Archive for January 2014
open letter to Suzanne Snively this will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz in response to your email to Vince Siemer
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.
Executive Chair, TINZ
Please find here with your linked in page from last year which I saved and is attached . You will note that it states
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.
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.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Many 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