Archive for December 2013
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
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 .
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
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.
Copy on transparency.net.nz as usual.
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
From Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 11:08 a.m.
To: Bruce Thomas (Bruce.Thomas@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Cc: Councillor Christine Fletcher (firstname.lastname@example.org); ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
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 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 candidate– makes 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
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz