Transparency New Zealand

From  Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 11:08 a.m.
To: Bruce Thomas (Bruce.Thomas@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Cc: Councillor Christine Fletcher (christine.fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz); ‘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 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 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

  Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz