Archive for May 2017
There is profit in animals .. or why is the RNZSPCA restructuring and what is Neil Wells connection.
May 31, 2017 | 
Author 
The Poster shown along side comes from a 1998 document which was presented to the Waitakere city council by Neil Wells when he was first promoting himself and the concept of a trust to the Waitakere city council . He has not been devoting his life to animal welfare out of any charitable purpose his fees were shown to be $19950 for a three month project ( this was in 1998 )see page 17 . But his ultimate goal was gold . Something got in the way .. me well Neil if you had not sued me, denied me a right to justice and continued to impose in my life you may have got away with the perfect fraud.
On the occasion of the publication of this poster , he calls the proposed trust ” national animal welfare trust of new Zealand ” He was to later incorporate a trust by the name of the national animal welfare trust with a Canadian gentle man Michael Edward O’Sullivan the trust still exists I don’t think it functions but it proves at least that Neil wells knew the process of incorporating trust the trust deed is located here . It was registered 28 July 1999 ( it also proves that he lied to the minister in correspondence but more on that later )
Currently the RNZSPCA is talking about amalgamating its various branches , this is, I believe again due to the profit in animals. Events like the Betty Napier trust where 1 million dollars was left to a region left various branches fighting over the spoils.
So Instead of planting a tree and using the fruits they chopped the funds up and burnt it in a very short time , I would speculate boldly on hefty consultant fees .
Historically the SPCA gets a lot of bequests , but with more charities the spoils are smaller and those who want corporate wages (while volunteers slave away over cat trays) are constantly wanting more .
I have it on good authority that Neil Wells was one such person he could not even wait for the poor old duck to pass on before he started dipping into her funds and in my sincere opinion everything he did he apparently did for $$$ not for the love of animals .
Wells uses people e.g Sarah Elliot has been associated with him for a very long time and a search on her name shows her up to her neck in the activity of the RNZSPCA take over and the mysterious administration tactics used to take over control of incorporated societies. . Sarah Elliot worked on the lord of the rings trilogy in 1999 supposedly for the fictional AWINZ see also the AHA investigation
I am going to refer to the following documents found on the incorporated societies web site
the 1975 document is actually the constitution of the federation it is signed on the margins and at the bottom By Neil Wells
the 1979 Constitution is again that of the federation filed for the RNZSPCA
Wells had been the president of the RNZSPCA He left the SPCA rather allegedly left in 1978 but obviously still had involvement in 1979 and 1981 as his signature appears on the alteration of rules During this time he was obtaining his law degree CV attached to this letter I believe it was funded by the the RNZSPCA . He returned and appears to commence the restructure of the RNZSPCA contemporaneously with the setting up of AWINZ 
In my experience I have noticed that Wells works with a process of making small changes and suggesting that things exist when they actually do not, He makes mistakes and over sights which are intentional and all part of his plan to bring about a massive change one step at a time
Basically Wells signed the constitution changes between 75 & 83 and the next big one was signed by Graeme Coutts
I believe he was responsible for dissolving the federation which had been formed on 09-AUG-1965 . The federation was formed when various the various societies set up one the federation to provide a link between the various bodies .
1995 saw the next big change this was at the time that Neil Wells was at the time when Neil Wells was promoting his concept of territorial animal welfare offices a link between councils and animal welfare .
the membership criteria for the organisation which was
restricted to the branches and the member societies now had a further four categories annual members, corporate members Life members and honorary life members . The RNZSPCA was now no longer a body whihc was controlled by the member societies and Branches. It had taken on a life of its own .
It is interesting that this constitution change occurred when Neil wells had an office on the same floor as the RNZSPCA along with the JP who witnessed the changes Graeme Coutts 
Graeme Coutts will become more significant as we go along . evidence of their offices being on the same floor is here . see contacts RNZSPCA and company records for Coutts for Neil Wells see bottom of first page on this document
When the RNZSPCA shifted, Graeme Coutts shifted with them and was again in an office adjacent to the RNZSPCA. The address is shown on the annual return in 2004 which is signed off by Mr Joe Bloggs ( are you kidding me ? what happened to transparency )
Wells went on to write the animal welfare bill and advised on it and made provisions for his own business plan and made the fraudulent application to the minister in the name of AWINZ .
in 2006 when we proved conclusively that AWINZ did not not exist , Neil Wells created an identically named trust and roping in Barrister Wyn Hoadley who did not ask any questions and appears to know nothing of the laws surrounding trusts .
Wells set up a new trust also called AWINZ and because the names were the same falsely alleged that this trust was the law enforcement body .
Wyn Hoadley had been on the animal welfare advisory board was a QSM, a title which put her beyond question . this is after all about reputation and not about evidence .
And so she was appointed to the the alleged board of the fictional AWINZ at a time when the trust deed was missing ( that was no surprise the ink was probably still drying ) and without following prescribed procedure under the charitable trust act. see the minutes all was going well but then Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap who Wells had alleged were trustees got cold feet and resigned .
Nuala I believe was the widow of a former Judge and Sarah Giltrap the daughter in Law of the Giltrap family. again by using well known people there is a protection as these people trust and believe barristers and like little animals they don’t ask too many questions and stand by when a whistle-blower is beaten to pulp.
So in desperation Tom Didovich became the fourth trustee Tom Didovich was the manager of dog and stock control in Waitakere who had been a naughty boy and had to resign. Wells took his job to conceal the plot that was in the making .
Tom Didovich went to the RNZSPCA and worked there for a while before becoming a Councillor at talking works see the post Talking Works Tom Didovich! Tom is very much an accessory to this fraud having given consents to MAF on behalf of Waitakere city council way beyond his pay station .
Neil Wells Moved to Te Kuiti and organised the demise of the local SPCA again coming up with false identities see
The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.
Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction
Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA committee resigns
Now on the agenda is the amalgamation of all the local SPCA’s this is akin to asset stripping the process is back to front and No one will be able to convince me that Neil Wells is not behind this some how.
see Open letter to Maria Clarke lawyer for the RNZSPCA
Members in local SPCAs are not allowed to know who the other members are, there are many branches which have been placed into ” administration ” when no such facility exists . Its a power game more information to come on why the Animal welfare act is so very dangerous.
In the mean time I would love some one to supply me with any notices which give legitimacy to the 1995 and 2015 constitution changes , the local Branches were asked to adopt these changes in the end this was all about $$$$ in animals
next up how to move $400,000 side ways.. the Waikato spca or is that the spca Waikato why the SPCA pleads poverty
Posted in 
Waitakere council Fraud Public office for private pecuniary gain
The evidence will follow there is a ton of it the buildings above are council buildings which Neil Wells re branded to appear like his fake animal welfare trust
the logo at the top right is the logo he used on his fake trusts letter heads . It made every one think that it was a real organisation and owned the property it was in fact the council pound. Where Neil wells was manager he got the job without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest see his job application here and the documents he had signed in his capacity for the fake trust MOU waitakere
MAF in a an audit had trouble differentiating the approved organisation from the council see the audit report
Helping the Napier Police catch real criminals ..
Good Morning Detective Simcox
I am so pleased that you are not busy with real crime this means that you will have time to look at this old file
step 1. Please obtain the police file which I provided to the police many years ago and remains untouched
I will go through the steps to help you under stand it Please note there are links in this document which open up the evidence
the first part of the complaint relates to the circumstances of setting up AWINZ
to help you understand the animal welfare institute of New Zealand had coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act
see section 120 of the animal welfare act
an approved organisation is approved organisation means an organisation declared, under section 121, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act
121Approved organisations
(1)The Minister may from time to time, on the application of any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in theGazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.
(2)The application must include—
(a)the full name and address of the applicant; and
(b)the area in which the applicant will, if declared to be an approved organisation, operate as an approved organisation; and
(c)information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 122.
The RNZSPCA is an approved Organisation m the RNZSPCA is an incorporated society and therefore by definition a legal person .
The animal welfare institute of New Zealand on the other hand was a totally fictional organisation in 1999 and did not exist in any other form than as a name which Neil Wells, the author of the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act and ” independent adviser” to the select committee.
In a hand book written for animal welfare students by Mr Wells he himself gives an outline of what approved organisations are note that it states “In deciding whether to recognise an organisation, the Bill provides that the Minister must be satisfied that an organisation meets specific criteria including adequate provision for training of Inspectors, robust accountability, financial and management arrangements and absence of conflicts of interest.”
He was motivated to extend the power of animal welfare enforcement beyond the police, and the RNZSPCA because he had been voted off the RNZSPCA he had developed his own business plan to amalgamate dog and stock control a local body responsibility with animal welfare a central government responsibility he called this plan the Territorial animal welfare
while writing he bill and advising on the new legislation he starts feeding the name AWINZ to MAF and pretending that it exists an early concept of his plan was shown by him as shown below or at the link
Where the diagram shows Wells and associates this part later became the fictional AWINZ .
In 1998 Wells promotes AWINZ by way of borchure each time inferring that AWINZ exists bu the reality is that id does not exist .
When the bill is about to pass into law he writes to MAF and files a notice of intent for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority under the new act
this notice falsely claims that the applicant is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .
He also includes his cover sheet showing that he is a barrister . A barrister would know that only real and legal persons can make applications. He fraudulently signs it “For the Board of Trustees of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ” He knew that there was no board, or trustees and this was all part of the overall fraud on the government.
Maf sets out the criteria for approved organisations the discussion shows that this excludes individuals it specifically states ..
this posed a problem for wells as there was no trust so He made his formal application on 22 November 1999 making multiple fraudulent assertions that the animal welfare institute of New Zealand exists and that he himself is a trustee.
He attaches a un-executed trust deed and falsely states that the trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is being registered under Part 11 of the charitable trust act .
the significance of incorporation is set out here , it makes a trust comprising of a group of people a legal entity in its own right
AWINZ was not a trust it did not have a signed trust deed , it was a total fiction, it could not apply for incorporation because the first thing it needed was a trust deed.
more on the fraudulent application tomorrow .
Your home work for today is to learn to understand what a trust is and the effect of incorporation
also crimes act 1961 240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
in that Neil wells obtained law enforcement powers for himself through deception
Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
(a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(c)induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
Please let me know if there is something you don’t understand happy to help
More tomorrow
Nicholas Simcox of Napier Police bullies Whistleblower because he refuses to investigate serious fraud.
I was just going to bed and checked my emails and saw the following from Nicholas Simcox , I will respond by way of open letter and again copying in the prosecution section .
From: SIMCOX, Nicholas [mailto:Nicholas.Simcox@Police.Govt.NZ]
Sent: Monday, 29 May 2017 8:29 p.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: Blog 24/05/2017
Evening Ms Haden
I am writing to advise that by attaching the letter from the Ministry of Justice to your blog, you have again breached the suppression order. You need to remove this letter immediately. You have also breached your Court bail conditions and if you do not remove the post, you run the risk of being arrested for breaching your conditions of bail and will be put back before the Court.
I will be filing a further breach of suppression order charge for your next Court appearance date on 7 June 2017.
Regards
Nicholas SIMCOX | Detective | CIB | Crime Squad 4 | NAPIER
My open letter response to Nicholas Simcox is
I am very disappointed in your ability to investigate.
It proves to me why in over 11 years the police have not been able to progress the serious fraud that I have reported with regards to a fraudulent application for law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act .
You have charged me with four counts of breaching a suppression order made under the lawyers and conveyancers act act.
You have quoted the sections as being breaching an order made under section 240 (1) (c)
I asked for a copy of the order and you sent me an almost entirely redacted document see here alleged suppression order
I hate to have to tell you how to do your job but the way it works is that there has to be an order before any one can breach the order.
I would be surprised if the office of legal council from the MOJ sent this letter to you , it has not been addressed to the police and I would hope that a lawyer would know that if a statute states
240 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:
(a)an order prohibiting the publication of any report or account of any part of any proceedings before it, whether held in public or in private:
(b)an order prohibiting the publication of the whole or any part of any books, papers, or documents produced at any hearing:
(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.
Basically this means that an order has to be made by the tribunal under “a” ” b” or “c ” so where is that order ?
In the on line version of the document of the document you appear to rely on ,the full text can be read it is found here https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016nzlcdt34-waikatobayofplenty-standardscommittee-v-mr-m.pdf ..published on the tribunals web site ,( which I found only after you provided me with the case number) you will note that there is no order under section 240 (1) ( a ) (b) or (c) so I am really confused as to how you came to inserting an alleged charge under section 240 1 (c) in the charge document as such an order was never made.
You appear to rely on this document letter to police from justice which you gave to me with the persons name inserted. Dis you then not breach a suppression order as well . I note that this is a letter from the case manager to their lawyers not a complain to the police . You have not advised how you got to have the complaint , there appears to be no complainant.
The other little technicality is that no one can breach an order which has not been made .
263Publication
(1)Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).
Please urgently provide me with the order that you are referring to . If you cannot provide an order then you will have to withdraw the charges.
Keeping a practitioners name confidential for the purpose of the tribunal is restricted to those involved in the processes. I was not part of that process , I speculated the identity of the lawyer from a new item and you have helped confirm that it was him.
Please read the full decision it will show you the kind of person Mr M is and will also reveal to you that the only orders made were
Consequential Orders
[29] We consider that it is proper for the order for repayment of the fee rendered to the complainant by the practitioner, in the sum of $3,648.94, be refunded to the complainant.
[30] We decline to make an order for compensation to cover the costs of subsequent legal advice for the complainant. There are a number of reasons for this. The invoices include attendances at the Citizens Advice Bureau, attendances in relation to the matters for which the complainant will have received value in terms of general legal advice which she would have been required to pay for in any event. Finally, we do not wish to encourage complainants to engage counsel once a complaint is made, given that they are then represented by the Standards Committee counsel and there is a risk of duplication of costs and unfairness thereby to the lawyer concerned. We accept that in this case the complainant was somewhat impaired, however we do not consider this ought to change our approach in this matter.
I suggest that you also read my bail conditions it states that I was not to publish his name , I therefore would like you to clarify the threat of arrest . I have not published his name.
I would further By way of discovery like to know who the complainant was as who ever it was ,has made a false complaint . there is no evidence of a complaint and a clerk for the tribunal is not in any position to dictate to you the act and section which they think were breached that letter is an internal communication, the only breach of a suppression order is by the person releasing that letter to you and you by releasing that letter to me .
Please do not confuse suppression with publication it could be career limiting. I think your out of your depth..It pays to research.
I will be pursuing damages if you do not immediately provide me with a copy of the order made under section 240 (1) (c) .
If you cannot produce it then you will have to withdraw the charges as I cannot breach a fictional order . I will be suing for damages you are seeking to damage my reputation .
I see your threats as bullying I have not breached bail I was bailable as of right and should not have had any restrictions imposed , the restrictions are that I must not publish his name or his clients name in relation to he suppression order . I don’t even know who his client was so how could I possibly breach that .
Any way in charging me with the sections you have the charge should read “did breach a non publication order “. but that is where you come unstuck there is no order and neither is there an offence for breaching suppression if there was a suppression order .
I look forward to receiving a copy before 10 am tomorrow morning
Go and catch a few real criminals or spend some time looking at the fraud complaint which relates to the animal welfare institute of New Zealand I will help with a daily blog to provide you with the evidence you should be looking at .
regards Grace Haden
Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions
The officer in charge prosecutions pps.napier@police.govt.nz, copy to minister of justice
This morning I appeared in the Napier district court
I have been charged with four counts of ” while a suppression order was in place Published the name of a person who has been granted name suppression”
I have been bailed to appear in two weeks time The conditions are to live in the house where I live any way and not to publish the name of the Practitioner and his former client with relation to the suppression order .
the four offences being as this one but on the dates 
18 April 2017 the post being Was XXXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone? ( now sanitized to comply with bail conditions )
9 May 2017 Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs
17th May 2017 Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption
22nd May 2017 Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower
The problem is in the discovery which you have supplied me does not support the charges . letter to police from justice alleged suppression order
As a former police prosecutor I identify the matters which you have to prove as being
- that there was a legal suppression order
- that the suppression order was with regards to the person named
- That I knew it was the person named referred to in the article and not just speculation
to that end you were to provide me by way of discovery a suppression order, this is the first issue
If you were to search the lawyers and conveyances act you will note that there is no scope for suppression orders in that legislation . The word suppression only appears three times see this
being
- 235 Quorum…which relates to interim name suppression orders), and for the purposes…
- Schedule 6 Enactments amended…in the Act(s). Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (2002 No 34…
- 1 Title…the making of interim name suppression orders (to align it with…
This makes it clear that there can be no orders for Name suppression under the lawyers and conveyances act
Yet the charge sheet clearly states that there was a suppression order and I breached it .
The alleged suppression order that was supplied to me was almost totally redacted showing only two paragraphs
From the redacted version I presume that you rely on paragraph 28 for the existence of a order yet it states only
” [28] Given that there is no risk to the public posed by this practitioner in the future,we consider that the combination of factors referred to above do, in this unusual set of
circumstances, justify the permanent name suppression of the practitioner, his former client and any identifying details.”
this left me to wonder if there was an order some where else in the document. How that I had a court number I ws able to search the tribunals web site and located the full underacted document the on the Justice web site see this link here
reading this document we note that the law society opposed the the suppression application and under orders there is no mention of any order in terms of section 240(1) (c) and it could well be that the suppression was given for the purposes of their published decision only.
As such there appears to be no evidence of existence of an order under section 240(1) (c) being
240 Restrictions on publication
(1)If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:……
(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.
Since no such order exists so it would appear that I have been wrongly charged as no one can breach an order which has not been made and section 263 states
Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).
Until I received the discovery today I was unaware of the content of the decision I was merely commenting on a news item on the law society web site . “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer
I was not at the hearing and the information I had was nothing I gained from any tribunal process but knew from my own involvement with mr X
Mr XXXX is in the habit of telling the government and other people what to do and they accept that what he tells them is true Because he was a barrister. he continually gives false information and again he has made out to the case manager for the tribunal * that there was a decision in his favour when none existed. As Usual No one checks .
the full version of the decision states
He has been an advisor to Government.
His reputation with government is such that he is trusted to the point that the trust in him allows him to perpetrate offences such as making a fraudulent application to the minister of agriculture for a fictional trust to be granted law enforcement powers under the legislation which he advised on and wrote to facilitate his own business plan
I have 12 years of experience of this and this again is an example of mr XXX saying jump and every one says how high and again he gets to get away with his crimes. This time he has had me charged when there are no grounds and because he says so.
If only 1/10th of the effort had gone into him that has gone into me then he would be behind bars.
I will be providing transparency to this matter through this site using this site . I am a whistle blower and in 11 years the police have not acted yet mr X writes to the ministry of justice and within two weeks I am charged with four offences I could not have committed .
I look forward to whistle blowers being taken seriously , I don’t care about mr XXX health he did not care about me when he destroyed my family and repeatedly tried to bankrupt me, his dirty tactics are un unprecedented. His ability to call the authorities to action show the the regard they have for him and how the bias wold possibly have prevented investigations in to his very public fraud .
I note that this week is anti bullying week and I can assure you I feel bullied.
Your officers have to ensure that the ingredients of an offence are met and they fall well short even to the extent of supplying me a redacted document when the full version is publicly available.
Request to prosecutions
Due to your lack of evidence I request that
- the charges are withdrawn forth with
- That I receive an apology
- that the police deal with the historic file relating to the fraudulent application for law enforcement powers
- the use of the civil court to conceal criminal action
- and the identity fraud practiced using various AWINZ trusts.
- there is more e.g. misappropriation of charitable funds but in the fist instance please provide the order or withdraw the charges.
Should you continue with the prosecution I will be pleading not guilty and will seek indemnity costs for my legal representation . loss of income and stress caused.
regards Grace Haden
Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower
Whose side are the police on !! this after noon I received a phone call from Detective Simcox he told me that he wanted to talk to me about the breach of suppression order. I asked him who it was regarding and he told me he could not say so as this would breach the suppression order. I replied that not being able to tell me who it is in relation to would make things very interesting .
He then said that it was with regards to a lawyer who I had mentioned in blogs and who had had his name suppressed by the law society . I said XXXXX he said yes. To which I roared with laughter and said thank you for confirming my suspicions.
He asked if he could come and speak to me about it , I said there was no point I did not believe that I had breached an order as I had never seen one and did not know what the scope of it was if there was one and I was not a party to the hearing.
I told him to send me a copy of any order and on receipt I would immediately comply with it .
I invited him to come round on the condition that he would investigate the frauds relating to Mr XXXXXX, but he said he would not be doing that .
Less than 10 minutes later I was served a summons. Two cops came to my door to deliver it . I told them that the summons did not fairly inform me of a charge it simply said that on 18 April, 9 May and 17 May I breached a suppression order under the lawyers and conveyances act
the posts which they are referring to are
Was XXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone? I have since taken this down and amended the following
Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs
Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption
This obviously means that the police have read these posts and are choosing to defend a fraudster and crucify a whistle blower. this is despite the fact that I have had complaints in with the SFO and police for years see letter from Bill Searle AWINZ corruption letter sfo & sfo letter and sfo email
Auckland University Law Professor Bill Hodge said it was ”ironic” that someone from the legal profession should be keeping their name secret when openness was one of the key attributes of a democratic legal system.
”Justice is a public virtue. It should not be like a priesthood with secret rites behind closed doors and in secret chambers.”
Hodge said if lawyers faced allegations relating to conduct then they deserved to be known by the public.
”People should be able to take those into account when choosing a lawyer. Clients should be able to make an informed decision.”
He said lawyers, like any other profession, should be subject to open court action.
Hodge said he disagreed with the argument that a lawyer’s reputation would be tarnished even if he or she was cleared.
”They can tell the truth about that too. People will judge them with the view that they were wrongly charged.”
The Government has recently moved to tighten up name suppressions which it said were being granted ”too readily and inconsistently”.
The Criminal Procedure Bill was passed in October and comes into effect in March.
It clarifies that ”wealth, reputation or public awareness” should not be taken into account when judges grant name suppression see more
Ironically the comment made by a police woman on a police file about me in 2012 was so confidential that I was not allowed to see it yet it ended up having an impact on my career in 2017 and splashed all over the papers.
this is just so in line with my last post re whistle blowers
What makes it even more interesting is that there is no such offence as breaching a suppression order , pity they had to be in such a rush and were not able to check the law before they dashed off to serve me .
the summons was under section 28 criminal Procedure act
28 Summons in relation to charge may be served
(1)A constable or any other person may issue and serve a summons on a person if that constable or other person—
(a)has good cause to suspect that the person has committed an offence
Now Good cause to suspect can only come after identifying the act and section
It would appear that in his haste detective Simcox did not identify any offence or even investigate that there was one. will be interesting to see what he comes up with .. will keep you posted.
Have just spoke to detective Simcox who informs me that I have breached section 241 c of the lawyers and conveyancers act and section 263 1 & 2 .
Obviously this is being driven by some one who want to see my Private investigator licence revoked section 241 doe snot even apply to any one other then lawyers and relates to appearing before the disciplinary tribunal
section 263 relates to the breach of an order to that end I have invited him to send me a copy of the order and on receipt of it and noting its validity I will remove all content which is in breach of the order . he told me that he knew it existed , I told him that after 15 years in the police Iknew that cops can tell lies and that I want a copy of the order so that I could see for myself. I cannot comply with an order if I don’t know it exists or what the order is.
he said he would check with the legal team , I told him if I don’t know what the order is then I do have a lawful excuse.
Strangely enough wouldn’t it have been good police work if Simcox or some one had said here is an order it appears your in breach of it . rather than we are going to prosecute you were not giving you any info…
I have now spoken to his boss senior sergeant Darren Pritchard. I explained the background with he who must not be named and asked for a copy of the suppression order, he said that he did not have a copy of it but I would get one as soon as they had it. I told him that I was prepared to take the name down but I should not be charged as I have not got a copy of the suppression order and don’t know the terms . he said I would get things under discovery.
I am totally astounded that the police act so quickly for me naming now a confirmed corrupt lawyer . The complaint was made by the ministry of justice who on their web site say this about corruption https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/bribery-corruption/
and https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/bribery-corruption/how-to-report/
I think I have just proved how dangerous New Zealand is with regards to exposing corruption.
Corruption In New Zealand .. Practiced and concealed at highest levels.
A news item was sent on to me this morning Whistleblowers tell of ‘incredible’ day their jobs were axed
The workers at the Ministry of transport noticed false invoices raised their concern and lost their jobs. The boss Martin Matthews apparently did not act despite widespread concerns he has now been appointed Auditor General.
As we have shown earlier the auditor generals office is the Platinum supporter of Transparency International NZ who work so had to ensure that New Zealand retains its ” least perceived corruption status” .
As for integrity there is none .. as integrity would reveal that there is fraud and corruption in New Zealand and by far the easiest way to avoid fraud and corruption is not to define them or have policies whihc seek to identify them
Currently the New Zealand police do not generally investigate fraud, it is handed to the SFO who have a very high threshold in $$$$
Its all based on economics meaning that we can turn a blind eye to losses which would cost less than they would to police and prosecute.
This may be a great business model in the first year but what happens in the second and third when those without stringent ethics realize that they can do such things and not be caught .. well it becomes a free for all.. I know about such things because I am a MUM .
Let a kid get away with something and it become s the norm . so where do you set the threshold for theft , fraud.. is there a $ value or is the very act of fraud and theft and offence .. bit like Parking .. park 10 minutes over time you are fined but you can commit all the fraud you like and get away with it .
If you are caught out and are fortunate enough to belong to a wider network and have friends in high places then you are protected. Bit Like Mr Gavin Hunt of signature homes who had his very own tame judge sit on the case.
Justice Woolford has not just a share holder in a company Hunt directed but Woolford became a shareholder when the company was formed and the shareholders appoint the directors Hunt’s directors certificate is dated 28 August 06 and Woolford’s 29 August 06. this is a massive project meaning that the two would have been known to each other in more than a passing manner.
If our courts have integrity the judges would not place themselves in a position of conflict of interest.
If our public service has integrity then those who raise concerns would be listened to and not fired.
If our building industry had integrity all large building firms would set a standard for performance and ensure compliance.
If our laws were written to be enforced then the companies act would be honoured by the court in proceedigns and blatant breaches of the companies act would not be condoned , e.g the transfer of shares booting out of directors false accounting more on this later .
New Zealand’s laws give us protection but when they are not enforced and people are not held accountable to the law then the law truly is an ass and facilitates corruption .
Lawyers and judges and high ranking public servants cannot condone breach’s of the law to do so in terms of criminal law makes them an accessory after the fact .
Its time judges lawyers and public service started observing the criminal law.
Integrity of the High court of New Zealand .. how low is the Bar ? was Judge Woolford conflicted ? will it be ignored ?
As a private Investigator who has now officially been Labeled a conspiracy theorist , this a blatant attack by the press to discredit me and proves that I must be pushing the right buttons . I find it difficult not to speak up when I see signs of lack of integrity and this is such a case
My integrity has been attacked through the press in 2017 based on an opinion of a police woman who only spoke to me on the phone in 2012. Based on her statement and a couple of other things like telling a lawyer to act according to law and telling another lawyer to get evidence before attacking people in court , the private security Licencing authority, Mr Gill refused to renew my certificate of approval. claiming that
” The applicant appears to hold very strong views on many matters and she is adamant that there is some form of conspiracy afoot, but in the absence of any evidence to support this theory it appears to boil down to a long-held obsession which can only harm her ability to carry out her duties as a private investigator in a rational and professional manner.
To me this sets the threshold of expected integrity in our society and courts and by my reckoning an open invitation for me to prove what is wrong with NZ . BTW the police woman’s comment was so sensitive that it was witheld from me under the privacy act but released to the Private security authority who not only judged me on it but acted on it .
Apparently the threshold for denying me my certificate of approval is pretty dam low . So low that I feel confident that there are those who want to discredit me because I am on the right track to exposing corruption in New Zealand .
To that end a simple due diligence for a client into Residential Indemnity limited has uncovered what appears to be a gross conflict of interest on behalf of a Judge . ( more on residential immunity later )
The court judgements which I found very interesting there are a number of them but these are of note
the presiding judge in this matter is https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/high-court/judges/#the-honourable-justice-woolford
The Honourable Justice Woolford
2010, based in AucklandJustice Woolford graduated LLB (Hons) from Auckland University and BA in Japanese in 1977 as well as attaining a BCL from Oxford University in 1981. He was admitted to the Bar in 1977. He held positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Wellington, Singapore and New York 1981-85. Justice Woolford returned to Auckland to work for Meredith Connell in 1986 and became a partner with that firm from 1987 until the current appointment. Justice Woolford is based in Auckland.
see also http://www.kiwisfirst.com/judge-file-index/high-court-justice-mark-woolford/
A search of the companies office shows that Mark Woolford was appointed as J
udge by our current government in 2010. the web site for Meridith Connell in 2009 shows Mark Woolford as one of the partners .
A further search of the companies office reveals that he is involved in the following companies
ACTIONSTEP LICENSING AUSTRALIA LIMITED (1957071)
ACTIONSTEP LICENSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (1848648)
ACTIONSTEP LICENSING CANADA LIMITED (1859351)
WOOLBUR PROPERTIES LIMITED (1858712)
INCLUSIV NATURALS LIMITED (3190627)
The court action in the above reports relates to signature homes which has contracted under its generic trading name but the real company contracted with in this instance is one Gavin Leslie HUNT a full list of his company associations is found here
Hunt is also also director and an ultimate share holder of the other two company defendants who incidentally all work under the same trading name .. another one of my identity fraud conspiracies whihc I am again proving to be true .
LASQUE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED formerly trading as SIGNATURE HOMES First Defendant
SIGNATURE RESIDENTIAL LIMITED trading as SIGNATURE HOMES Second Defendant
SIGNATURE HOMES LIMITED trading as SIGNATURE HOMES Third Defendant
Lasque Construction went into liquidation 29 July 2016 and was wound up 14 feb 2017. resolution the liquidation was to be completed by 30 November 2016 .
This appears to be a well practiced ploy by companies before the court the court number CIV-2012-404-7500 indicates that the proceedings were commenced in 2012. This is a way of perverting justice its the legal equivalent of killing the company but others live on using the same trading name … but more on that later too .
But getting back to the apparent conflict of interest a detailed search of the companies which Mr Hunt directs reveals ACTIONSTEP LIMITED (1859348) which he directs with Angus FLETCHER ex-husband of former Auckland mayor Christine Fletcher and Brother of Hugh Fletcher who is The chief justice dame Sian Elias husband .
At the recent franchise of the year awards Signature homes won Westpac supreme franchise system of the year the blurb stated
Founded by Fletcher Challenge in 1983, the company was sold in 1995 to Gavin and Anneta Hunt, who had been involved with the business right from the start.
Signature homes is there fore well connected to NZ judiciary and it would appear the business relation ship extends to Mr Gavin Hunt being the director of Actionstep and the subsidiaries it owns ACTIONSTEP HOSTING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED , ACTIONSTEP LICENSING AUSTRALIA LIMITED, ACTIONSTEP LICENSING CANADA LIMITED, ACTIONSTEP LICENSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, ACTIONSTEP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED .
What is action step ? well it appears on Google as this
Wikipedia provides this
Actionstep was created by Ted Jordan, CEO of Actionstep, in 2004.[1] It was first used commercially in 2005 by a New Zealand construction franchise as well as a law firm. Actionstep soon expanded into central government and a wider range of small business users (mainly in New Zealand and Australia).
As the company grew, many of their new customers were coming from law firms (which benefited from the workflow and document assembly features). Actionstep decided to customize the product and focus on the needs to legal professionals. Features such as trust accounting were added to the product to round out the offering to law firms. More recently Actionstep has integrated with number of key technologies such as Gmail, HotDocs, Outlook, and Microsoft Office. Actionstep still retains a solid base of customers in New Zealand, however the fastest growing market is in the United States where the company now has physical presence and employees.
Now getting back to the conflict of interest issue in the decision dated 18 August 2015 it would appear that WOOLFORD J totally accepted the evidence of Mr Gavin Hunt over the people who had ended up with a leaky home thanks to signature . Woolford does not appear to have declared his conflict in interest he has been a shareholder in actionstep since it was founded see share holder consent here Woolford shareholding . As an original shareholder he would have been fully aware of the founding directors of which Hunt is one .
I wonder how this is going to be glossed over . mean time I am in line for being put out of my work because we dig deep to discredit me, yet judges can knowingly sit on matters where they know the other party rule in their favour and just watch nothing will happen
I will try to contact the Kellys and tell them to take this to the office of the judicial conduct commissioner .www.jcc.govt.nz
If a PI who has no obligations to the rule of law and only has obligations to the act has to be denied her right to earn a crust what threshold should we apply to judges ?
Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption
In this the ” perceived ” least corrupt county in the world it is very unwise to be a whistle-blower. Believe me I know.
The events surrounding Joanne Harrison Transport Ministry fraud case and see here and here and here have again highlightes the plight of whistle -blowers
MoT fraudster’s ‘destructive streak’
* Joanne Harrison’s $725,000 ‘web of deception’ revealed
* Fresh claims prompt call for new investigation into Transport Ministry fraudster
Three whistle-blowers at the MoT were treated “abysmally”… Winston Peters
The outcome may be different but the story is basically the same as the animal welfare fraud that saw me crucified as a Whistleblower even to the extent that 11 years later a news item has to be published labeling me with names which were used by a police woman in 2012 . Her comments were so confidential that the police refused to release them to me under the privacy act but some how they ended up in the news in 2017.
To me this shows the massive undercurrent of how we deal with Whistle-blowers in New Zealand .
In the instance of Joanne Harrison , her former boss claimed that he had ” handled the saga decisively, and investigated it thoroughly.” But despite this Joanne Harrison was proved to be a fraudster partly by invoicing Fake companies.
My saga began in 2006 when I discovered that a fictional trust had been given law enforcement powers, because no one checked to see if it existed .
Like the Harrison Case we have the former boss taking on a higher role in Government. That is what happened in my case with AWINZ ( the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .
Had Harrison been a lawyer she would have taken her whistle blowers to court for defamation. For good measure she would have manipulated the proceedings and had their defence of truth and honest opinion struck out , bankrupted them, discredited them and she would have got away with it .
Our courts are routinely used to legitimize fraud , if you have the money and or connections anything is possible including a few extra words from the judge totally slating your whistle blowers reputation .
Harrison was not so lucky , but so far Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts , Tom Didovich and Neil Wells have been able to get away with their respective roles in the concealment of what had the makings of a massive public fraud .
In the AWINZ matter a lawyers a crown law gave a legal opinion in the application process for AWINZ to be granted statutory law enforcement powers for search seizure and prosecution of animal welfare offences, in the statute which Mr Wells had been the author of the No 1 bill and as ” independent” adviser to the select committee .
While the legal opinion may have been sound he never checked the fundamental ….Does the trust actually exist , Had he done so he would have found that it did not .
This lawyer went on to become chief legal officer to the MPI. So to admit that a fraud had occurred would have been to admit to his own negligence. see AWINZ deception evidence I also raised the question
Can MPI legally conceal fraud or does that make them an accessory after the fact?
Martin Matthews the Controller and Auditor-General will also find himself in this conflicted situation.
I have long been critical of Transparency International New Zealand , they claim to be
Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) is the recognised New Zealand representative of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation against corruption. We are a not-for-profit incorporated society with charitable status. We are non-political and non-partisan.
We Are
- A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society
- Author of the “2013 New Zealand Integrity Plus National Integrity System Assessment“
- The local chapter of Transparency International, the world leading anti-corruption agency and publisher of the Corruptio
n Perceptions Index
The reality is that Transparency International is funded by the very people they measure . this means that there is no independence and if TINZ was to write something bad about the departments who sponsor them then those who write the reports will not be funded .
It is useful to note that the office of the auditor general is the corner stone Platinum partner . The office of the auditor generals is effectively ” independently ” rated by Transparency International who are sponsored by them .. CONFLICT of interest!
What happened to the petition for a commission against corruption ? see the evidence here Evidence in support of the Petition of Grace Haden and others 5 11
Had something been done in the past then we could have had systems in place to deal with the likes of Joanna Harrison . But in reality in the ” economic ” Business structure we run, we can afford he losses its cheaper than checking.
Well I can tell you as a whistle-blower it has not been economic for me, it cost me my marriage, initially my family, 11 years and well over $300,000.
While the government can expend heaps on crucifying me they cannot spend time looking at the facts to do so would mean that more like mr Martin Matthews would be removed from the security of their high paying jobs ad an old boys net work could very well crumble.
Note NZ ratified the United nations convention against corruption 1 December 2015. Nothing has been done to set up an independent commission against corruption
How many more whistle blowers have to be under attack ? Time to support whistle -blowers
Corruption and fraud in New Zealand – no place for ” she’ll be right “
Many New Zealanders have not woken up to the fact that we are but a bunch of ignorant and trusting villagers in a global market place just waiting to be ripped off .
Not only is it buyer beware but every one of us has to diligent as every transaction has potential for fraud and when it happens you are on your own.
One such story hit the headlines this morning . Had Jackie and Murray Marquet known the most basic due diligence techniques they would never have lost a cent.
Most people just don’t know where to start checking things out and many like the Marquet’s say ” the emails and documents they received from the fraudsters looked genuine” surprisingly that is how fraud works . It has to be good to be convincing.
In their particular case however a 5 minute due diligence would have saved them $32,000.
These are the tell tale signs
- email addresses procurement@otago-ac.net and purchasing@otagoac-nz.org
- the next clues are from the Purchase order shown to the right
bill to: University of Otago Holding Ltd
09 886 2809
accounts@otago-acc.net
NZ business number
this is what they should have done
1 09 886 2809 this is an Auckland number the university is in Otago .
2 Google Otago university note that the URL is www.otago.ac.nz. phone number 03-479 7000
3. Check the who is for otago-ac.net , otagoac-nz.org and otago-acc.net
note that both are registered to The USA and were set up in the not too recent past
respectively they are
Administrative Contact Information: