Search Results

Request for inquiry into the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )

Chris-FinlaysonGood afternoon Attorney General

Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand

Request to Attorney General under section 58

This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.

In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.

The charities commission directed my complaint to you .

This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.

I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .

Regards
Grace Haden

Was XXXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone?

While researching    a lawyer I had cause to look at the list of lawyers who have been censured, struck off or dealt with  by the law society

I came across one item “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer”  everything about it screams  XXXXXXX to me 

looking at the detail in this matter and snip bits  that I have  picked up over the years.

I have known all along that  XXXXX  was counting on a hefty chunk of the estate of one old lady in  Titirangi , the lady had  no family and supported animal welfare.

Even in the early days  she  was  involved with the various animal welfare projects in Waitakere city .

she wrote this letter in 1996 and there was a response from Tom Didovich . this was just after xxxxxxx had published his plans for his own business plan  as set out in the territorial animal welfare services  document he  produced.

the letter indicated that  that she had been told something and was checking it out for herself.

XXXXXXX was also in the process of writing the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act  , and into the bill he   inserted    the ability for  other organisations other than the RNZSPCA to become  law enforcement powers under the new legislation .

XXXXXX became ” independent” adviser to the select committee and as soon as the  bill became law he made an application   under a false name .

He told the minister lies  and  misled Maf    with regards to the structure and nature of  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.  he operated it from the council premises and rebranded the council buildings  so that they looked as thought  they were  a private organisation.

In 2006 when I asked  questions  with regards to the lack of existence of AWINZ (  animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) XXXXXXX concocted a trust deed for a similarly named trust   he stuffed up on the dates  and formed the trust   for a date three months into the future of when the application was made . according to these affidavits  the trustees never met  and as a result two trust deeds materialized  this one  and this one   you will note that the  center pages of the second one are different .

So Th eold lady who I presume was his client in the censure matter  was not the only one to be deceived , but she smelt a rat years later when xxxxx moved to Te Kuiti and  was telling people at the local SPCA that he was getting her money.

xxxxxx at the time was  the chairman of Te Kuiti RNZSPCA   and  set in motion the charities demise .

In 2016 He did not renew his  practicing certificate

I very much suspect that the item  above relates to him.  this fine upstanding  citizen  who  lied to the minister  is still being protected .  he was held up  as being a person with an impecible   nature and I am the tart who defamed him.

But How do you defend defamation when the statutory defence of truth and honest opinion  are denied  by the court.

Hardly a fair  go is it.  Andrew little would have lost too if he  could not have had a jury  or a defence. You denied me  the defence of truth and honest opinion, broke my marriage up  and you call yourself a christian.

xxxxxxx   when are you going to  admit your sins    You will be judged.

Its not how we are judged in this world its  how we are judged in the next..    my conscience is clear  how is yours xxxxx ?

Open letter to Monique Esplin Senior Solicitor MBIE


Hi Monique this is an open letter seeking your assistance as solicitor for the ministry of Business Innovation and employment .

The reason I am writing to you is because of your position at MBIE and the fact that you have now witnessed two affirmations for Vivienne Holm lawyer for the FMA. a full detailed copy of my sworn affidavit is here ..it is important to note that she has never disputed this evidence or proved anything to the contrary. the only issue appears to be as to her not having a practicing certificate in june 2006 which has been proved conclusively by by her

this is the signature on the document supporting the application for a restraining order in Auckland signed while your solicitor at MBIE

Last year when you were senior solicitor for ministry of culture and heritage you signed the affirmed file of documents for the defamation proceedings which Vivienne Holm initiated against me in the Wellington Court

The court action in Auckland was commenced on the day when Vivienne who lives in Wellington was declined the right to transfer the Wellington proceedings to Auckland . Vivienne has been very uncomplimentary about me and appears to need help in sorting out what a legal entity is and what constitutes a trust . It is therefore fortuitous that you have come into play and have a position with the government department which should know a thing or two about legal entities.

I have never met Vivienne she phoned me late at night on 2 june 2006 and threatened my professional licence if I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust , to me and by definition this is intimidation .

Vivienne claimed to be acting for AWINZ , an organisation which through our successful incorporation of our trust (also called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand) was proved to be fictitious. Our trust was incorporated on 27-APR-2006 . AWINZ in the case of her ” client” was just a undefined name for person or persons unknown yet was referred to in the proceedings as though it was a legal entity in its own right. The first recorded meeting of this ” trust “was 10 may 2006

In 2006 it was not easy to search the register and by being successful we proved that no other trust could exist by that name as no two legal entities can be registered under the same name.

Our reason for doing this was to establish who or what the approved organisation AWINZ was . AWINZ had coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA but unlike the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society , AWINZ was proved to have no legal existence at all and no trust deed was held by MPI who contracted to it or by Waitakere city council who’s facilities and infrastructure “AWINZ ” through the guise of Neil Wells ,was using to obtain a private income from public resources.

Our concern was that an Organisation which had no legal standing could not possibly be identified and be held accountable to the provisions of the animal welfare act , as only legal persons can sue or be sued and who ever AWINZ was was effectively invisible.

A recent court decision from Canada shows the importance of this accountability see here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Decision-19-01-02-Ontario.pdf

MBIE at the time was the ministry of economic development and the then registrar of trusts sent this letter which basically stated that we had a legal right to the name and Neil Wells did not.

Not being content with this, a letter was sent by brookfields solicitors see here and we believe that it was who Vivienne drafted a statement of claim for her husband to prosecute so as to force us into abandoning the name .

MPI, in collusion with Wells withheld vital information from me and only after having the ombudsmen intervene and 5 years having passed, I obtained information which is significant .
the audit report from MPI here showed

The reality was that the very first meeting was three weeks after we had incorporated and had proved its lack of existence this was serious cover up .

From the affidavit of Tom Didovich we learned that he had allegedly driven to the trustees in 2000 and obtained their respective signatures, they therefore did not meet at inception , the deed itself had a termination clause after three years, since no meetings were held the trust could not have survived, we have evidence that the trustees did not hold a bank account and never passed a resolution .

The first meeting was recorded as seen here  There is no legal appointment of Wyn Hoadley ,the trust deed was missing and the so called trustees had to be briefed on the purpose of the trust , one would have thought that trustees of a legitimate trust would have known this .

There was also no connection of this ” trust” to the approved organisation as it allegedly formed months after the application for approved status was made and had no proven connection with the application other than an unsigned trust deed. It is our opinion that Vivienne does not appear to be very good on time frames and you may wish to explain why legally it is impossible for a trust allegedly formed on 1.3.2000 to make an application for law enforcement powers on 22.11.1999.. how would a resolution to apply for such powers be possible if the people have not met and consented to their individual responsibility of accountability which was required in this instance.

Monique I hope that you can explain to Vivienne that the people who she claimed to have instructed her (at a time when the law society claimed she was a law clerk) , had no standing as a trust as they did not have a trust deed, had no evidence of being appointed to the trust and had no evidence of ever having worked or functioned as a trust or even a law enforcement authority and that she had a legal duty to ensure that these finer details were confirmed before taking legal action .

It was therefore impossible for the legally incorporated AWINZ to pass ourselves off as a group of three people who together had no legal identity and had never functioned as a group under any name , they certainly had no legal right to force us to give up the name . The legally incorporated AWINZ was a legal entity, a body corporate but the people whose names appear on the statement of claim, Wyn Hoadley , Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts were not a legal entity by any legally provable means and could not have legally called themselves AWINZ, they could , if they had a trust deed or proof of appointment call them selves Hoadley, Coutts and wells as trustees in the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. Their responsibilities were as individuals and their trust had no legal standing separate from the alleged trustees jointly

I was taken me to court for defamation for saying that the AWINZ trust(as in the law enforcement body ) was a sham, I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and my life , my family and my marriage was destroyed. It has been proved conclusively that AWINZ was a sham now Vivienne has come out of nowhere taking me to court for harassment for getting the discovery documents to her .. its absurd.Its in my opinion all to cover up conscience does make cowards of us all .. and its at my expense that is why I speak up 13 years is too long.

If any one with the paperwork which “AWINZ” produced to obtain law enforcement powers , had gone to a bank they would have been laughed out of the place.

Vivienne’s father David Holm transpires to be a community board member in Auckland I wonder if he condones the use of council resources for private enrichment ?

Vivienne has all the evidence and it is additionally all set out in full in my
copy of my sworn affidavit is here , I don’t know if she has a mental block or just cant see it or refuses to see it but it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that a trust which has never met cannot be a law enforcement authority especially when there is no evidence of a trust existing prior to the application and when trustees are not appointed or reappointed then the trust ceases to exist, and in any case a trust without assets is not a trust its a sham .

The only evidence which was sent to me to support the claim to the name was this deed as you can see they are different people to those named on the statement of claim . Without a connection and proof of continuity Tom Dick and Harry cannot claim to be the same trust as Mary, Joan and Edward

It is important that you sort her out on the legal entity issue and trusts as she is now a lawyer for the FMA and heaven forbid if she continues to think that any one with a piece of paper or speaking convincingly can be a trust or a legal person, its the stuff that fraud is made of

Looking forward to your help .

The RNZSPCA and a groundbreaking decision from the Canadian courts .. will it impact on us ?

Today I received the attached court decision from the Superior court of Justice  Ontario    Decision-19-01-02 Ontario

It was reported in the Ontario press https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-judge-strikes-down-enforcement-powers-of-ospca-as-unconstitutional-1.4239169.

I see this  decision as impacting  on the Approved organisations  which  currently enforce the animal welfare law in New Zealand, the ontarion SPC has a lot in common with the  RNZSPCA  and  their legislation  is  pretty similar to ours ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

By way of back ground

I am a former police prosecutor and became a mother then a private investigator . In my role as Mother  I stumbled across  a fictional “Approved organisation”  being the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) .

MPI’s own  documents record that  this “ organisation “ was never incorporated under any legislation, this actually means that the application for approved status was fraudulent , it was compounded with  false and misleading statements to the minister . I discovered he fraud and on blowing the whistle was immediately crucified , 12 years later I am still suffering the fall out,  this time at the hands of the Financial markets authority Lawyer  Vivienne Holm*.see foot note

What makes the impact of this even more significant is the fact that  the only person to  operate this “ approved organisation “ was none other than Neil Edward Wells the barrister who had written the No bill for the legislation  and  then become  “ independent advisor” to the select committee when the bills became Law . see his cv here

His purpose for writing the  bill was   his own business plan see the a copy of which you have on your files here   and  a copy which I have forwarded to your staff many times here   , it has to be noted that these  were dated 1996   an predate his  drafting of the legislation  He inserted the approved organisations into the bill to facilitate his business plan .

IN 2006  I raised Questions  with regards to  AWINZ   and found that this was totally covered up by  MPI  officials  who were  on friendly terms with  Wells. The  current MPI  chief   legal officer Peter  McCarthy was the  crown law solicitor  who  gave advice  in the approval stages  and failed to pick up the  lack of any  legal existence of AWINZ see  document here ,  His own conflict  has  in my opinion  jeopardised any investigation into the  public fraud which existed for  some 10 years.

I raised question with regards to accountability  as in my mind a fictional organisation cannot have accountability .

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

 The Ontario decision impacts on  the only two   Approved organisation  which have existed   in   different ways

  1. AWINZ    .. was MPI  negligent in allowing AWINZ   to continue as an approved organisation   until 2010 despite a whistle blower.. (me) correctly  identifying that the organisation had no legal existence ,this  point  was  recognised by MPI  in 2007 see here    . MPI  met with people claiming to be  the AWINZ trust but these people informally came together in   may 2006 a  month after we had proved that AWINZ the approved organisation was a fiction .  the gazette notices with regards to  AWINZ are here
  2. RNZSPCA   I see that the case with the RNZSPCA  reflects the same issues as the  judge identified with the Ontario SPCA.  Ours  however is compounded by the fact that  the RNZSPCA  has never been given approved status  but was given approved status under  Transitional provisions. Mr Wells was a former  director of the  RNZSPCA  , his law degree had been paid for  by the RNZSPCA   and  he  continued to have associations with the RNZSPCA  after   AWINZ lost its approved status.

Wells was proved to be a   corrupt barrister  the organisation he misappropriated funds for the RNZSPCA.

When the RNZSPCA  was given  provisional approval  in the legislation  it had a constitution  1995 constitution which was  very different to its current constitution 2017 constitution . There is also reference to branches, but  there is  a move to  remove branches and the entire structure and integrity of the RNZSPCA has changed  with the  Auckland SPCA ( a member society ) effectively taking over the RNZSPCA

The  Ontario decision   in particular paragraph 84  to 91 impacts on the AWINZ matter  specifically  i the fact that the application  for   approved status for AWINZ   was fraudulent in that it  claimed to be an organisation when  the  only person applying for approved status  an  involved in running the approved organisation under the fictional name  AWINZ was the author of the legislation

There was no transparency then  and those involved in the  cover up     being  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts  ,  Tom Didovich , Vivienne Holm and MPI staff  whose actions    sought to conceal the fact that AWINZ , the approved organisation ,had no legal existence as determined  by  the ministry of economic development  see here  . have  continued to be fine upstanding persons  while I hve had to endure 12 years of  orchestrated attacks on my reputation    so as to discredit me and the facts of the substantive issue   ignored.

Itis time that  MPI  takes steps to  ensure  transparency , integrity to protect itself  from  fraud and  demonstrates that such  falsehoods will not be condoned,  this is particularly serious as it involved law enforcement   through fraud

With regards to the RNZSPCA   in light of the Ontario decision mPI must  review the search and seizure powers Section 21 Bill of rights  and section s 127 -130 Animal welfare act  as discussed in paragraph 12 of the Ontario decision  paragraph 31  to 61

In particular  it needs to be considered that Paragraph 24 of the decision  refers to distress,  the definition in the   Ontario act is distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect; (“détresse”)24 ,

 Our  legislation does not define  distress which means it takes on dictionary meaning and  can  include “ discomfort , despair, worry  anxiety’ My cat suffers from this  frequently when she doesn’t get a hit of “treats”   and with  the RNZSPCA constitution change incorporating  the requirement to “create a better life for animals “  I am  in danger of causing distress to my cat .. she certainly puts up a convincing show

  • this means that inspectors subjective  opinion could determine that  I am causing my cat  distress  when she does not get her fix of her favourite treat on time

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

“By granting police and other investigative powers {including search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act  )to a private organization? In the alternative, if it can be constitutional to grant such powers to a private organization does the animal welfare  Act never the less breach sections 21   25   and 27  of the bill of rights by granting these powers to the RNZSPCA, specifically, without any or adequate, legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?”

Ontario decision . Just like the  Canadian legislation our animal welfare act carries  imprisonment  penalties (section25  37 AWA) and therefore  are “ criminal in nature “  people  who are charged with animal welfare offences  are liable to lose their employment  such as in the case of nurses  and  teachers.

Many of the offences are strict liability  and the   “unreasonableness” in compliance or noncompliance is  only evaluated  subjectively “ in the opinion” of the  Inspector of the private  enforcement organisation which  co incidentally  appears to have changed its constitution to   target  enforcement as a means of income and is  involved in significant   recruitment and training of new inspectors   see here

Like the Canadian provisions  many of our criminal acts require  intent ,  however intent is not an ingredient in the animal welfare  act  and a person acting in accordance with their  traditional  standards  could well become guilty under the act. If suffering is in” the opinion” of any party  it is the opinion of the  RNZSPCA that counts. The RNZSPCA  is targeting fines as a source of income

It is of specific note that  you are automatically guilty  of an offence under the animal welfare act unless you file a defence  under  restricted terms , within 7 days . section 13 animal welfare act.

It is also of note that the legislation was  written and advised on by a Barrister who   was closely associated with the RNZSPCA  under its old constitution  and one who was  intent on using this  very legislation to derive an income for himself.

The discussion  Paragraph 62 onward   in the Ontario decision is  very relevant

we require an urgent  review of the RNZSPCA and the  animal welfare Acts’ compliance with the  bill of rights  and Official information  act

    • section 21 BORA   given that all it requires for an  search and seizure is the opinion of an inspector  who  is  employed by a charity whose  purpose is to “taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.’
    • Section 25 C Bora  “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”   and section13 Animal welfare act  , there was a case where a nurse had  horse which contracted  a  disease distributed by pukeko’s, her horse rapidly deteriorated and  died.   The laboratory tests  were not back within 7 days  and her defence  failed because the SPCA proved that her horse died in her care .
    • Section 27  does the ability of the RNZSPCA  to enter and search without warrant impact on  the right to justice
    • Unlike the police  or government body  prosecution  the RNZSPCA is not subject to the  official information act  and therefore lacks transparency

It is further of note that the  RNZSPCA   trades as the SPCA  , the  staff and directors of the former  Auckland SPCA which was a separate legal entity appear to have taken over the  RNZSPCA which was the only body to have  approved status.  Their  new  constitution allows for other names , this    brings about confusion and  opens the ability of any one to pass themselves off as an approved organisation  and  gives scope for another  fraudulent  law enforcement organisation  such as AWINZ.

I  sincerely hope that  the Ontario decision provides clarity and direction for our own animal welfare legislation

*Vivienne Holm, (who despite working for the FMA , apparently  cannot discern a fake trust  from a real one ) ,    is taking me to court for defamation for saying  that it appeared odd that two barristers should instruct a  law clerk  and for saying that I  felt intimidated when she rang  me late at night and  make threats against my private investigators licence if  I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust :-The Incorporation of our trust  proved conclusively that the approved organisation AWINZ  was fictional   , to me her  threats against my licence was intimidation  However   she cannot understand that this is intimidation and now claims its defamation   for me to say that I felt intimidated  .

Another point of contention is whether or not she was a lawyer, I have lots of  evidence that she  did not have a practicing certificate and could therefore not be lawyer  she has evidence that she did not have  a practicing certificate   but apparently  does not  let a good document stand in the way of a bad argument ..she is currently a lawyer working for the FMA 

Open letter to Vivienne Holm solicitor for FMA.

Vivienne  You  have made my life hell for 12 years  and I have all but come to the end of my tether ,  12 years after phoning me and intimidating me you decide  that  the truth I  have spoken  is defamatory .  Vivienne truth is never defamatory .. if you don’t like the way your actions reflect on you, try acting  in a positive manner .

You have blocked all email communications and are using the court process to cause me stress and  duress and waste my time,  I am totally over it .

You filed an  unsigned  memorandum in court this week seeking  discovery of the documents which I have already sent you links to and  explained in a lengthy affidavit (which is  subject to the rules of perjury) . see it here  affidavit discovery signed

Because the links are no longer active after  scanning I took the  care to send  a copy to  your work email  Vivienne.Holm@fma.govt.nz and you immediately blocked my email 

the full version of the affidavit with active  hyperlinks is  here discovery affidavit

It surprises me that you  do not know  how to open hyperlinks  and that you  do  not know that  the hyperlinks give you access to the  documents which you now want to put me to more trouble  to  to produce .

I have already  worked out that  you took defamation action to have  your name removed from search engines  and that  legal action is an apparent  requirement for  google   if you do a search on Vivienne Holm you will see this at the bottom of the page

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 25 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

more details can be seen here  https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16567636#

A simple back ground to this all  and very important  questions  which remain unanswered are here.

On 2  June 2006 Vivienne Holm, claiming to be a lawyer  Phoned me late at night   and  simply told me that if I did not  change the name of the trust that I was a trustee of that  she would  go after my Private investigators licence .    I call this intimidation

Even thought I gave up My private investigators license this year  due to on going  apparently ” orchestrated ” complaints , Vivienne has continued to pursue me  and   took defamation action  because  I mentioned her part in the larger  corruption  which  I have experienced  has been covered up  at all levels.

This phone call  centred on a trust which  I  with others had incorporated  to prove that the law enforcement authority by the same name had no legal existence and was at the centre of serious corruption in new zealand .

We currently have  a  massive fuss over an immigration matter , but  this involved a man writing legislation for his own  business plan, advising on it and setting up  one of only two    private law enforcement authorities  ever.  The RNZSPCA  has statutory powers the same  Statutory powers were enjoyed by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand( AWINZ)   which did not exist  in any   capacity other than an alter ego of the person who wrote the legislation and pocketed the money  .

It was this action that  Vivienne Holm was up to her neck in  in concealing this  corruption  by attacking me  and 12 years later after having  contributed to breaking up my  family  , my marriage causing me over  $300,000  in losses and forcing the sale of  the family home  she is still  at it and wants   to take a chunk from my pension .

the purpose of this open letter is to supply  Vivienne with the  Hyperlinks yet again, they are all  on the  various posts which  she complains  of  , the are on the affidavit  and they are again on the  Schedule of documents  which again was  affirmed  in the courts

By making them public I hope that she may be able to talk to one or two of her colleagues at the  FMA  and they may be able to explain a few things  to her about trusts  the  things I wish them  to explain to her as it worries me that lawyer  working for the FMA  does not appear to know

 the difference between a group of people who came together without a trust deed and without any   legal evidence of a trust existing  and a legally constituted  incorporated trust .

  1. we incorporated our trust  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand on 27 April 2006 . The register was hard to search in those days and this way we knew that if another trust by that name existed then we could not be successful in registering it .
  2. we were duly incorporated under number 1809454, we  were forced to change our name in 2017 due to the court action which Vivienne had commenced by  drafting the statement of claim  and her  husband  at the time, Nick wright  of Brookfields Continuing.
  3. In the defamation claim which  she brought  on  behalf of  Neil Wells  and  the passing off claims  of three people who had no  evidence of being a trust  and who had first come together on 10 May 2006.
  4. she worked on the statement of claim despite  having  official correspondence  from the ministry of economic developments  which stated that we had the name legitimately .
  5. the problem was  that in 1999  Neil Wells had lied to the minister  and  had told him that AWINZ existed , he had lied   for 7 years  and  risked being caught out , in my mind   Vivienne Holm is a party to   conspiring to  conceal corruption

It also worries me that a woman who called herself a lawyer at the time of intimidating me  did not have a practicing certificate at the time   and  is now  suing me for defamation for saying so.

It further worries me that the   former resource management lawyer  who now works for the financial markets authority  appears to have a problem comprehending   documents .  such as

  1.  Ministry of economic developments  stating that we were legitimate and that Neil Wells  group was not
  2. the  two trust deeds which emerged in 2006  being different http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/trust-deed.pdf  and http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdfhttp://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdf
  3. that the 2000 trust deed  states   that  trustees are due for re appointment after three years  and the  evidence shows that  the trust never met even at conception , never held assets, or passed resolutions There was one reference to an alleged meeting in 2004  but no evidence of it  and  again a IRD number and bank account were obtained in 2005 ..  How is that possible with  legal existence  .
  4. Wyn hoadley was appointed as trustee when the trust deed was missing  ,  she was appointed on 10 may 2006 under a section number which did not appear in the original deed   when there was no  evidence of previous activity of a group of persons . Or any evidence of compliance with the   provisions of the charitable trust act for appointing trustees 
  5. there was no  evidence of a resolution  appointing solicitors .

If  she can turn a blind eye to this  what is Vivienne Holm doing in the FMA ? Or is it that Vivienne holm who has  spent a lot of time as a resource management lawyer does not understand trusts and legal entities ?

Vivienne sent  me  some documents by way of discovery with holm affirmed file  one was a  law society dossier

Now one of the  things that Vivienne felt ” defamed over ” is  the statement that   at the time she phoned me in June 2006 she was not a lawyer despite claiming to be . So Vivienne  send me the evidence that I was right  But continues to ask me to jump through hoops  while she continues her defamation action .  The evidence  in the law society dossier   is right here

To any educated person  this  means that  on 2/6/2006 when  Vivienne posed as a lawyer   she was not one  she ceased being a member  13 February 2006  and again became a  member 15  August 2006 when she  became a barrister.

The questions  which I would also like to know the answer to are

  1. why would two barristers  instruct a resource management  law clerk

  2. why  did you say you were researching defamation and  rang me in error  that later friday night .. why not simply hang up  and say sorry wrong number  why say  if you don’t change the name of your trust I will go after your private investigators licence.  and why back it up with emails ?

I do hope that some one   in the FMA   can look  at the   matter as it appears serious to me that a lawyer  working for the FMA  can be so confused about  legal entities  and lack comprehension to a degree where by  she cannot even interpret document she has in her own possession .

I have found everything about Vivienne’s approach as intimidation she continues to intimidate  and name call in the latest court document.

This is a cover up of Gross corruption   Why  is it being ignored 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penny Bright .. why we need a lot more people like her

It is exactly 12 years ago today  when  I met Penny , I remember the date well , because it  was her birthday.   We  are the most unlikely  mates, I am  the ex cop  and she  the activist . In the  spring bock tour  we were  on opposite sides of the fence , she had an opinion but my uniform  prevented me from having one.

Since leaving the  Police and Becoming a  Private investigator   I  stumbled  onto corruption.    I thought it would be a simple task to bring the  lack of existence of a Law enforcement body to the notice of the government,  but    I was wrong and encountered   a cover up of   gigantic and unbelievable proportion  that has  apparently called for a 12 year character assassination of me  which   continues to this day .  Heaven forbid that some one should believe me or look at the evidence, then some  very prominent people would be taking up beds in our   prisons .

With Penny’s activism and union  background   and my police prosecution  and investigative  Background we    formed a very close relationship  of mutual support trust and respect.

Penny and I  are  on the same page    with corruption,  we do not  always agree on  everything  but the good part is   that when we   talk about  our different  views  we often  find that   there is  yet  another angle  ,one neither of us anticipated.

I have learned heaps  from Penny , having been in  Government service  you come out rather  blinkered  and  Penny  helped me see beyond the things that public service blind you to .

In return  helped Penny  with my prosecution skills ,I remember her  coming to me because she had been thrown out of the town hall and arrested for trespass  , I said whoa  that is a public place you can’t be trespassed from a public place , there is specific legislation  with regards to removal from council meetings    and so Penny    learned  from me  and    won some 22  cases of trespass .

We  took on projects  individually and worked on others together  one day we ended up in  Rodney Hide’s office   and  together  learned  from him of the   magic of the privacy act. So obvious  once you know .

It is hard to believe that when we met in 2006   that the internet was still  pretty much  in its infancy , all sorts of things were being loaded on line , like the companies register  and those who had  been hiding  their business connections  in the  files of the companies office  suddenly found their  business  exposed .  we unraveled the committee for auckland and saw how   the  tail was wagging the dog,  this was he start of the super city   and it was all about $$$$.

I started to blog and  we  soon found   that transparency was not  welcome . What it did however  was to bring people together  and  we built a network   of people  who needed help on the way, a network of mutual support  and information sharing .

Penny rang me one day about the Tamaki  redevelopment company  limited  and together  we   worked through the  quagmire of trading names, domain names  and   fake names  which facilitate the transfer of   a massive government housing  stock to a company other than  the one where it was  intended to go . We cared bt apparently no one else did  , but that is something that one day will become obvious .

We have made headway on corruption, the corruption  we saw occurs through using  fake identities  , false names and   fictional trusts.  it is not on a person identity thing but using fake entities . the banks are now  checking the validity of   companies  and the  directors and shareholders, but you can still register a company and have  a liquidation   through a liquidator who is totally fictional   and hopefully soon  the questions will be asked about  the tamaki redevelopment company  Limited, Tamaki regeneration limited and the fictional  tamaki regeneration  company limited which , to add to the confusion is is referred to as TRC 

see also Corruption Alert ..Tamaki Regeneration limited   and Crown Entities , Fictional entities and making things up as they go

I  knew that  fictional organisations existed after questioning   the existence of   the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  which was in reality nothing more than a trading name used by Neil Wells.  Wells was the  barrister  who  drafted  and was adviser to the select committee on the animal welfare   bill  which, when passed    facilitated the  granting of  coercive law  enforcement powers .  Wells made a fraudulent  application  to the minister   and   subsequently  obtained this law enforcement power for  his fictional organisation   this was   covered up by his associates  in   court action  against me   to re write history. despite many requests  this has been covered up 

Penny came to court with me   and stood beside me more times than I  can  mention , no other friend has stood beside me like she has .

The state of corruption : New Zealand  Questioning  corruption is not for the faint hearted especially in New Zealand , because we are repeatedly told that there is no corruption , we must be delusional, ignoring   corruption is liek   ignoring cancer  while penny was    fighting  corruption  she  did not notice the tumours in her own body .

Penny You are  going  to have to get better    we still need you  , I have had plenty of friends at  deaths door   and  they are here today ,   You are  a fighter   your work is not   done  .

Get better  girl   and  Onward and upward     there is much more work to be done

Hugs

Grace

 

the perfect fairy story When fact is simply unbelievable

IN 2006  XXXX  was working at home as a law clerk for  Brookfields , she was  allegedly approached by Two Barristers   Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley  who  were pretending to be trustees of a trust which had never existed .

They had a dilemma you see in 1999 Neil Wells   had written legislation for the animal welfare act   and  had been an advisor to the select committee . He then made a fraudulent application to the  minister claiming that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed , it was in reality  just a fancy name  that he had thrown about the  offices of  MPI  for a while so that those who did not check  got used to  the sound of the name .

In the application  Wells claimed that AWINZ was  formed by trust deed , but then in letters to the minister he avoided sending  a copy of  the deed .  he said that the one deed had been sent off to be registered.

The  lawyers for the MPI believed him  and never checked  and then  in 2006   some one had  registered a trust with the same name   which  embarrassingly showed that Neil wells had told a lie .

But rather than deal with the lie   and  hold Wells accountable to the law   it was far easier to instruct a law clerk to put some pressure on the woman involved.. One Grace Haden

Grace Haden is the villain in this piece , she questioned corruption , this threatened not only the  fraud that  was AWINZ but also  the ability of the  government to verify its facts  and uphold the  law.

So the heroine of the story   enters .  “I will fix this” she said   and  takes it upon her self to  ring the wicked witch of the west  late one friday night and threatens her PI licence if she does not change the name  of the trust which she and others had legally incorporated . ( blackmail in most peoples books )  The witch is not a push over   so our heroine sends some   emails to  drive her threats home .

The  witch   using her magic powers locates our heroines  home  and on arriving there on her japanese power driven  broom stick  is confronted by   two  children  who say ” mummy is not home’   and calls daddy.   Daddy  sees  to it that the police serve a trespass notice  on the witch , last thing you want is to   intimidate some one and them have them call at your house to see if they can resolve the problem.

Next step is a lawyers letter .. Lawyers letters don’t need to be factual , they  just have to threaten in a nice way  , leaving no options and the best thing is to get a lawyer who  does not check what he is signing so  the letter is put in front of Davis Neutze of Brookfields .

The  letter is  sent  by the lawyers  who claim to represent  the fictional organisation which cannot legally    contract to a lawyer , they effectively  claim that the trust formed in march 2000  made  the application for law enforcement powers  in 1999 . they   go   totally  off on  a tangent  about  AWINZ being a charity , the reality  is that  it was not a charity , it was not a trust  it was  a name  that Neil Wells used when he    took on the law enforcement role using the staff of waitakere city council .  He establishing a bogus Trust for personal profit.  As the UN call it   public office for private gain

But who cares  this Is NZ the land of opportunity and   the magic of being a barrister means that one can do what ever they like as they are trusted and believed  and no one must never say anything   bad  let alone the truth  .If you do  then you will be crucified in court..  yes that  is what happened to the  the witch and  years  later they are still trying to tie her to a dunking chair.. hard to  believe that this is  2018

The fact that Wyn Hoadley and Neil Wells   did not have a trust deed , nor any other documents which could show that they  were  trustees  was beside the point.. the fact that they were barristers   made it all leggit . A law degree makes people honest    Yeh!!!!!

So the  humble law clerk  dashes out and in August 2006  becomes a barrister too (She got a practicing certificate to be a barrister )    and prepares the statement of claim  which will force the  witch of the west to  give up the name so that  the two barristers  can  perform their magic and   make the problem  and the lies  Vanish

David Neutze signs the letter  he doesn’t even notice that the trust deed he refers to is not there  , had he seen the trust deed he may have asked questions  like why is Wyn Hoadleys name not on it  and how and when did she  become a   trustee (   Not by any legal process we can assure you .. pure magic .. poof one minute she is not on the trust the next   she is the chair woman )

This was not the only magic    the trust deed which was missing in 2000 see page 6 bottom , has miraculously  reappeared , been renumbered  to eliminate the clause referred to   and now has two versions   one  sent to the witch the other  to MPI .  MPI didn’t even notice that there were lots of pages on their one not signed.. but why should that matter  .. don’t want to look too close do we  its just a bit of paper that ticks the box  after all .

The real magic had been concealed as the people who  allegedly signed the  deed  had never met , never passed a resolution   and never held funds. AWINZ was a total fiction .

We were told that our heroine prepared the  statement of claim  which  was a wonderful piece of fiction

  • The first plaintiffs are the current trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand,
    (‘AWINZ 2000), an unincorporated charitable trust which was formed pursuant to a trust
    deed executed on 1 March 2000.

the reality of the trust is recorded by Maf   by 2008 the trust had met three times   2004  2006  twice.  By its own terms the trust  ceased to exist in 2003  when no  trustees were reappointed .  Hoadley had become  a “ trustee on  10 may  when the deed was missing , by a clause that does not exist in the copy of the deed  and by no visible legal means , the  audit report records AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . The lies in the application  Have been totally  condoned by MPI .

  • In November 1999, the second plaintiff wrote to the Minister of Agriculture advising that he
    was seeking approval for AWINZ 2000, which was at that time not yet formally constituted
    by way of trust deed,

this from the application audit report

Question  which  statement is false  the SOC, the  application  or perhaps BOTH

  • The third defendant is a trust formed pursuant to a trust deed executed in 2006 and
    incorporated pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act 1 957 on 27 April 2006.

Note that this was formed before Wyn Hoadley  came on board with Neil Wells, they also had this letter from the registrar of trusts  lawyer 

  • Everything was twisted and contorted   we had set up a website   to  advertise the fact that AWINZ  was not  legitimate. It was using  waitakere city council dog control officers to collect revenue for its Boss Neil Wells .
  • He had re branded the building to be  confusingly similar to   the fictional AWINZ 

Now  12 years  later  and  with Neil Wells dead  , our herone  is still at it  she decided to go after the witches  PI licence, because  she thought it gave the  witch powers of magic  like being able to find people .  She   ensured that  there was no point in the witch appealing the decision of the person  posing as the pspla( he was not a lawyer as required ) and his misguided belief   that the witch was a conspiracy theorist and  therefore should not be   an investigator .

Vivienne’s own words  in the complaint to the  Pspla  show that her aim was to discredit the  witch   the  new PSPLA  decided to have a hearing in Wellington before  she even considering  all the submissions  submissions   this is my response response to complaint_and the witches  submissions in response 

It is of note that  every time   our heroine contacted the witch  she  has made a threat   against the  witches professional licence, now that she has  have given up my licence she is  taking the witch  to court . for defamation . what does this woman want !!!! she doesn’t want to settle she doesn’t want to say  what  has been said that is wrong .But you guessed it she wants $$$$$$ about $30,0000   worth  $20,000  as compensation   ..  for what ?    because the  truth hurts .

She has proved  that you do need defamation papers to put in front of Google to have your name removed  from the web https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16567636

Is this how the court is  going to  be  used in New Zealand ? is this  going to be condoned  by our judges..      I will keep you posted

So there you have it folked if the truth hurts and you want to remove it from  Google  you need to take defamation  action   and you can continue to ensure that  the bad spot light   fixes on  others  while you  conceal the truth about yourself .

mean  while we  continue to  live in the perception

don’t be fooled   The reality is no fairy  tale

Copy of letter to XXXX -Policy analyst – land information NZ –

XXXXX  You could have made a massive difference to  many lives by  asking questions in 2006 , instead I felt bullied by you  when you  concealed the corruption that was AWINZ.

AWINZ  was not   just any old organisation  there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them ( RNZSPCA the other )   AWINZ did not exist  you covered it up  and  12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough.

The purpose of this open letter is to get  some  issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the  government directly  as a contractor  and  apparently as an employee For LINZ.

You are reportedly a lobbyist  and as such I see the  connection between  you and Wells .

see Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

As such it is in the public interest that you  act  with integrity and  that your actions are exposed .

As to integrity  it is my   professional opinion is that your  does not reach the threshold for a public servant  It is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to  damage some ones reputation  so that  corruption could be  concealed.

I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by  giving up  my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years  in an attempt to discredit me . You say so  yourself in the complaint to the pspla COMPLAINT DATED 23 JANUARY 2018

Your  complaint in January   was in my opinion  totally  malicious and vexatious  yet I was  supposed  to travel to Wellington  the following week  so that you   could have a go at me in person  at a ” disciplinary ”  hearing.  presumably for the  defamation claim     you were setting me up for.

You have also   alleged that you are preparing  a defamation prosecution  but refuse to say how I have defamed you  or given an opportunity  to  make a correction  .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .

In short your  actions  with  the PSPLA  appears to me to  have been  for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .

I have never met you XXXXX  but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the  background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link  with Neil Wells was that you   both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be  kept , Like   protecting corruption rather than exposing it .

Last year I suspected  that Neil Wells was  the  corrupt barrister   who  is mentioned in this  decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the  money he  took , perhaps that unsettled you  because you   had gone all out to defend him  and  spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth   but  by denying me  the  right  to a fair trial and a defence   you influenced the court and  a most defamatory judgement of me  emerged when the  judge believed the spin  the lies and  misinformation Nick Wright  put to the  court.

The  resulting Judgement has served you well     and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to create a false impression  that I am a nasty person, and you are the one who complains of defamation !  You have done everything you can    they should not believe my allegations of corruption.  It has worked so  far but then you  thought I would have given up by now , No I have not .  with the spotlight currently on  rape  through the me too movement , corruption will be next     this is  like being abused for 12 years   .

I suspect that  in fearing  that the tide was turning, you  made a complaint  against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious  and as a result I have  given up  my licence as  it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing  attacks  by those I suspect that you have encouraged to  make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA   I  have eliminated that  avenue for harassment .

You  first approached me at  9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june  2006  you rang my home number   and told me  to change the name of the  legal trust which I was a trustee of  or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence  , you followed this up   with  an email at 11 pm making  similar threats .

You were working from your home as a law clerk  at the time for Brookfields  which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner  of  .

You now falsely  claim that you had a practicing certificate  but the law society  investigations  Here  and the decision here  prove  otherwise .

there is evidence that  you  lied to the  PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” this    reflects on your level of  integrity

One  has to wonder  why Neil Wells a Barrister  and Wyn Hoadley  a barrister  would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter  and why she is now rewriting the past about her   status as a law clerk. !

The trust which I was a  trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  now called the  ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively  that no other  legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that   the Approved Organisation  by the same name was a fraud.  see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging  that we were  competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive   Wells of donations .  You had the ability to twist facts then   that skill you apparently have retained .

This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time. . Documents in support as attached   .submissions in response and emails coa

Vxxxxxxclaims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do”  Really!  at 9.45 pm at night   when   this is what  the law society reported in their finding 

So why  not simply hang up  when I answered or say  sorry wrong number  but you went on to intimidate  and followed it up with threatening  emails  at 11 pm on Friday night!  You  used the names xxxxxxxxx and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is  your middle name and date of birth .

You  never took any notice of  the letter  which the   registrar sent you in reply to  your complaint  see here 

You may not be aware of the significance of this  but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan

AWINZ did not exist  despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since  at least 1998 , Tom Didovich  was  working on this fraud with him  and paid for  the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees  see also this file

In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ   Neil Wells wrote on 22  november 1999

Now apparently, according to  you ,   I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what   you think  a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?

I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ?  well  it might surprise you that when Neil Wells  made this application   it was three months  before the date   of the trust deed  he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until  june 2006 when miraculously there were two  ( but they were not the same )

Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a   group of people  applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which  does not exist and  does not have a deed,

How did the  trustees   pass a resolution  to  apply for   law enforcement powers ?

how  does the law of contracts apply in this instance  what liability would  there be  for the individuals in running such an organisation ..   NONE cause they were not involved

why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200  what being an approved organisation  meant, surely they would have known they  allegedly ran one for   6 years .. or did they ?

In correspondence to the minister   Neil Wells wrote in 2000.

A person such  as myself who according to your slanderous comment  has   ” limited intellectual capabilities”  this means  that

  1. there is a trust deed
  2. it has a clause 20 (a)  see the trust deed he produced   it only goes to 19   there is no 20  or 20 (a)
  3. there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
  4. It is  not available because the original has been sent  for registration .(  he knowe that only copies were sent  he lied )

The reality is that Neil Wells  deliberately lied to the minister  not one of those statements is true .

Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by  become a body corporate   ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person  in its own right and has existence  apart from the trustees )  Wells had incorporated two  just months earlier  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD

He knew that only copies  of the deed  were sent  and  in 2006  we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were  different  version 1  and version 2 

Version 2 was sent  to MAF  , the  front page and the signature pages are original and the middle  pages have been switched out.. Do policy  analysts  care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone  that ?   are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?

All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the  years but you and him  continued your vexatious attacks on me.

Have you not read section  4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the  rule of law   you were  an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things  so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate  you  are cunning .

You prepared the statement of claim  and Nick Wright  your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court  the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work   I wont be bullied

In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law  society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006  when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here xxx Decision 

It obviously became too much for Nick when he  became a committed patient  but despite this he continued to practice  law until  june 2011 when he was still acting past that date  despite not having a practicing certificate 

Nick  has now left law , I was particularly taken  with  the poem he read on his face book page  about the  wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true

Getting back to you and your complaint   I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority  , But no matter what I  said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before  you had served papers on me   MY response   is here 

When ever you submit  more  information you introduce more  misinformation and childish action   as can be seen in your  xxxxxxx submissions in reply

On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate,   for the  first time since 2011  you allege that there is an  issue, then when I  correct it for  you, you    scream to the PSPLA  .. “she has changed it  she is disobeying  the pspla.”

For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, In reality there is no difference to  the situation with Wyn Hoadley   see the decision re her  Hoadley decision  and her response Hoadley response

I have no legal  obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions  for companies which were not under my PI licence .

You are  right  not to  respond to   my  submissions, to do so would  cause you to put your foot in it further .

If you think I am defaming you   tell me   how and where      , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA  are too similar  you have been  there all along  ensuring that I am never out of court.   How childish can you get  for  the allegations about me speaking to your kids    They came to the door  in 2006  I asked for their mother..  you even managed to make that sound like  the crime of the century .

Not long after I  had an anonymous complaint  to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson  who coincidentally  claimed I had used  those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia

I will not give up until You are  convicted     as a lawyer  your obligation was to the rule of law  you  have been a lawyer off an on since   since 1996  you cannot plead ignorance  and I have every reason to believe  that  you have   coordinated the attacks on  me  to discredit me

It all started with the   Statement of claim which you  and your then husband Nick Wright  filed   for the  fictional AWINZ

The very first  paragraph to the court   is a lie   and the lies  just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this   Nick just stood there  and lied  i was denied a defence  and that is called JUSTICE !

You did not check to see if AWINZ existed  You had evidence that we had legitimate  trust  had body corporate status  but you  gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it  AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption  you take the cake

Neil Wells  conspired with  MAF to ensure that information was withheld  until after the  court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released  this  vital evidence included the audit report  which  proved that AWNZ was a sham .

This  was later  confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society  with this letter 

What is missing is that  the application for  approved status under the legislation which Wells had written  and advised on , was made  by AWINZ  on 22 November 1999.  so how could  trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application  ?

Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees  only Wells signature was on the  application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity  in its own right . as you can see the  signatory of this crown law  opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI  Peter Mc Carthy

the trust deed   which first  saw daylight  in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting  on  10 May  states  that the trustees  required to be reappointed after three years

the  alleged trustees of this  2000 trust did not  hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005    and no  meeting had occured  since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you  can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?

Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response  states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.”  this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person  make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 

So this  woman   who is supposedly a Barrister  seeks legal advice from a  resource management  law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved  quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation  your specialty

Wyn Hoadley also  falsely claims that  AWINZ  resolved to seek  professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution   it is not in the   minutes!  

Wyn  was also not appointed by any legal  method   she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed   and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she   binding herself into ????  would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ????   it simply defies belief.  These people are lawyers  !!!!!! or should I say Liars

By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to  address the   malicious attack on me  which you state in  paragraphs 22 and 23  of your complaint , ie  to  take away  any credibility my PI licence could  give.

The good news   is that  a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take  Translegal   and its  director  Gary Swan for example they  have a PI licence   yet  swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something  which is apparently condoned .see this  and these Translegal document server jailed .      Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.

Nor  does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail   and ability to  find  information  is a skill I have,   a skill which apparently you  lack despite  you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion  in being a corrupt  former lawyer  specialising in intimidation  and  discrediting  people to  win at any cost.

I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make    By not replying  within 5 days you are  confirming to the accuracy of this post

Historical references  https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016

Additional information added  2019 .

a decision from the Ontario  Supreme court has been forwarded to  us ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS   it highlights the issues of private law enforcement agencies having  equivalent powers of the police with regards to search and seizure.

AWINZ was such an organisation  except  it  went one step better, it was totally unidentifiable,  there was no   legal person  openly associated with it  so that it could not be sued. As such there was no accountability to the public , read the news items

Court strikes down policing powers of Ontario animal-protection officers
Ontario judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge finds OSPCA enforcement powers to be unconstitutional 
OSPCA police powers ruled unconstitutional
Province given a year to revamp OSPCA powers
Ontario SPCA’s Police Powers Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

The state of corruption : New Zealand

Further open letter to David Mc Neill  Corruption , Whistleblowers  and Transparency

David,

Since responding to your reply  to  my first open letter  a number of people have approached me and  have asked me to put questions to   you as a director of transparency  International .

Could you  any  one else from Transparency International NZ please respond  with your observations

You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you  ask  “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”

These statements indicate to me that  you  and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.

it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells

   it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed  and  about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when  issues of corruption are brought to their attention   .

Unfortunately  Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt  Public service in the world , if this was the case I would  still expect to  find corruption   but I would  expect that there were  policies and  methods  in place throughout  the  public sector which would ensure integrity   and  systems of accountability .

Jose Ugay  , your international president used an equation  which I have been fond of

Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .

If you were to apply this to our public sector  you would  quickly find that   accountability  is  almost totally absent and discretion being  the use of the  unreasonable complainant conduct manual  , totally out of hand

I have actually come across  items where it stated  that  due to the relatively  corruption free environment  such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be  the least corrupt .

Of the 2013 Integrity report  ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for  for  compiling,   she said

Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.

It was not  coincidence that TINZ was at the time   funded by  the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written.  see here  To me this appears to be a conflict of interest  which in itself is corrupt .

Now if  TINZ  had taken the trouble to  listen to the  issues which I and other  whistleblowers  had raised  rather than treating us as a villains then  the person  conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then    the results would not have  been so glowing .

In an impartial and thorough  evaluation of integrity in the public service an  important aspect would be   to monitor  public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to  whistleblowers and evaluating their  experience based on the evidence  that  they have to support their claim  .

The reality is that the public sector does not know  what  investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons  and not the issue. 

It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and  short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence  plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and  perception of integrity of persons  are  what is accepted and  considered. Of course if they want to get rid of  the person involved then   any complaint will do .

The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse  conclusion could of course be  implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator  becomes the whistleblower  and become  unpopular at work  .

So what does the public sector do they turn to   manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by   your gold  partner   the ombudsman’s office .

There  a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages   and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct  138 Pages Yes that’s  right there is no manual on how to investigate

What do you think the “Go to” resource  will  be , which one   allows them to  get the head ache off the desk  and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it  “the  unreasonable complaint manual”   its the thickest and  was copied from Australia minus the  essential resource  “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy”  .

In NZ  and our manual  simply refers  the user to locate the  model policy on  the Australian web site. This essential  part of the  document which is missing in NZ  stipulates that  each organisation  should rely   on their organisations own policies for  unreasonable complainants.

So with that part missing  so are the policies in our  public sector  and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call  on unreasonable complainants and   how they are defined.

While I accept that there are fruit loops out there  at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated.  and if a complaint is properly  and fairly  evaluated then people  don’t get cross if they are shown   why their complaint comes unstuck .

But we work  in terms of economy  and its not economic to look at ll complaints  so    throw up a brick wall and  very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person.  Problem solved

The essential  Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy  which is missing in New Zealand  specifies

3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.

So this is how the ” investigation  ” in our public sector  is conducted

  1. Get complaint
  2. go to the person  allegedly accused and run it past them
  3. accept what they say about the person making the complaint who    after consulting the   alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person  and   go to the check list
  4.  The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”.   the  perpetrator has already given a good  explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
  5. The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”..  well how can there be a valid issue when the   complainant  is reportedly just a nasty person  the whole thing has to be a set up and we know  the  alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
  6. The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.”  Substance  has already established from our trusted colleague and  based on what he/she tells us there is  no substance
  7. For good measure   the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14  and the early warning  signs UCC? page 16   and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower  , on issues of genuine public interest  can tick  many of these boxes

So let us see how this applied to me

I had been on a trust  with Neil Wells  , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions   due to the trust being  in danger of becoming insolvent  .

He removed me from the trust  by telling lies .  I  sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control   to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .

Lyn Macdonald   who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer  saw that I was a private Investigator  , she too had been bullied by wells and he later   got her kicked out of her job for associating with me .  she asked me to find out  who or what AWINZ was  , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise  animal welfare  over her council paid duties.

I  searched for AWINZ but could  not find  any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council  I found that although both had a MOU  with  AWINZ( MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF) neither had a copy of  a trust deed .

I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated  that  AWINZ had to be a real  or legal person .  This was 2006 and  registers were not that easily searched  so with  others we formed and  incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .  we did not expect to  be successful  but we were, this proved  conclusively that   the entiy  which Neil wells claimed to  operate was fictional.

Here I have to explain something about names  and trusts

  1. an unincorporated trust    can be a group of people  who are trustees in a trust which they  then give a name , the legal name for that trust is  (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
  2. An incorporated trust    can use the name of the trust and  trade  in that name without referring to the  trustees  as the  trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had  previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these  were all legal persons  in their own name .

The application which Neil Wells  filed  with MAF  to obtain law enforcement  powers under the legislation  which he had  drafted and advised on  was fraudulent  it categorically stated

since the trust had not been   formed  but  was allegedly in the process  of being incorporated  the application should have been in the names of  the four people  shown  as trustees of AWINZ  and each should have  at least signed the trust deed  and  each would have to take  responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document  committing to that role.

The reality was that the  trust did not exist   as there was no trust deed .

Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister   In this short paragraph   he  tells the following lies 

  1. Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
  2. The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
  3. the trust deed  which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier   only goes to 19

Just this little bit of information should make   the investigators look more closely  but Wells was  well connected to MAF and was  known to ministers  he was even able to write caucus papers .

When I   raised concerns  with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up   he selected the people wisely

Graeme Coutts  .. a non questioning JP  who worked in the office beside  Wells and beside the  RNZSPCA  his name had been on the original application .

Wyn Hoadley  QSM..    great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always  reputable

Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control  who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council  . Tom Didovich  was in this up to his neck  and went out to get the  signatures of the   alleged trustees when the deed was    missing.. probably  missing because hit had never been signed .

So  in my situation

I was  made out  by wells as some fruit loop  who  was disgruntled about her removal from a trust

Wells was a respected barrister  wrote legislation and  lots of friends in very high places

so  Maf and  Council threw up brick walls   and  I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and  also  his  desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to  Joanna Tuckwell  who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.

Wells took me to court for  defamation ,  his lawyers  Brookfields  did not check to see if there was a trust deed  before commencing proceedings  ,  Nick Wright a resource management lawyer  started the proceedings in a unethical  manner by making threats  , they  then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the   fed the court  a lot of BS  and Voila  a judgement which   they could wave around to   discredit me and  use to apparently legitimise  AWINZ .

every one happy  except that Wells  kept attacking me subversively  and saw to it that  I lost my ability to earn a living   through private investigations .

when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out  and  knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct  to   have the investigation into AWINZ opened.

Had the public sector   acted with integrity  they would have left people aside and investigated the  Very simple  issue

Did  AWINZ exist …No it did not   no one had a trust deed prior to 2006    By that stage  it had  been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years

Was the application  for approved status  fraudulent… Yes it  was

can you see   that we have a problem ?

If we conceal corruption and give  the public sectors resources  which help  conceal corruption  then we have no corruption  .

You report  that there is integrity in the public sector  and by   refusing to look  beyond the perception  which you help create . whistleblowers  and their families have their lives destroyed .

You don’t have to   support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate  integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that   proper  and fair complaint measures are available  and that    the issues are dealt with   .

I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up  are  easily Labeled  Uncooperative complainants  because that way we remain  the least corrupt  and after all ask any economist  .. that’s good for business.

so in the end the question is

are you going to look at the integrity of the public service  with regards to how they  deal with  complaints

Are you going to allow whistleblowers to  be members of transparency International New Zealand

will you monitor   the complaint making process ?

will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors

Where is the transparency in your accounts     you have $400,000 of your 500,000   expenses written off as  other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to  how much   and  why be conflicted   when  you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .

Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand

Dear David

I am delighted to see your latest  news release in my in box Download Media Release Document

I have been a persecuted whistleblower for the past 11 years . I was heartened by the presentation given by  the  Transparency international  president  and I certainly hope that Transparency International New Zealand  accepts the importance of whistleblowers .

I was  not an employee of the organisation I blew the whistle on  but   in My line of work as a Private Investigator I discovered that our government  had given coercive law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation . I thought it would be simple to bring it to  their attention  and was not prepared for the onslaught that  followed .

For the past 11 years  , my family and   myself have  paid a very high price , I even tried to join transparency International but was rejected by your organisation because  ” As noted in previous applications, the TINZ  Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases

In desperation I setup  my own organisation which  now has a massive following   I called it transparency New Zealand LTD

The matter which I blew the whistle on was not rocket science. Its basic fraud   using a fictional identity

While the country  is  jumping up and down about an address in Mt Eden used for election purposes and some extra flat mates  we are rather ignoring this massive public fraud , how can we make fish of one and  fowl of the other.

The origins are with labour  and it continued  under national . Kennedy Graham once met me and we talked about y issue at length .. he did nothing  yet he is miffed with the relatively minor  indiscretions of  his leader .

The fact that this Fraud  has gone on for so long without any one looking at it  shows  that   the fraud situation in NZ is far worse than any one can imagine. This case proves  how in reality those in power condone fraud .

I hope that transparency International  looks  at the issues that whistleblowers face    , We don’t expect you  to do anything more for us than  to  look at our  cases and see how they impact on the reality of the integrity of the  public service.

A public service that ignores and thereby conceals  corruption has no integrity   

Neil Edward Wells had close ties to  MAF ( now MPI )   he met with them regularly and  as a member of one of the  advisory boards saw an opportunity to write    the legislation  to update the Animals Protection Act 1960

In writing the bill he saw an opportunity  Not only  did he write the bill to update legislation  he also used it to  facilitate his own business plan  see here  the document  drawn up in 1996 clearly shows his intention to make  money from this.

He goes on to   write the no 1 bill for the  new legislation   without declaring his conflict of interest.

A second bill is introduced by National .

Both bills go before the select committee and again without declaring his conflict of interest  Neil Wells becomes ” independent” adviser to the select committee .

Simultaneously  he was paving the way for his business to   line up with the  legislation which was being passed . Use of confidential information for private use

He set  up courses at UNITEC for  training the inspectors for  the new legislative requirements, a role he was to  take on personally  for $$$ .

He spoke of an organisation   which  would  have the same powers as the  RNZSPCA and  he called this AWINZ ( Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .This organisation existed only in his mind.

When the act passed into law he made a fraudulent   application in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  see the application here 

AWINZ did not exist in any manner or  form, there were no trustees , there was no trust deed   yet he called himself a trustee and  made out through the application that AWINZ existed.

In 2006  I did a Pro bono job  for an employee at Waitakere city council , Lyn Macdonald ( the bird lady )  questioned why  the buildings and vehicles had been rebranded  see here  and why  she had to  ” volunteer”  her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over her council   duty;-dog control

Neither  MAF nor Waitakere  city council had a copy of the alleged  trust deed and  it was only then that Neil Wells  produced one  and I suspect that the  ink was still drying . He gave me a copy  see here and sent a different copy to  Maf  see here . Note that  both are different to the one attached to the application.   To me this  proves that the man had absolutely no hesitation in forging documents .

I have truckloads of documents and  have taken this  matter to  the Ombudsman, ministers  court  and have found  that  I have been under attack because  of it.

I have simplified the whole matter and ordinary people   get it  they understand but   those in MPI and   in so called positions of accountability  don’t look at the  facts they look at the  reputation of the persons, some I fear are acting in self interest as some where at a previous time they had a finger in the pie and  covering up   also saves their own necks .

I have been at the receiving end of an 11 years smear campaign   while Neil Wells promoted himself as being  holier than though  . That was until he was proved to be corrupt  but   he then  had the advantage of   having his name suppressed.

The fraud in a nutshell 

Over the years I have learned to simplify it  , I also have more  documents available  now than I had in the early years  but ordinary people get it  so why do the ombudsmen lawyers   etc not understand   that

  1. The application is fraudulent  and resulted in   a fictional organisation  getting law enforcement  powers.
  2. The applicant   AWINZ    did not exist … no trust deed had been signed ,  no persons had ever met  to approve this  trust deed or  had agreed to be trustees to this deed
  3. The  persons who were allegedly  trustees  had never met never passed a resolution   never consented to being a law enforcement authority , never took  part in the operations or decision  making or application for   “ awinz  “ to become an approved organisation .
  4. Neil Wells concocted a trust in 2006 and backdated the trust deeds   and signed them  claiming that they had  gone missing.  But the date was out by three months   so  how  could a trust  which    allegedly formed 1.3.2000  make an application 22.11.1999. as can be seen the  deeds are different
  5. Then he supplied a copy of the deed to Maf  except he had to change the details  of the deed again and  another deed was   concocted and sent to them.

With regards to the Waitakere city council

  1. He made an application for   the position of dog and stock control manager  see here   and effectively  contracted to himself for the services of AWINZ  See the document MOU Waitakere    where Wells signs  this On behalf of the fictional  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  with  Tom Didovich the person  whose job he was to take over .

Note: that there is no mention of  the conflict of interest  in the  application for the  job  , he treats AWINZ as though it is a legal person separate from himself  when in reality he is the only person associated with AWINZ  and   this is in reality a trading name for himself.

  1. He rebrands the building  the Waitakere city council   dog control building  to appear to be his fictional organisation
  2. there is of course much more   but his will do  this  relates to the public   and public wrong doing

this could  have been easily dealt with .

In the first place MAF did not check  they assumed and gave law enforcement powers to  a fictional organisation .

secondly like the  Joanne  Harrison matter  Maf relied on Neil wells  to  provide them with information and directions  to  ward me off .. I have the emails to prove it

Our  internal systems for dealing with this type of offence    do not exist  and  every one was quite happy to stand by while  I was beaten up from all angles.

No one knew how to investigate   the simple questions which should have been asked are

  1. Did AWINZ exist  when it made the application … NO
  2. What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing  it was an unsigned  deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown 
  3. Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
  4. But we now have a trust deed  dates 1.3.200  .. but that is three months after the application how can a trust make an application before it is formed 
  5. When did that deed first come to  light.. 2006
  6. Were any of the alleged trustees  apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
  7.  Did Maf have consent from any one else  acting  on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
  8. Should MAF have ensured that AWINZ existed  legally ..

    yes   there was a Statutory need for accountability  how can there be accountability if the organisation does not exist 

    122Criteria

    (1)The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—

    (a)one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal; and
    (b)the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
  9. How could they do this ..  they had no idea about identities  even the lawyers   did not check   .. they took Wells word as a barrister for it 
  10. was the trust  deed attached to the  application in 1999  and the one provided to Maf  in 2006 the same.. no    therefore consideration of the  unsigned deed by Maf  was irrelevant.
  11. Why  did Maf not insist  on a  deed ..Because Neil  Wells misled them and they  did not check
  12. Why were the other alleged trustees not involved  ..MAF should have contacted these persons  and  ensured that   they were  actively involved  
  13. Why were legal names avoided  ?  If legal names had been used   we would all have known who we were dealing with

 

With respect to Waitakere city council

  1. Did  tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his  staff for  animal welfare purposes … no
  2. Didovich signed a MOU   should this have been   brought to the councils attention..Yes
  3. Wells applied for  Didovich’s Job should he have declared the  Mou which he had signed .. yes
  4. Did Neil Wells work in a situation of  gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
  5. Wells rebranded the building  was  the logo animal welfare on the building confusingly similar to the   logo of the fictional trust ? definitely