Archive for July 2017
Man of Convictions :By Anne HUNT a Must read for all New Zealanders
July 28, 2017 | 
Author 
The Opening words of Anne’s Report could well be my own with a minor change, hers are with regards to Phil Taueki and mine With Neil Wells
“The crime I discovered is serious. Why the cover-up? It piqued my curiosity. No self-respecting “Investigator” can resist the temptation to ferret out the facts! “
Anne makes this comment on her web page which provides a down load for her latest book a man of convictions http://www.annehunt.co.nz
the only difference between Phil and Neil is that Phil is a victim of this type of fraud and Neil Wells is a corrupt former barrister who perpetrated this identity fraud on the public .
I have spoken to Anne many times she was a fabulous support while I was going through the darkest days of my AWINZ journey( Neil Wells ) .
There is a strange bond between those of us who have gone through the mill so to speak and we have all learned a lot about injustice , the tricks played in court and the dirty tactics.
So when Anne sent on an email with regards to Philip Taueki’s plight I couldn’t help but get involved. I smelt a rat .
I asked Anne to keep my involvement quite so I worked in the background as I feared that if I was to be connected with the matter then it would blow up out of proportion as other matters which I have been seen to be connected with have. Its all over now so I can come out of the wood work , but you can appreciate that Neil wells would not like to think that this was again another fake trust and once people cotton on to the use of fake trusts his own might be looked at .
This trust however was allegedly a Maori trust so I completed a crash course in Maori trusts and identified the fact that there were a number of court actions which had been brought against Philip by fictional trusts. It was the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand all over again.
Much of the court action had been brought by “HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST” My investigations showed that it had no claim on the land, it was a trading name which has not been defined. It has no standing before the court and cannot seek to have a lawful owner removed from his own land . Basically it was just a group of people hiding behind a BS name .
Fortunately there is no corruption in New Zealand we just have systems where checking is the last thing that is done and we operate entirely on assumptions .Lawyers will take instructions from any one with dosh which means at the worst that someone living overseas using a fictional name can make your life hell here on a bogus claim.
It is time that lawyers who do not check if
1. their client has standing and
2. that there is a valid claim
If neither exist then the lawyers should be charged with offences under the lawyers and conveyancers act .
Anne acknowledges my work in the tributes, strangely enough I have have just been removed s a PI for not acting in the public interest .. My crime I told David Abricossow to act impartially for his client the muse on Allen and directed him to the provisions of the lawyers and conveyancers act ….makes you wonder doesn’t it .
Download the book its free and promises to make good reading
Posted in 
My open letter to be distributed at the world justice forum
The world justice forum is currently under way the forum is being attended by a colleague who will be distributing the following
It is time New Zealand woke up to the corruption which is occurring, ignoring it does not make it go away . cancer ignored will kill you and so will corruption https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/engagement/events/world-justice-forum
A whistle-blowers story from New Zealand
A short introduction by Grace Haden for the World Justice forum 10 July 2017
New Zealand is supposedly the least corrupt country in the world on the perception index. This is probably because New Zealand excels in Perception.
New Zealand still lives in the Victorian era, front parlour looks great but in the back we hide things from view.
I am a former Police Sergeant, I work as a private investigator, I am currently before the court on 5 counts of breaching a suppression order. I was charged six weeks ago and today received the first publicly available copy of the order which I have allegedly breached. My crime was to identify the Barrister who has made my life hell for 11 years as the lawyer who was given name suppression for ripping off his client and old lady who I know he has been targeting for years.
The police were quick to move on charging me but in 11 years they have never looked at the serious corruption which I uncovered. They even charged me before they even knew an order existed.
I run a web site called www.transparency.net.nz, I do this because transparency International in New Zealand is all about keeping the “ least corrupt “ perception alive so that they can attract more business to New Zealand. They receive funding from the public service sector so they can boast how well they do and because there is no corruption in New Zealand we don’t need the usual safe guards
New Zealand is reputedly the country that is easiest to set a business up in, it is also a country in which the same simple companies structure will see you cleaned out. No one checks and the registrar seldom prosecutes. I am currently dealing with a company where the person who invested lost all their funds with a stroke of a pen
In my time as a private Investigator I have seen false companies, false liquidators and the big one that I am being prosecuted for is for identifying a corrupt barrister who wrote legislation for his own business plan, advised on it as “ independent “ adviser to the select committee then made a fraudulent application and told lies to get it past the post . He operated this from a local council’s premises which he rebranded to look like his fictional trust. In 11 years no one has looked at the mountain of evidence and when he was recently found guilty of serious offences under the lawyer’s legislation he was given name suppression. I recognised the scenario as being him speculated and am being prosecuted despite never having seen and order.
One law for all is not what you get in New Zealand, you must pitch your offending just right be certain it does not include injury, no speeding or breaching any unseen orders. But you can successfully use false identities and rip people off for any sun under two million dollars and get away with it.
I presented evidence for a petition for a commission against corruption , the petition was thrown out because the evidence disclosed corruption see it here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Evidence-in-support-of-the-Petition-of-Grace-Haden-and-others-5-11.pdf
Please keep tabs on our web site and you will see how the law does not work in New Zealand, the structure is there, the perception is there but then perception is not reality
Grace Haden
Open letter to the Ombudsman
Dear Sirs .
There is one fundamental issue with the complaints system in New Zealand .. it is out of date and does not appear to comply with the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014
I note that the Good administration guides are all about 5 years old and probably out of line with the Changes to the Ombudsmen Act and official information legislation document dated May 2017.
Just recently I blogged about the reliance by authorities on the unreasonable complainant conduct manual
and commented that this manual was pretty much identical to the one used in New South Wales , the fundamental difference is that here in New Zealand whistleblowers are often labeled unreasonable complainants, in an attempt to drive home the message the complainant will provide more evidence and where the toll of whistleblowing is starting to show the whistleblower may resort to highlighting text, bolding it and in conversations may raise their voice due to frustration . the easy course to take is to say AHAH an unreasonable complainant.
In New South wales the complainant can go to the Independent commission against corruption who will independently investigate the matter .
In New Zealand you go to the Police who say it is too serious and the SFO who say sorry not serious enough .
It appears some australian states have adopted the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014 and have published a document in 2015 and 2016 which guides Public sector agencies through the complaint process.
The publications can be found at these links
[PDF]complaint management framework – Ombudsman SA www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-content/…/Complaint_Management_Framework.pdf
[PDF]Complaint management framework and model … – NSW Ombudsman https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__…/Complaint-management-framework-June-2015.p…
[PDF]Good Practice Guide to Handling Complaints – Parliament of Victoria https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/…/Tabling_copy_VO_Report_A_good_practice_g…
[PDF]Effective complaint handling guidelines – International Ombudsman … www.theioi.org/downloads/…/Effective-complaint-handling-guidelines-Third-edition….
and the company registration also has its policy
[PDF]Complaint management policy – ASIC download.asic.gov.au/…/complaint-management-policy-for-external-publishing-final….
In New Zealand we appear to be hell bent on ” writing complaints off ” covering up and doing what it takes to preserve our corruption free image .
As a whistleblower with over 11 years experience of banging my head on a brick wall I have also noted that identity fraud in New Zealand is only dealt with by the department of internal affairs . the companies office on the other hand unlike ASIC , looks at compliance and does nothing about the use of “trading names ” and similar names
My complaint about the approved organisation Animal welfare institute was thrown out by your office because no one identified the fact that the court had been seriously misled through the introduction of a trust which bore the same name as the fictional law enforcement authority .
the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) was an undefined trading name it was a falsely portrayed as being a legal entity by a lawyer who has now been proved to be corrupt .
He set up a trust with the identical name and misled the court and MAF by switching one for the other and thereby pulled off the perfect fraud .
MPI never checked if AWINZ existed and processed the application with an unsigned trust deed. they didn’t even question why the subsequent deed that was provided to them 7 years later differed from the signed copy which i was given for court.
Nor did they question why The minister had been told on the 25th march 2000 that the deed had been sent on for registration when in reality it had never been incorporated in any way .
Also a simple check of the trust deed would have revealed the out right lies as there is no 20 (a) in the deed.
MAF at the time were clearly out of their depth and had not the faintest idea what a legal entity was and how they should deal with an unincorporated trust . They relied on Mr Wells experience as a barrister and was prone to drafting documents for the ministry
Mr Wells who wrote the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act and inserted the provisions of an approved Organisation to fulfil his own business plan in to the new legislation on which he advised as “independent advisor “to the select committee without apparently declaring his conflict of interest.
He made a fraudulent application to MaF claiming that AWINZ existed as a trust and was in the process of being registered quite clearly this was a lie as the trust deed showed the trust was formed after this date and AWINZ was never incorporated it was at all times an undefined trading name which was given legal existence without actually having any . What made this so important was the fact that this was a Prosecuting authority under statute .
It would have been impossible for anyone to hold AWINZ accountable , new trustees were magically switched in in 2006 to give it a pseudo appearance of legitimacy . I say magic as no real or legitimate process was involved . But MAF was very happy to cover it all up .
I Brought it to the attention of the council , Maf and a multitude of government departments and 11 years on I am still being persecuted . Government departments like the companies office look for compliance they don’t prosecute that is why it is so open to abuse .
Whistleblowers in New Zealand are treated very poorly to blow the whistle means to devastate your life. it is therefore essential that we have proper complaint procedures and staff who know what they are doing and don’t ask the alleged offender for guidance.
I may have forwarded one or two of her very early Emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response.
they also state that MAF needed to provide assurances to the minister that AWINZ accountability met requirements of the act.. how could they possibly have achieved this when the organisation was a total fiction ? This is Wells OIA request
The significance of the existence of an entity also goes to the heart of any agreements .Here Joanne Tuckwell states
and it states “This Memorandum of Understanding between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand
(AWINZ) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) ”
definition ” “AWINZ” means the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. – this shows that MAF clearly thought that AWINZ was a legal person in its own right But Neil Wells signs as trustee and conceals the reality that the application was not made by any trust ( there was no trust meeting which would have allowed him to sign for the other trustees, the trustees of he 200 deed never met ) and that AWINZ is not a legal person in its own right .
Now that Neil Wells has been proved to be deceitful and a person who is less than honest in his roll as barrister , I hope that this may be used to test out a robust complaint procedure. 11 years of victimisation for whistleblowing is enough .
Please implement the standards adopted by australia and enforce them .
It is unreasonable to treat whistleblowers as unreasonable complainants no one should have to go through what I have been subjected to .
I look forward to finding some Fairness .
Whistleblowers, Government and SPCA
The headline reads Kiwi whistleblowers left vulnerable by ‘weak, patchy, and out-of-date’ legislation
How true but then there are also a large number of whistleblowers who are not even covered by this legislation and when it comes to ranking second rate citizens those who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the public sector are at the bottom of the list .
The whistleblower legislation only relates to employees see Protected Disclosure act
If you are not an employee and report corruption in New Zealand then you are treated as an unreasonable person and the ombudsmen has put out a manual to deal with people just like you .
By being labeled as an unreasonable person no one in government has to listen to you or look at your evidence as you are after all Unreasonable . It is apparently Quite unreasonable in New Zealand to say sorry but I think this is corrupt .
That which is not seen , is not questioned is therefore never unravelled and so New Zealand remains corruption free , all nicely concealed.
The unreasonable conduct leaflet deals with people who get angry and frustrated so all the Public sector agency has to do is throw up brick walls and leave the person banging their head against it. Eventually the person will scream ” my head hurts ” and the agency can then point and say see I knew it all along an unreasonable complainant.
If you visit the page Good administration guides you will note that
Good decision making is 10 pages long
Effective complaint handling 23 pages
and Managing unreasonable complainant conduct is 123 pages long
the ironic thing is that there is no corresponding manual for unreasonable conduct from public sector agencies.
As a Private investigator I have found that the no 1 failing of our public sector agencies is the failure to verify .
- No one checked to see if the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)existed before giving it law enforcement powers ,
- the lawyers prosecuting me for defamation never checked that a trust deed for AWINZ existed or if this was actually the law enforcement trust which they were representing and not a similarly named trust set up with the intention to conceal the fact that AWINZ was fictitious
- The police did not check to see if there was actually an order before charging me with 5 counts of breaching an order made under section 240 Lawyers and conveyancers act .
- and I could go on
The runner up failure goes to failure to stick to the law.
- the law applies to us not the the government agencies they have the ability to make things up.. might is right
And in number three place there is lack of accountability everyone is looking after their mates after all that is what mates are for and in NZ our public service is practically incestuous and funds Transparency International to ensure that integrity is always rated as high.
To understand why this is you have to first accept that New Zealand has adopted a business approach to governance , like a large supermarket installing self checkouts the approach is that the inevitable losses are cost less than the the wages of the staff which would otherwise be employed.
It is therefore better to ignore the corruption than it is to deal with it.. prosecution is not cheap and exposed corruption could damage the nations reputation and affect the share market which we are so focused on .
This aspect is is covered in the UCC manual at figure 1 as can be seen this list is far longer list than the effects on the person with a bit of luck they may commit suicide and the problem will be gone but the $$$ saving is there.
So all you need is for the complainant to be under a lot of external pressure e.g being sued for defamation and being denied a defence of truth and honest opinion , hitting a brick wall with public sector agencies who are determined to cover up the wrong doing and/or neglect of their fellow workers and the whistleblower is left to be attacked for ever more.
When the complainant thinks that the public sector agency is not grasping what is going on and sends in more evidence they are doomed as one of the criteria for listing a person as a UCC is in chapter 4 ,
This document is by no means unique it appears that it was totally copied from the NSW ombudsman’s office. The difference is that there they have a commission against corruption … in New Zealand we don’t and there is no one independent who looks at the complaints of Whistle blowers .. Its all too easy Whistleblowers are deemed Unreasonable complainants and persecuted .
In My case it has been going on for 11 years and it is still going on with unseen cowards beavering away in the background making certain that I stay silent.The police have said it is too serious for them and the SFO say that there is not sufficient capital involved . All along my character has been under attack I am bad and the perpetrator of this massive public fraud (which is now culminating in turning the RNZSPCA’s member societies and branches into one large expectorate ) has been concealed because the lawyer involved is Holier than thou
I recently read a Law society article Censured Lawyer gets name suppression I wrote an article speculating on who this was as due to the circumstances of the events it appeared to me that this was the one and the same person who had sued me for defamation and misled the court over the identity of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand a law enforcement authority which had no legal existence but which had been given coercive legal powers following a fraudulent application for Approved status under the legislation which this censured lawyer had written. The legislation was initially to fulfill his business plan of creating a inspectorate that could prosecute people for animal neglect, that all sounds pretty good but now that the RNZSPCA has filed its constitution show its objectives as being to give animals a better life . This would mean that i am a prime candidate for prosecution as my cat always believes that what she is getting is not good enough .
The animal welfare bill was initially written by this corrupt lawyer , he later advised on the the two bills which were considered and did not declare his conflict of interest , he created offences which are strict liability and Basically subjective being that they are in the opinion of the inspector . It is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation especially in the hands of a private body .
12 Animal welfare offences
A person commits an offence who, being the owner of, or a person in charge of, an animal,—(a)fails to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 10; or(b)fails, in the case of an animal that is ill or injured, to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 11; or(c)kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
10 Obligation in relation to physical, health, and behavioural needs of animals
The owner of an animal, and every person in charge of an animal, must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in a manner that is in accordance with both—(a)good practice; and(b)scientific knowledge.
11 Obligation to alleviate pain or distress of ill or injured animals
(1)The owner of an animal that is ill or injured, and every person in charge of such an animal, must ensure that the animal receives treatment that alleviates any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the animal.
(2)This section does not—(a)limit section 10; or(b)require a person to keep an animal alive when it is in such a condition that it is suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.
the real clincher comes in section 13
13Strict liability
(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.
Penalties
A person who commits an offence against section 12 or section 14(1) or section 14(2) or section 21(1) or section 21(2) or section 22(2) or section 23(1) or section 23(2) is liable on conviction,—(a)in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding$50,000 or to both; or b)in the case of a body corporate to a fine not exceeding $250,000.
The act is water tight relies on the opinion of the inspector and has virtually no defence. If you go to a lawyer and make an appointment for next week you are too late as your defence has to be filed within 7 days .
The legislation is a licence to print money , You cannot turn off the life support of a loved one but if you think your dog is comfortable and want to keep it alive you will be prosecuted for not having put him down .
When you have been attacked by a person as long as I have you get to know the way they work and think and I recognise the fact that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand was the trial for amalgamating the SPCA’s and the things which have been done over the years have been trials to set this one spca in action .
An associate of mine had his horse seized by Sarah Elliott- Warren who had been working for AWINZ , was a lecturer at Unitec teaching animal welfare inspectors, went to the SPCA and took over the management of several SPCA’s. The reoports that I had with regards to the horse was that $3,000 grazing fees were demanded when the horse was grazed by Elliot on family property, when the owner could not find the cash the horse was put down . The protocol for disposing of animals is set out here
Sarah worked on the lord of the rings project for the fictional AWINZ this is the american humane societies letter regarding the investigation where animals were both hurt and died .
The Letter where this excerpt appears is here
it also goes on to say “There appears to be a very unusual relationship between the SPCA and AWINZ. If the SPCA has
‘ tent”. for reward, a warranted inspector to AWINZ and that inspector was present in order to exercise powers under the AWA, then in my view the arrangement is against the spirit of the AWA.”
The fact that the barrister who wrote the legislation and has set the SPCA up for this change ( he states that he was responsible for amalgamating them all under the RNZSPCA ) is less than honest can be found here and here
Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No. 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 24 [PDF, 46 KB]Decision on liability (6 September 2016)
Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [PDF, 42 KB]Reasons of the Tribunal for decision on penalty (24 November 2016)
When you read these decisions you will note that this man is playing the poor “stressed out me” card ,
He did exactly the same in 2008 when he attacked me and has kept up his attack all these years .
In reality reading the decision he ripped his client off to the tune of 20,000 he was wanting to transfer the rest of her assets to his animal welfare charity which did not exist .
He still operates other charities which other trustees believe were wound up .
The one spca is not about better care for animals it is about $$ and this corrupt former Barrister is totally behind this .
I have been blogging about this for years fallen on deaf ears he remains the hero Me the villain even to the extent that I am now charged with 5 offences of breaching a fictional order for suppression .
The connections between AWINZ and the RNZSPCA have always plagued me and the fact that there is now a very desperate attempt to silence me makes me believe that my suspicions are well founded . All I had available to me when I named the Barrister was this
I would love some one to tell me where the suppression order is in the decisions relating to mr M especially the suppression order under section 240, this again is a claim fabricated by the corrupt mr M see here
In 2010 I wrote about the Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ and I also explained the missing funds from the waikato RNZSPCA in various articles
It will come as no surprise that this same bent former lawyer set up the programme for training the Inspectors who are all too keen to take on the role as the SPCA as a law enforcement body . He is still connected Graeme coutts a “trustee” of the the cover up trust AWINZ works alongside the RNZSPCA on the same floor, Tom didovich another trustee worked for the SPCA . Arnja dale who has now been appointed Chief Scientific Officer is one and the same Arnja who took over the Unitec inspector training from the corrupt barrister .
It appears to me that there are a lot of people stuck in jobs with limited financial future , By developing the inspectorate they will be writing their own salaries .The point they miss is that their direction will depend on making animals suffer , there is therefore no $$ incentive for them to teach people to look after animals as they would be out of a job .
I have seen the spin and the secrecy behind this but then I am probably an unreasonable person so lets ignore me and just wait and see .
New Zealand companies an international joke ? Terry Hay must think so !
Many years ago a lawyer asked me to help him locate a director and liquidator of a firm called fresh prepared limited
The director was allegedly Sanjay Patel 133 Captain Springs Rd, Onehunga. Consent of Director
Sanjay Patel appointed a liquidator Babuhai Patel who happened to use the PO box right next to that of the former proxy director Lynn Pryor
Both Sanjay and Babuhai were fictional and Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor were both charged with fraud offences .
The 22 fraud offences for Terry Hay are here
Hay skipped the country and Pryor was convicted of one charge as the blame was shifted onto Hay .The news items are here Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.
Hay being well connected got the charges dropped 21.1. 2013 see here
He wasted no time promoting himself as a successful business man no doubt including teaching the tricks of the trade with regards to the NZ companies office
Today I discovered that Hay has featured in the New Zealand courts again, funding litigation again .
This time in employment matters where LSG sky chef inherited employees from the firm one being Terry Hays brother in law.
the employment court matter can be found here
The registrar is once again looking to remove the company from the register .. for rich foreigners our company office is nothing more than a useful tool to use and abuse from a safe distance away .
While Mr Hay was comfortably ensconced in his Honolulu home he sues the arse off unsuspecting Kiwis , some how that is so wrong .
Its time we did more than register companies .. how about checking and stringently enforcing the company rules .
Companies , trusts and societies are totally abused . No one checks and whistleblowers get shot .. so wonder why its so open to abuse.