FYI request
Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,
IN November 1999 Neil Wells who has now been acknowledged to have been a corrupt lawyer , made an application for the coercive law enforcement powers provided by the animal welfare act.
Neil Wells had drafted and advised on the legislation and basically wrote it to facilitate his own business plan see here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-conte…
He made a fraudulent application claiming legal existence of AWINZ your own records prove that on 1 may 2007 MAF recognized that AWINZ had no legal existence http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…
MAF had entered into a MOU with AWINZ http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten… as if it was a body corporate in its own right
Evidence that it was not a body corporate is found here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten….
In 2006 I reported to MPI that AWINZ had no legal standing as an entity . MAF did nothing except be obtrusive and believe Neil Wells , MPI has continued to be obstructive, I personally attribute this to the conflict of the chief legal officer who was a crown solicitor at the time of the application and failed to check the legal standing of AWINZ , hence and investigation into AWINZ would highlight his oversight at the time http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…
I realize that I have had all the documentation and the documentation that I have proves that MAF and now MPI condoned this public fraud and allowed a fictional organisation to continue to administer animal welfare law on the public
By way of OIA I would like to know the legal means by which the MPI can condone fraudulent applications for approved organisations and how it possibly thought that an organisation which did not exist and had no evidence of existing could possibly have responsibilities to the criteria provisions of the act.
I further request all documents in which MPI consider the consequences of contracting to a undefined name and discussions where by a decision was made not to investigate this public fraud and conceal it
If MPI considered that this was not fraudulent then I would like to see all documentation which they relied on that proved that AWINZ had legal existence
The situation is ironically that AWINZ could not have got a bank loan for $10 yet MAF gave it coercive public law enforcement powers. While this is bad it does not compare to the 15 years of the concealment of this corruption by failing to investigate the fraudulent application
The public need to have confidence in the MPI and this fraud has been ignored for too long, I am still under attack by one of the lawyers who was instrumental in the initial cover up I am a whistleblower and want the attack on me to stop by getting the government department which had responsibility to the public to act responsibly .
The manner in which AWINZ had been dealt with brings into question
the competency of MPI to supervise the one and only approved organisation which now has a changed constitution and appears to be acting in conflict of interest and using their inspectorate to promote the interests of animal welfare activists .
Yours faithfully,
Grace Haden
Leave a Reply