Archive for January 2014

Transparency International Director Suzanne Snively makes false allegation of defamation

open letter to  Suzanne Snively   this will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz  in response to  your email to Vince Siemer

From: suzanne.snively@gmail.com Subject: Re: Transparency International New Zealand and Forbes Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:12:08 +1300 To: vsiemer@hotmail.com

Dear Vince,

 Please stop defaming me. I do Not trade under the TI name or under the TINZ name (or a fictitious version) in any way.

 Nor does the New Zealand government or any government agency fund me or my personal activities.

 Yours sincerely,

Suzanne Snively

Executive Chair, TINZ


Dear Suzanne                                                    

 Please find here with  your linked in page  from last year which I saved  and is attached . You will note that it states

Executive Chair

Transparency International New Zealand Ltd

November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand

As a country with low corruption, New Zealand has the potential to be an examplar to others,

demonstrating how this can improve business profitability through lower cost of doing business in

overseas countries, better access, lower cost of capital and for those listed companies, a higher

yeilding share price. 

 Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn

I notice that you have now changed it http://www.linkedin.com/pub/suzanne-snively-onzm/27/92b/56b

  and  you   who defend   no corruption in NZ  now accuse Vince of defamation ..  isn’t that   under hand ????

 As to the funding You may wish to refer to  your own correspondence  which shows   who your sponsors are.  They look suspiciously  like   Government departments . I have taken the liberty of  saving those documents as well .

 Unlike transparency international Inc  , Transparency New Zealand  is totally self-funded  and receives no   funds from any one

We are totally independent and do not have connections  with international banks  such as credit Suisse  ( previously Jarden & Co) or  large  audit companies  who promote NZ as an investment  centre.

I have  for years tried to  tell you about  corruption in New Zealand  but you deliberately turn a blind eye/ Deaf ear.  The instance I have is that of identity fraud ,Funny then that you should  change the identity of  the company you  claimed to represent  ( by the way  who or what is New Zealand Army Leadership Board)

I see identity fraud in companies all the time I know   how  corruption is perpetrated in New Zealand through our slack controls and systems , it  must be heaven for money launders.

 New Zealand   keeps its “ least corrupt” status through your hard work  -as an economist you must be aware that an unblemished reputation is vital  to business growth  so let’s encourage some  growth  .

 As a former Police  officer and now Private Investigator  I find that    honesty is the best policy  and I would rather be in  a corrupt country knowing it is  corrupt than a country which uses  smoke screens and mirrors   to hide  corruption.

 I  have conclusive evidence of  a person writing legislation for  his own business plan .. advising on the   legislation and then applying for law enforcement powers under a fictitious name .. and getting it   due to deceiving  the minister.

He then ran this operation from council premises using council resources and infrastructure .

He covered up using a fictional trust  which I can prove is  fictional  but  I can’t get the court to comprehend this overwhelming evidence.

 This is  all apparently condoned in New Zealand     its not corrupt  therefore  there is no corruption .

 When Vince  questioned the  ethics of  Stiassny,  he  promptly had his arse sued off .. can’t have any one questioning  our business practices.. what will the world think ?

 Suzanne  when   we have to  lose  your home  , marriage , go to jail  and/or  substantial sums of money as  a result of being a whistle-blower on serious    government  corruption  then   NZ cannot claim to be the least corrupt.

 The least corrupt  country would have  procedures in place to investigate such claims and would take notice of  the evidence placed before the court.  Instead we allow the civil court to be used to pervert the course of justice .

 The least corrupt country would not facilitate a business man paying crown law office to drop 22 fraud charges , they would make him face the court and let the  judge decide.

 Suzanne  you  can’t keep your head in the sand and plead ignorance  , you are deliberately portraying New Zealand   to be corruption free by ignoring  stories of real  corruption which are being ignored by the very government departments   who support your organisation and pay your wages for the   so called integrity study.

 You must know that  if you do an honest integrity study  your funders  will not support you next time round, and you will find yourself  like me doing it all for NIX  , I can tell you it’s not easy.

 Suzanne You claim to be the director of Transparency International New Zealand Ltd when there is no such company  , you apparently don’t know  the difference between an  incorporated society  and a limited liability company.

You  probably wouldn’t recognise corruption if you fell across it.. it’s not just bribery , it  goes deeper than that  and if you were truly interested you would sit  down and talk to persons  such as Vince and myself instead of threatening   defamation.. we have both been there  done that .. boring.

 When you take time to look at actual case studies of  corruption in New Zealand  and report  your finding  from both sides   then you would be giving  a  fair picture, but when you totally exclude people from your organisation because they have a corruption story to tell  then you are showing bias which in a situation such as your   is  in my opinion- a corrupt practice. 

 I have asked to join many times  but You have told me that my company name is too close and that is why I can’t join.. for the record   I  tried to join  about three times before   I set up the company  .. Transparency  New Zealand is a limited liability company  you are transparency International  ( New Zealand )  Inc .. quite different.

 Any house wife will tell you that you can  sweep dirt under the rug  for so long  but sooner or later it is  will start to smell. In Auckland    we  can smell it  , we can see it  and we are   just waiting for    the  government to cover it up and tell us that we were all  wrong about  our Mayor ….  see no corruption.

 See no evil speak no evil  let’s keep those foreign investments rolling in  keep the  share prices up .   Good for economy.


Regards

Grace Haden

transparency NZ

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

The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on

 

EYMany New Zeallanders don’t grasp the concept that there are two  types of  person , there  are the living  breathing people ( and I  guess those who no longer breath )   who are called natural persons  and then there are the “legal persons”  which are companies , trusts , societies & organization which have had  body corporate status  assigned to them through  statute.

Only  legal and natural people can  sue or be sued. In a nut shell Legal & natural  people can be identified and held accountable .

There is a trend in NZ to use trading names , it is always a good idea to know and to have it in writing  just who is using  a particular trading name  because you cannot sue  the trading name or recover a debt from it  or seek accountability for   statements made    as this has to be done through the legal person who uses that name.

The independent EY  report  into Len Brown is located at this  link , (which  reportedly cost $200,000  to produce ) is unsigned  and  does not  disclose  any real or natural persons who take responsibility for the accuracy of the document .WE presume that it  comes from  Ernst & Young Ltd  Show Details as this is the only company registered under the Private security and personnel act. but then it does not disclose  who the investigator /s were. – wish I had their job I certainly cant  charge sums like that .

EY in this document is defined as ( emphasis mine )

“EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.”

It is important   for an investigator to be identifiable  and if Ernst and young Limited are the investigators  why   not say so.. or are they ashamed to put their name to the document?

So   who was the legal person   who  compiled the report   with no one identifiable and the page of disclaimers the  document  could   easily be totally fictional as there is no way that any one can be held accountable for the accuracy of  its content.  The investigation could have been completed by one of the many other EY companies  who have no   licence to investigater.. its all open to speculation and assumption  which must reflect on the     accuracy of the content.

Based on the  content however the council  has acted and censured the mayor.. What is the reality    what does the report not reveal ?

EY had  just finished  compiling a report commissioned by the mayor on PPPS  Access the report here  . If a 19 page document cost $200,000  we can only speculate what the 67  page document was  worth , so EY  had a vested interest in remaining  loyal to the had which pays them.. Len Brown . In all fairness you cannot say that the EY report is ” independent ”  as   1. we don’t know   who conducted the   inquiry   and 2. EY companies  had a vested interest in preserving a working relationship with the  mayor.

Current EY companies in NZ are

ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)  Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67

ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89

ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99

ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99

ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02

ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated  20-May-10

so which one did the investigation ?

Can you rely on an entity  which hides behind an undefined trading  name ?  It is great to advise and consult  from a point of anonymity .. all care  no responsibility .

smoke screens and mirrors      watch this space for more  on EY.   clue  TOP SECRET INVITATION LIST WIDENS BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT CHASM