History often repeats and the view is frequently clearest when looking back
The SPCA’s Public relations officer mentioned in the article along side is now none other than Mrs Christine Wells
from the events of this last week and of the past 11 years I can see a trend emerging. Neil Wells Good ..Grace Haden Bad.
By smearing a person and throwing a lot of mud there is the hope that some of it will stick and people do tend to say where there is smoke there is fire , well sometimes the apparition of the fire is actually a smoke screen.
Mud slinging can only be addresses with truth and facts and so often the person doing he slinging does so to keep the focus off himself.
To look at what Mr Wells has been involved in we need to look at the trusts which he has operated with total disregard of the law.
You have to remember that He was a barrister , by definition and officer of the court and a person legally charged to uphold the rule of Law in New Zealand
4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
we have seen Neil Wells CV it makes no mention of the NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH of which Neil Wells was a trustee
In 2006 when donation flyers were being sent out By Neil Wells via Wyn Hoadley soliciting donations he claimed in June 2006 that AWINZ administers the NZ fund for Humane research ( lord Dowding fund )
The reality was that all those involved in the NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH were either dead or believed that the fund had been wound up , except Neil wells who was still soliciting donations for this long forgotten trust
The Lord Dowding fund was not even administers by the NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH but by Mrs Heather through a trust called BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED In 2000 it was struck off but still had well over $100,ooo in its coffers which Neil Wells Solicits for his fictional AWINZ in 2005 the letter is found here
Interestingly enough the bank account at the national bank mount Albert only had one signatory and had no trust deed associated with it. the one signatory was Neil Wells. He assures the secretary that ” Any funds from The Lord Dowding Fund would be kept as a special trust fund within AWINZ to be applied according to the original tenets of the Fund.” Signed By Neil Wells Trustee . The reality is that AWINZ had no legal existence it did not have trustees and it did not operate as a trust it was like The fund for humane research something Neil Wells took upon himself to call a trust .
as mentioned earlier the Lord Dowding fund was used to sue me the charities records show how the sum has changed over the years from 98,000 to 22,000 yet Neil wells has some how made a personal profit of 57,000 and not repaid the money he used to sue me .
the interesting thing is that the trust which obtains the money doesn’t legally exist and there are so many holes in this trust structure that a truck would fall through.
The origins of AWINZ .
Neil Wells after leaving the world society quits in a row over the kaimanawa horses see the decision here and sets up shop as solicitor sole, I suspect that he found business slow and approaches Waitakere city council to work on a project to amalgamate dog and stock control with animal welfare .
In the defamation hearing in 2007 Neil wells falsely claimed that the council had approached him with regards to amalgamating the two functions but the documents I have clearly prove that he misled the court on this point ( and many others ) I call it perjury .
IN 1994 he approaches the Waitakere city council with his idea of combining animal welfare and animal control and suggests to the council that they could set up an SPCA type organisation.
His no 1 accomplice Tom Didovich the manager of dog control in Waitakere helps push the venture see
Neil Wells has taken some initiatives with respect to enhancing our animal welfare services by proposing the establishment of a pilot programme whereby our staff fulfill the role of animal welfare inspectors by providing an SPCA type operation.
Wells quickly turns this into lobbying for new animal welfare legislation
In a parallel move Wells promotes himself as a ” consultant for Waitakere city council ” To Maf David Bayvel who he knows well and has already done groundwork with .
While on the one hand Wells claims to be acting as ” consultant ” on the other he is looking at ways to make money for himself by facilitating the interface between animal control and animal welfare
This point is not lost on the the SPCA who write 
By august that 95 council officers were appointed as Inspectors .
Neil Wells then lobby’s councils up and down the country to encourage them to consider his proposal this is a sample letter he does this using a very impressive letter head which is just a pseudonym for himself .
By mid January 1996 less than two weeks after sending a proposal to councils over the holiday period , he has put together his business plan for the territorial animal welfare authority
Neil Wells gets Didovich to prepare a ” blurb sheet to make it appear that this is an initiative of the council
but by 1997 the local government NZ lets it be known that they are not supportive of Wells idea
During this time Wells is busy writing new legislation to facilitate his plan and in september 1997 the Hodgson bill is produced Wells has inserted a new clause providing for Territorial bodies to be compliance Bodies
The No 1 bill is rejected as it infringes on the bill of rights , the powers which wells was seeking for the inspectors appear to be draconian and so A second bill is introduced and the two bills are integrated into one, Neil Wells is taken on as the ” independent adviser to the select committee . He does this without declaring his conflict of interest.
In September 1997 the Hodgson bill was referred to us. The Government decided to introduce its own bill to remedy laps in that bill and in earlier Government policy work on
animal welfare decided that it would be more effective and efficient to consider the two bills together, and delayed consideration of the Hodgson bill in order to do this.
In early 1998 Wells promotes the concept of a trust and suggests that the council be involved and provides a flow of funds diagram he appears to make this move to circumvent the intention of the legislation following the introduction of the second bill.
Wells has already preempted the formation of a trust and tom Didovich then pushes this to council
While the bill is still being discussed Wells liaises with various people to overcome any hurdles that the legislation may throw up
He first comes up with the name AWINZ in Mid 1998 while the legislation is still being drafted and he states
For this exercise let’s assume that there will be a new charitable trust formed, independent of Waitakere City, to be known as the
Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ). AWINZ could be that national body and would be responsible to MAF Reg through a memorandum of understanding or contract.….It is possibly premature to propose Part 2 at this stage as there needs to be a little more certainty in terms of what is in the Bill, when will AWINZ be up and running, what transitional procedures can be used for Waitakere City.
He presents and advisory board document and attaches a draft trust deed , he alleges that this trust will be set up by the council and The founding trustees will be appointed by the Waitakere city council
He gets Didovich to gather people the criteria being that they should be well know
to give the trust ” credibility ” and so some people are called together and Wells is paid for their meeting.
Wells again take advantage of year end and sends the unexecuted deed to Maf
It has to be noted that the deed makes it clear that Waitakere city is allegedly a trustee under the deed
You may have noted that crucial events take place at christmas time this is a very good tactic as things get rushed through or overlooked.
More to come about the AWINZ trust deception and why Neil Wells is so fearful that one day some one may believe me
In the mean time I found the evidence that wells brought the independent SPCA’s together in a job application at waitakere city council he states
Interestingly with this job application he does not disclose to Waitakere city council his gross conflict of interest that by taking the position he will be contracting to himself
but that is the nature of the beast proof is in the pudding see here
once corrupt always corrupt
Leave a Reply