  can  deal with   the issue. Having the matter before the court has held it back  but    all that is finished now     . You have cost me well over $300,000, my family and my marriage   I am not about to walk away from the crime you  have perpetrated,  You have  won the  battle  but not the war .

You will be   made accountable for your action and the part you played.   Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Those who facilitate corruption are art of it.

 You can’t put your name to something and then say you are not involved.

 Grace Haden

Copy on  as usual.

Letter to Wyn Hoadley

Dear Wyn (with copies to Wells and Coutts)

Bogus trusts are very much the issue in the news with Mr Brown receiving vast sums by way of donation through the invisible “New Auckland council trust”.

 The “New Auckland council trust” and the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) appear to have a lot in common – both are unincorporated trusts and both play a public role but do so through the interface of invisibility and fiction so as to conceal the truth.

 When you look at the chronology which the court has created  based on the uncorroborated evidence of Wells  and  the strength of your support by pretending to be AWIINZ the law enforcement authority and the 2000  trust.  

 22 November 1999 “AWINZ”   made an application for Approved status ( law enforcement powers  equivalent to those  held by the RNZSPCA )- an  unsigned deed is provided

1.3.2000 the alleged date that  the trust which made the above application was formed  despite the fact that not one of the trustees   signatures appears on the application form trust deed

January 2001 Minister grants  approval based on the application made december 1999application

1.3.2003 By the terms of the  deed  this trust ceased to exist trust deed ( trustees never met  held no assets were not reappointed as required )

April 2006     we prove conclusively that AWINZ does not exist

10 May 2006   you come onto the picture and  become trustee  of the defunct  trust through no visible or legal means and under a section which does not show in the trust deed supplied to me  by Wells in June 2006 see minutes and at a time when the deed was missing.. surpise surprise

June 2006 Maf supplied with a different copy of the trust deed by Neil Wells.

18 July 2006 despite the fact that  you have never traded as AWINZ  you take action ( along with Wells and Coutts ) for passing off and breach of fair trade  against myself and the legally incorporated trust whose  existence proved categorically  that  AWINZ did not exist.  In the  Statement of claim   you  falsely claim to be a trustee of the defunct .2000 trust    You also claim to be a law enforcement authority which made an application three months before this trust was formed and through an application which the parties to the 2000 deed were  not part of in any legal manner or form.

5 December 2006  a third trust deed   claiming to be continuation of the defunct trust, this becomes a charity  and uses charitable  funds obtained in 2005  by Mr Wells for  the litigation .

 For 7 ½ years you have kept up the lies in court   and you have sought to keep vital information from me.   When the information was released to me I took the matter back to court for obtaining a judgment by fraud, the 700 plus   government documents however mean nothing as your lawyers reputation is enough to refute everything with nothing more than his unsupported say so. (Old boy’s network strikes again)

 I realise now the lengths that lawyers go to to protect these secret trusts. I have discovered that the real secret is that they are a fictional creature which lawyers have created to circumvent the law.  

 Breathing life into   something which did not exist certainly fooled the courts and the only conclusion I can come to is that the courts   rely on the integrity of the lawyers and when the lawyers have no integrity   people like myself lose out.

 In my opinion  and based on the evidence which I have Neil Wells, lied to the court  and the court was confused as to who or what AWINZ was   and because you  and Graeme Coutts played a role  in this  deception I now have to pay you  Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts $15,074.25 to reward your lies and deceit .

 But as if that is not enough you are being paid personally for  funds which are due  to the trust which you set up  in December 2006   some 5 months after  you pretended to be a trustee and commenced legal action against myself and Verisure .In my book this is money laundering .

 This 2006 trust is now a charity, it has yet to carry out any charitable deeds but has done plenty of not so charitable things. Despite the objectives of the trust being to promote humane attitudes to animals and people, you have spent the last 7 ½ beating me up in court with lies to conceal the fact that AWINZ the law enforcement authority was a total fiction.

 As a lawyer and officer of the court you are now complicit in having used the civil court to pervert the course of justice    and having used the charitable funds which Mr Wells obtained from Beauty with compassion in 2005 to   fund this deceit. (misappropriation of charitable funds see  charity web site   )

 2014 is going to be a year of change, you will be held accountable for your deceit, it is well documented. But  before we come  to the accountability  phase  you need to be paid  for  the  lies you have perpetrated, the  decision  is binding and I have to fork out yet another   sum to  liars and cheats if I don’t  you will   take   bankruptcy action despite knowing that I am solvent  .  

 I am aware that the fictional AWINZ has a bank account at the national bank but that account is only administered by Neil Wells in a manner which conceals his identity ,this account was set up after the 2000 trust expired and before the 2006 trust  came into existence. But it appears that if something has a similar name it is one and the same.  – We now have case law on it.

 So with money to be paid I am therefore requesting that you advise me as to how this money should be paid and whom will not pay it to your lawyers, I find them most unethical and I will not give them another cent.  I want payment to be made in an open and transparent manner as your lawyers refuse to disclose who is being paid and who has demanded the sums.

 As I do not have a personal cheque book I will transfer it into a nominated bank account.

 Wyn you are a lawyer, you must be painfully aware of the consequences of obtaining a pecuniary advantage through deceit and that is why I want to know who is getting the money it is after all an ingredient of the charge.

 Being a lawyer does not mean you can be ignorant to the law?   You contort business practices to such an extent that they are nonsense, the court has been used to pervert the course of justice and I have been ordered to pay   so the   payment offer is here and will be made as soon as you give me a bank account number.

 Wyn I have spelt things out to you often enough and placed you on notice,  you cannot pretend to be ignorant  when you rip up the  very  documents  which I give to you to prove my  allegations .  You are in so deep that there is no saving you, you are a corrupt lawyer  a willing player in this deceit .  I want to put the final nail in so please give me your bank account number and I will pay you  the judgement sum  in full .

 I am serving this document on you, sending it by email and posting it on transparency so that there is a public record of the offer.

 If I do not hear from you , Wells or Coutts  by 4 pm Monday 23 December  2013  I will presume  that you prefer not to receive the money and  that you will not  be making   any  demand on me for payment. 

  All the best for Christmas

Regards Grace Haden


Request for Investigation into the New Auckland Council Trust .

brownFrom  Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 11:08 a.m.
To: Bruce Thomas (
Cc: Councillor Christine Fletcher (; ‘’ (
Subject: Complaint with regards to receipt of donations

 Good morning  Bruce.

I hereby make a request for investigation   into  the New Auckland Council trust  in accordance with section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001

 the New Auckland Council  trust  was used to pass on  sums ( according to the herald )  of $273,375 this year and $499,000  in the 2010 elections to Len Brown .

 The local  electoral act in its interpretation  section 103 a   states

 anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation, means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate who receives the donation—

  • (a) does not know the identity of the donor; and
  • (b) could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor

The “New Auckland Council  trust” is not identifiable , it is not a person in the legal or natural sense  , it is like Santa clause. How do we know it exists ? How do we know it is not just a made up name to conceal the identity of   the persons behind it  .

 Without   proper identification or proof of existence  the  new Auckland council  trust is just another   name for anonymous yet it is being treated as though it is a ( legal )  person  

 If it is a trust Various possibilities exist , Mr Brown  could be the settlor, the  trustee  and the  beneficiary/  how is the  trust set up? Is he  being honest with us  he wasn’t honest with his  wife ?

 Are the provisions of the deed  legal in any sense?  or is it just an excuse to  hide money ? How would anyone know to  make a donation to  it, by what means do  these people make donations to it ?  blank  envelopes ??

 The New Auckland council trust  is not registered under any legislation which would make  it a legal person in  its own right  or  gives it legal existence separate  from the  people who the trading name or  act as its trustees .The name needs to be clarified     to use the name as though it is a real person   is identity fraud.

In many aspects the new Auckland council  trust is like Santa and  while  we sometimes don’t  know  who “ Santa” is  we generally know  with   a high degree of certainty   who is posing as such.

 In the case of secret Santa  we generally  know  what group this secret Santa belongs to and we can show  our gratefulness to that  group .

 Therefore what   evidence is there that Mr  Brown  doesn’t know  who is represented by the new Auckland council  trust  and how do we know that he does not  feel obliged to them.   

 As a private Investigator  I have done substantial work on a group called the committee for Auckland , a recent  LGOIMA request  revealed  that 63 out of the 72   members of the committee for Auckland  hold contracts with council . This group of contractors play a vital role in the  running of council and even advise council, their future and their existence   depends on a mayor  accommodating  them, -could they be the  new Auckland council  trust, the name certainly fits their intent  as they were the very people  who promoted  the super city  and pushed for it.    

 Intuitively  I believe that this “ new Auckland Council  trust “ could well be a cover name  for   the committee for Auckland  so as to lend its support to   Mr Brown and I believe that Mr Brown  would  know   that the money came from them for his continued support .

 Mr Brown  appears to condone the use of  fictional trusts  and believe that  he  point blank dismissed investigation into a similar “ trust”  the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )which operated from council premises   and used council resources for the personal pecuniary  gain of the  manager of  the dog and stock division because investigation into AWINZ would  also bring about questions into the fictional “new Auckland Council  trust”  both have a lot in common   they are both fictional and are a  cover  for  corruption .

 There is a requirement for transparency    and  by using a name  of something which cannot be proved to exist  Mr Brown has not  made an accurate declaration on his return .Fiction has no place  in  election returns Mr Bron is a lawyer  he knows    the principles behind   the existence of a   legal person  and as a lawyer he also knows how to circumvent the law.

 Section 112 A requires the name of a donor  .. something which  does not exist cannot donate , neither can it have an address.    I further request   that an investigation   be conducted as to why  112A  was not complied with

 Unincorporated trusts only  exist through their respective trustees  and  there is therefore a need for the  trustees  to be identified  on the return as the persons who gave the   donation   and  if  it is from a trust there is  a need  to show that  this trust  deed is legal and intended the  recipient to be Mr Brown and not others .  (how do we know that the deed has been lawfully executed  if the deed exists.. other  beneficiaries i.e. mayoral candidates could well have missed out )

 I there for request  that urgent investigations are undertaken   into the  New Auckland  council trust  to establish,   its legal existence, the  identity of the settlor, the trustees and identify the beneficiaries and have this information disclosed publicly in a transparent manner 103C Donations to be transmitted to candidatemakes it  clear that  the donations are transmitted through a person..  the  new Auckland trust is not a person   it is a bunch of words strung together to give the illusion of the existence of a ( legal ) person

 I also request that   in accordance with section 103F Identity of donor to be disclosed by transmitter, if known   is  complied with it  requires  accountability on the transmitter,  where   the    donation is made through a phantom trust or a fictional being there can be no accountability  or obligation , one has to question  how something which does not exist  can transmit  a donation.. who is the person   who acted  and why are they hiding ?

  I also request this matter to be passed on to the Police  for  an investigation  into   whether or not this trust which I believe is run by the committee  for Auckland  is being  used to  influence  contracts and governance of Auckland.

 Should the  trust not be identifiable and the deed not forthcoming I ask that  a declaration is made that the  money was received anonymously and treated in accordance with   section section 103j for transfer into the general account .

 I request this investigation in terms of section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001  for both the 2010 and 2013   mayoral campaigns  

 In the interest of transparency I am publishing this request on the  transparency   NZ  blog


Grace Haden

 transparency new zealand

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