David Neutze do you have integrity ? or are you a corrupt lawyer ?

This is an open letter to David Neutze, Partner of Brookfields Lawyers seeking him to admit his lack of due diligence and help put right the injustice which resulted. The question is has he been wilfully blind to these events or was he guided by a lawyer who was mentally ill

Education
Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, University of Auckland
Areas of expertise
Insurance, Construction and Engineering Litigation, Health & Safety and Dispute Resolution

Hello David I doubt that you are aware that you had a devastating effect on my life when you allowed your name to be used for legal action without checking the facts .

I thought I would turn to you as a member of the Arbitrators & Mediators Institute of New Zealand as indicated by your profile on your law firms page but it appears that you are not shown on their membership .

Even so I have decided to seek some answers from you which with the passage of time have indicated ( to me at least) more than a minor amount of negligence on your part.

You may be wondering why I have popped up again after all these years, well the answer is simple there are former members of your law firm who are still giving me grief 14 years after the event , I am normally quite a patient person but enough is enough and I am asking all those involved to be accountable for their apparent lack of due diligence.

As a lawyer and former crown prosecutor you will understand your obligations to section 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers act specifically

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:

I will be relying on various documents which can be summarised as follows 1. your response to the law society 2. your letter to the trustees of the trust which was legally incorporated 3.the statement of claim bearing your name

I certainly hope that you agree that the rule of law exists for the protection of every one and that lawyers who discover that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by less honest lawyers and or mentally challenged lawyers have a duty to the the law to ensure that any miscarriage of justice is corrected .

I here by give you the opportunity to show your integrity by getting you to look at the following issues

In your response to the law society dated 12 April 2011, it appears that everything was done in consultation with you to such an extent that you were happy to put your name and signature to the proceedings you stated that “The statement of claim was prepared in consultation with me as the senior litigation partner of the firm and I was satisfied with its contents.”

Most of your response relied on input of Nick Wright who had prosecuted the matter a resource management lawyer who was a committed patient in 2009 and left the firm taking the files with him and then returning the files to you to finish off the job with bankruptcy proceedings when he ceased being a lawyer

You relied on the court decision to prove the allegations in the statement of claim despite the fact that there was never any evidence in support of the claim and the strategy saw my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out . The only evidence given was that Neil Wells who has since been proved to be this corrupt barrister , swore the statement of claim as True, this is perjury in my book .

After you responded to the law society Wells wrote another letter to law society which set out the alleged background of the so called trust .

Despite the fact that we should not speak ill of the dead, I can only bluntly put it this way that Neil Wells was untrustworthy in addition to him ripping off his life time friend and charging her to find the money he had embezzled I will also show where he has been less than honest with you and the law society.

In 2001 the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  was given coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act   section 122 . The legislation was drafted and advised on By Neil Wells who had his own business plan for setting up in competition to the RNZSPCA .  The RNZSPCA is an incorporated society  but AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form

Wells posed as a trustee of a fictional trust when he made the application on 22 November 1999 and attached an unexecuted deed . He reassured the minister in March 2000 and said

full letter at this link

Neither MAF nor the minister ever saw a trust deed  and none was on file before June 2006 when this copy was sent to me by Wells if you down load a copy and click on the properties you will note that the document was created by Neil Wells on 27 june 2006 a day after the threatening letter which you sent to us .. proving conclusively that you had never seen a trust deed before you signed the letter to the trustees of the legitimately registered trust

In the letter dated 26 June 2006 you state “We act for Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand…. ” how could you act for the animal welfare institute of new zealand it was not a legal person in its own right and the only legal entity by that name was the one which I was a trustee of , incorporated on 27 April 2006 . the whole purpose of the exercise was to force us to give up our incorporated name so that a massive public fraud could be concealed.

Proof that ” your client ” AWINZ did not exist as a legal person can be found in the minutes of 10 May 2006 when Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graeme coutts met at the very first meeting of the alleged trust , not surprisingly the trust deed was missing and the minutes state ” AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. “ Its also strange that people who have allegedly been operating an approved organisation need to be told what one is six years after allegedly taking on the public responsibility .

As a commercial Litigant I hope that I don’t have to explain to you what the effect of incorporation is , however if you are in any doubt please refer to section 13 of the charitable trust act

This also means that Wells Lied to the minister in the letter at this link , he also knew what his options were he had been told by the registrar of incorporated trusts

http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ministry-of-economic-developments.pdf 21 june 2006

MAF was also aware that AWINZ had not been incorporated , this is because we drew attention to this with our successful registration proving that the approved organisation was nothing more than a fiction with real public powers . this is recorded in the audit report which Wells fought hard to conceal from me

The audit report records that ” AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected” and

The trust deed , which was missing in March 2000 , was also missing in May 2006 the deed then reappears by magic and Maf are supplied with a different version to the one which I was supplied with . the MAF version has been tampered with to correct the errors made in haste.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is trust-documentation.jpg

Obvious errors are that section 20(a) does not exist in either copy of he deed ,Wells incorporated two other trusts in 1999 the ark angel trust and the national animal welfare trust and knew that you did not send originals , if there were two originals as later claimed by Wright, why not send another copy ?

and another big one was that the deed by its own terms expired three years after being signed, we know there were no meetings and so the following clause could not have been invoked

The deed by its own terms expired 1.3.2003

David you are more experienced than I am at this but what would you say to two conflicting original deeds one with signatures missing, a trust which had never met never passed a resolution and had never held assets . is this not a sham trust .. so why do me for defamation and destroy my life for making that statement ?

The statement of claim was in the name of Wells Hoadley and Coutts. If they came together without any formal deed documentation on 10 may 2006, with no evidence of any legal appointment of Hoadley( as required by section 4 charitable trust act ) and acknowledging that they were not incorporated .. how could they possibly allege that we, a legal entity with the name animal welfare institute of new zealand were passing ourselves off as three people who had not functioned at anything and had formed after us with no other intention but to use charitable funds to pursue us through court to fice us to give up the name

David a 5 year old will tell you that none of this makes sense . You went on to take an active roll in attempting to bankrupt me forcing me to sell the family home, guess that was not significant as you had destroyed my family and marriage any way with the serious miscarriage of justice which could have been prevented if you had done some simple due diligence.

So what are you going to do about it , it has not gone away for me there are still members of your staff pursuing me seeking to silence me because their conscience cannot cope with it ..

To me this very much fits into conspiring to defeat justice , but since your name is all over this I thought I would give you an opportunity to help resolve it .

Its been 14 years David this is over the top, if you were negligent in trusting those you perhaps should not have trusted then it could be a vry good time for you to say lets sort it and put it right, just like you did when you found out that my company had been put into liquidation on a false affidavit . Please help put the wrongs right I know that a man of integrity would do that . I am sick of being under attack being a whistleblower should not come at the price I have paid

I am sending this to your email and posting it to the members of brookfields for transparency reasons , I am sure you have nothing to hide and will realise the error that you have made .

Leave a Reply