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

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 by having his  then wife harass me , 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 

 

Trading in the grey BS names , trading names and fraud condoned

In  2006 I  unwittingly became a whistleblower on  serious corruption .  I discovered that  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  did not exist  in any manner or form . Neil Wells  a barrister who is now known to be  corrupt   wrote  the legislation for  the animal welfare act to facilitate his own business plan, He made a totally fraudulent application   claiming  that  the application was being made by a trust.

for 11 years the Government  ( both National and Labour ) have failed to address she issue of  fake identities in trusts . I have long claimed that  identity fraud in companies and trusts is the greatest   corruption we face in NZ today.

So while all eyes are on Metiria for minor sins in the past  the large ones are still going on  , this week we learned that life line lost  the contract for suicide prevention and that it has gone to Le Va  where  Bills wife Mary  happens to be one  of the so called  board members of this fictional organisation

Bill English’s  wife   and  her  association with the 1,000,000  grant.   I’m  not saying that there is anything up with what she has done but the “trusts ” she is involved with certainly appears odd.

Le va   is   a creature of fiction  the terms and conditions page states

“These terms apply to the website and social media of www.leva.co.nz which is owned by xxx.

but in a page dedicated to a board  there is just one small clue to be found ” Pacific Inc, trading as Le Va, is an organisation with charitable status governed by a board of trustees ” it just shows how little   people know about trusts and  companies .  Companies have directors and trusts have  trustees.

the web site le Va.co.nz is registered to  Wise group

Wise Group is a group of charities , which  does not  have any legal status of its own , its neither a legal person nor a  natural  person  but the incorporated charitable trust  wise trust board   owns a conglomeration of companies  .

While le va  does appear to have foundations with a  legal company   why  do we have to  use a trading name that is so different to the legal name  .

This is exactly the type of confusion that Neil Wells relied upon   so how do you tell the difference between a trading name and a BS name well the companies act has a solution  for this    in section 25

Wells signed agreements in the   name of this fictional trust with MAF and with   the dog control section of waitakere city council.  He  applied for the position of  Manager  without declaring his conflict of interest and   got the job  effectively then becoming both parties to this mou .

In 11 years I have not been able to get any progress on this matter ,I have truck loads of evidence  but   this matter has been actively covered up by MPI and the former Waitakere city council  and  Auckland council. The  Police and  SFO have played a  game of hot potato with the  case  one saying its too serious the other saying it isn’t serious enough.

I have learned that  Wells  engaged a private investigator to  set me up  , I have just  discovered that Ron Mc Quilter  drafted a witness statement   which he then had a witness sign  and did what he could to ensure that  I would lose my PI licence.

Rons Business partner just happens to be  bryan Mogridge of the committee for auckland and previously enterprise waitakere , good reason to see me discredited .

the AWINZ matter has  highlighted to me the level at which corruption is condoned in New Zealand . We have a tendency to  ignore  crime at the top of the scale   but  pounce on the simple straight forward matters.

This is because or enforcement  system is economy based.  so  its about return of $ for investment.  I learned much about false  trusts, fake identities,  abuse of trading names  and was actually on to  the panama papers long before the journalists exposed the material . I included all this information  as evidence in  my petition for a commission against corruption

My petition was thrown out by  Mike Sabin .. now no one got to hear about his sins… and he most certainly did not  own up to them  .

I have seen everything from fake companies fake addresses fake liquidators  proxy directors fake directors.  all of this is possible and apparently condoned.

On page 65 of my evidence you will see  that  the  crown law office memorandum   seeking to have the 22 charges withdrawn  for a  a  well connected  american business man Terry Hay , former  business partner of David Nathan  , for   charges relating to  company fraud.

so  why are we being so tough on   Metiria Turei  for  historic deeds of hers.

The awinz matter has been covered up at  40,000  feet ,   the fact that it has not been investigated 11 years after reporting it  shows that  this tactic of using  fake names is more common than we   think .

Just like the  Joanne Harrison matter      where she  concealed her frauds the same occurred in the   MPI . I have evidence of  OIA’s being  run past Neil Wells, he was consulted and kept in the loop of  my   questions and contacts with the mpi.

there were  people in the auditor generals office who told me that they did not want to touch it as they were too close to retirement and were not wishing to place themselves in such a precarious position  .

Many years ago in police College I learned that  those who stand by and do nothing are as guilty as the perpetrator of   an offence .  Those who  assisted in  concealment  of an offence   were called accessories to the  fact or accessories after the fact  .

section 71 of our crimes act reads

71 Accessory after the fact

(1)An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

so  while some politicians   admit to frauds of the past others stand by and let them happen  .

Open letter to José Ugaz Chair of transparency International

The state of corruption In New Zealand

Sir

I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Limited . My company  actively exposes corruption In New Zealand . It was formed after Transparency International New Zealand refused  me membership  because it  claims that

“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.”

Unfortunately I believe that  by looking at  corruption in New Zealand we can learn from it  and  prevent  it from growing.

Ignoring corruption is like ignoring cancer,  ignore it long enough and it will kill you

I was  very impressed with your presentation at  Massey University, Palmerston North  .

The views you promoted on Behalf of transparency International  resonated with me  and  I felt sad that  Transparency International New Zealand  does not hold the same values as  the  international body .

You   regarded whistleblowers as  essential to  uncovering corruption  but the  local professor   quickly added that   whistleblowers are  regarded as tell tales and then there were some comments   by him abut obtaining information   unlawfully.

I can assure you that the truck loads of information I have collated have  been acquired lawfully and it sets out a  major issue  which we have in New Zealand   and that is the use of trusts.

We use trusts to the extent that we invent trusts  and  although the invented trust is totally bogus   they appear to be able to act like   legal persons , no one checks.

In this example  a  fictional trust obtained an arrest warrant the full document is here 

more   about this is found in Anne’s book  available for download   at Annehunt.co.nz 

When  fictional  ” trusts” have a standing in court and  can  have an order  issued to infringe on the rights of a  natural person  then there is something   seriously out of wack

It shoudl be the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure that  such action does not  find itself in court and   he and he alone should be held accountable  to the full  force of the law.

In another matter A fictional trust   obtained law enforcement powers  the fraudulent application is here 

This application was made by a corrupt  Barrister   who has  advised Government and   was heavily involved in drafting the legislation  to facilitate this fraud

He had a business plan see here  and wrote the legislation and advised on it to facilitate this plan

He and his corrupt  lawyer took  action against me  for defamation  for saying that the trust was a sham.   I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion   and through the false allegation that a similarly named ” trusts ” created retrospectively   ws one and the  same  he misled the court   and  effectively the fiction became reality .

I see the courts reliance on the word of lawyers  as the   single largest contributor to corruption in New Zealand .  Things are sanitised and legitimised through the courts  by misleading the court .. no evidence is ever required.

 

Trusts in New Zealand are therefore the  no 1 vehicle of choice for fraud and money laundering  , if our courts and lawyers don’t check to see if a trust exists then  its open slather .  In the case of  animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  I asked the solicitor general to investigate the trust  and the various  trusts that have been set up to    jump through time   and vacuums to give the illusion of reality.

If a trust does not have to have a legal structure which commences and  continues in any verifiable  form then   we are dealing with  fiction .

New Zealand is very much a Victorian colony  which is coming of age   through the use of computers . that is why   whistleblowers are silenced here.

You raised a question with regards to John Key  and asked why had no one investigated him.   The answer is simple   you just need to look at what I have suffered  and you  soon realise that  if you even ask one question out of place you will be discredited   and your life will be in tatters . Your comment and my  research on Key since  leaving the meeting  has made me realise why no action has ever been taken with regards to AWINZ,  for 11 years I have said it is a blue print    and sure  enough  it has been . If a fictional trust  can be a law enforcement authority then it can be anything.

In 2014  , Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption to Parliament  , I was the lead petitioner . I was asked to present evidence as to why we needed such a commission and   I supplied my evidence   it is at this link   you will see that I touched on panama, I was taken to court with regards to my discoveries of these panamanian companies and  Hungarian alcoholic directors , I was silenced .

I provided evidence of  fake liquidators  fake directors  and showed that the  crown  solicitor’s dropped 22 charges of fraud of  Terry Hay a well connected   american  for   fraud under the companies act

items 56  in that report relate to TINZ role in  corruption today

Transparency International New Zealand in my opinion serves only to ensure that New Zealand status as least corrupt is preserved.  To do this  they actively ignore   corruption  and pretend that   it does not occur.

Transparency International New Zealand  gets funding  from the key public service agencies to do the integrity reports on the public sector.

Quite personally I think that that is a conflict of interest and corrupt .

The reality is that New Zealand is in my experience rotten to the core  we have cheated on  our exam cards (  the  perception index)  and that makes us  among the most corrupt of  them all .

When simple corruption  is covered up  at high levels  and they have to go as far as to discredit you  then you know that the corruption is deeper than any one imagined.

I  look forward to a response from you and look forward to being able to work with transparency International to  address corruption in New Zealand and not be part of the   problem by concealing it.

Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands.

7 May 2016  Why was John Key singled out by Panama Papers hacker?

7 May 2016 Panama Papers whistleblower confused – John Key

8 May 2016  Taxing times: The ghosts of wineboxes past 

5 october 2016 John Key keeps lid on hidden billions

21 march 2014  John Key dismisses rumours surrounding resignation

READ MORE:
Panama Papers source breaks silence, denies being a spy
The Panama Papers New Zealand link revealed
New measures to combat cybercrime outlined by Government
Prime Minister John Key’s lawyer asked about foreign trusts
NZ trusts at the centre of Malta money scandal
Government now says NZ trust examination likely
More NZ links to Panama Papers to come
Q&A: Panama Papers’ fallout has only just begun

Documents obtained by the Australian Financial Review show:

 A Mexican construction tycoon dubbed the ‘Duke of Influence’ joined a rush of foreign money into tax-free New Zealand trusts.
  • Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantu, who built his fortune from billions of dollars in Mexican government contracts, was investigated for lavish housing deals with Mexican political figures.
  • On July 1 last year, Cantu’s Miami lawyer said his client had “circa $US100 million” to put into three New Zealand trusts.
  • Maltese investors who had been turned away from nine banks in the Caribbean, Miami and Panama eventually found a home for their money in New Zealand trusts.
  • Demand for New Zealand trusts went into overdrive late last year with Mossack Fonseca staff in Panama urging New Zealand staff to “chase the money”.

Man of Convictions :By Anne HUNT a Must read for all New Zealanders

 The Opening words of Anne’s Report  could well be my own  with a minor  change, hers are with regards to Phil Taueki  and mine With Neil Wells

“The crime I discovered is serious. Why the cover-up? It piqued my curiosity. No self-respecting “Investigator” can resist the temptation to ferret out the facts! “

Anne makes this comment on her web page which   provides a down load for her latest book   a man of convictions http://www.annehunt.co.nz

the only difference between Phil and Neil is that Phil is a victim of   this type of fraud and Neil Wells is a  corrupt  former barrister who perpetrated this identity fraud on the public .

I have spoken to Anne many times  she was a fabulous  support  while I was going through the darkest days  of my AWINZ journey( Neil Wells )  .

There is a strange bond between  those of us who have gone through the mill  so to speak and we have all learned a lot about injustice , the  tricks played in court  and  the dirty tactics.

So when  Anne  sent on an email  with regards to Philip Taueki’s plight  I couldn’t help but get involved. I  smelt a rat  .

I asked Anne to keep my involvement quite   so I worked in the background as I feared that if I was to be connected with the  matter then it would blow up  out of proportion as other matters  which I have  been  seen to be connected with have. Its all over now  so I can come out of the wood work  , but you  can appreciate that Neil wells would not like to think that this was again another   fake trust and once people cotton on to the use of fake trusts his own might be looked at .

This trust however was  allegedly a Maori trust  so I  completed a crash course in Maori trusts  and identified the fact that there were a number of  court actions which had been  brought against Philip by fictional trusts.  It was  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand all over again.

Much of the court action had been brought by “HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST” My investigations showed that  it  had no claim on the land, it was  a trading name which  has not been defined.   It has no standing before the court and cannot  seek to have a lawful  owner removed from his own  land . Basically it was  just a group of people  hiding behind a BS name .

Fortunately there is no corruption in New Zealand  we just have systems  where checking is the last thing that is done and  we  operate entirely on assumptions .Lawyers  will take instructions from any one with dosh which means at the worst  that   someone living overseas using a fictional name can make your life hell here on a bogus claim.

It is time that lawyers who do not check if

1. their client has standing  and

2. that there is a valid claim

If neither exist then the lawyers  should be charged with  offences under the  lawyers and conveyancers act .

Anne acknowledges my work  in the tributes, strangely enough I have  have just been removed s a PI for not acting in the public interest .. My crime  I told  David Abricossow  to act  impartially for his client the  muse on Allen  and  directed him to the provisions of the lawyers and conveyancers act  ….makes you wonder  doesn’t it  .

Download the book its free    and promises to make good reading

Open letter to the Ombudsman

Dear Sirs .

There is one fundamental  issue with the   complaints system in New Zealand .. it is  out of date  and does not appear to  comply with   the   standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014

I note that the Good administration guides  are all about 5 years  old and probably out of  line with the  Changes to the Ombudsmen Act and official information legislation  document dated   May 2017.

Just recently I blogged  about  the reliance  by authorities on the   unreasonable complainant conduct manual 

and commented that this manual was pretty much identical to the one used in  New South Wales  , the fundamental difference is that  here in New Zealand whistleblowers  are often  labeled unreasonable complainants, in an attempt to  drive home the message the  complainant will  provide more evidence  and where the toll of whistleblowing   is starting to show the whistleblower may resort to highlighting text,  bolding it and  in conversations may raise their  voice due to frustration .  the  easy course to take is to   say AHAH  an unreasonable complainant.

In New South wales the  complainant  can go to the  Independent commission against corruption  who will   independently  investigate the   matter .

In New Zealand you go to the Police who  say it is too serious  and the   SFO  who say sorry not serious enough .

It appears some  australian states have adopted  the  standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014 and have published a document    in 2015 and 2016 which guides Public sector agencies through   the complaint process.

The publications can be found at these links

[PDF]complaint management framework – Ombudsman SA     www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-content/…/Complaint_Management_Framework.pdf

[PDF]Complaint management framework and model … – NSW Ombudsman https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__…/Complaint-management-framework-June-2015.p…

[PDF]Good Practice Guide to Handling Complaints – Parliament of Victoria  https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/…/Tabling_copy_VO_Report_A_good_practice_g…

[PDF]Effective complaint handling guidelines – International Ombudsman … www.theioi.org/downloads/…/Effective-complaint-handling-guidelines-Third-edition….

and the company registration   also has  its policy

[PDF]Complaint management policy – ASIC   download.asic.gov.au/…/complaint-management-policy-for-external-publishing-final….

In New Zealand  we appear to be hell bent on ” writing complaints off ”  covering up   and doing what it takes to preserve our corruption free image .

As a whistleblower with over 11 years experience of  banging my head on a brick wall I have also noted that   identity fraud in New Zealand  is only dealt with by the  department of internal affairs .  the companies office on the other hand unlike ASIC  , looks at compliance and does   nothing   about the use  of “trading names ” and   similar names

My complaint about the   approved organisation  Animal welfare institute was   thrown out by your office because no  one identified the fact that  the court had been seriously misled  through the introduction of a  trust  which bore the same name as the   fictional  law enforcement authority .

the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   was an undefined trading name    it was a  falsely portrayed as being  a legal entity  by a lawyer who has now been proved to be corrupt .

He set up a trust with the identical  name   and misled the court and MAF   by switching one for the other  and thereby  pulled off the perfect fraud .

MPI never checked if AWINZ existed  and processed the   application with an unsigned trust deed.  they didn’t even question  why  the subsequent deed that was provided to them 7 years later  differed from the signed copy which i was given for court.

Nor did they question why  The minister had been told on the  25th march 2000 that the  deed had been sent on for registration    when in reality  it had never  been incorporated in any  way .

Also   a simple check of the trust deed  would have revealed the out right lies as   there is no 20 (a)  in the   deed.

MAF at the time were clearly out of their  depth  and had not the faintest idea what a legal entity was  and how  they should deal with an unincorporated trust . They relied on Mr Wells  experience as a barrister and was prone to drafting documents for the ministry 

Mr Wells who  wrote  the  No 1 bill for the  animal welfare act and inserted the provisions of an approved Organisation to fulfil his own business plan in to the  new legislation on which he advised as “independent advisor “to the select committee without apparently  declaring his conflict of interest.

He made a fraudulent application to MaF  claiming that AWINZ existed as a trust  and was in the process of being registered  quite clearly this was a lie  as the trust deed showed  the trust was formed after this date   and   AWINZ was never incorporated  it was at all times an undefined trading name which  was given  legal existence without  actually having any  . What made this  so  important was the fact that this  was  a  Prosecuting authority under statute .  

It would have been impossible for anyone  to  hold AWINZ accountable ,  new trustees were  magically switched in in 2006   to   give it a pseudo appearance of legitimacy . I say magic  as  no real or legitimate process was involved . But MAF was very happy to  cover it all up  .

I  Brought it to the attention  of the council , Maf  and  a multitude of government  departments  and 11 years on I am still being persecuted . Government departments  like the companies office  look for compliance  they don’t prosecute that is  why it is so  open to abuse .

Whistleblowers in New Zealand  are treated very poorly     to blow the whistle means to devastate your life.  it is therefore  essential that we have proper  complaint procedures and   staff who know what they are doing and  don’t ask the alleged  offender for  guidance.

I may have forwarded one or two of her very early Emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response.

they also state that MAF needed to   provide assurances to the minister that  AWINZ accountability  met  requirements of the act.. how could they possibly have achieved this  when the organisation was a total fiction  ?  This is Wells  OIA request

The significance of the  existence of an entity also goes to the heart of  any agreements .Here Joanne Tuckwell states

the MOU is here 

and it  states “This Memorandum of Understanding between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand
(AWINZ) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) ”

definition ” “AWINZ” means the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.     – this shows that MAF clearly thought that AWINZ was a legal person in its own right  But Neil Wells signs as trustee  and conceals the reality that   the application was not made by any trust (  there was no trust meeting  which  would have allowed him to  sign for the other trustees, the trustees of he 200 deed never met  )   and that AWINZ is not a legal person in its own right .

Now that  Neil Wells has been proved to be deceitful and a person  who is less than honest in his roll as barrister ,  I hope that    this may be used to  test out a robust complaint procedure.  11 years  of  victimisation for whistleblowing is enough  .

Please  implement the   standards adopted by australia and enforce them .

It is unreasonable to treat whistleblowers as unreasonable complainants no one should have to go through what I have been subjected to  .

I look forward to  finding some Fairness  .

 

 

 

Whistleblowers, Government and SPCA

The headline reads Kiwi whistleblowers left vulnerable by ‘weak, patchy, and out-of-date’ legislation

How true   but then there  are also a large number of  whistleblowers  who are not even covered  by this legislation and  when it comes to ranking  second rate citizens those who  blow the whistle on  wrongdoing in the public sector are  at the bottom of the list .

The whistleblower legislation only relates to employees see Protected Disclosure act 

If you are not an employee and report corruption in New Zealand   then you are treated as an unreasonable person  and  the ombudsmen has put out a manual to deal with  people just like you  .

By being labeled as an unreasonable person  no one in government has to listen to you or look at your evidence as you are after all  Unreasonable .  It is apparently Quite unreasonable in New Zealand to  say   sorry but I think this is corrupt .

That which is not seen , is not questioned   is therefore never unravelled  and  so New Zealand remains corruption free , all nicely concealed.

The unreasonable conduct   leaflet deals with   people who  get angry and frustrated  so all  the   Public sector agency has to do  is  throw up brick walls and leave the  person banging their head against it.  Eventually the person will scream  ” my head hurts ”  and the  agency can then point and say see I knew it all  along an unreasonable complainant.

If you visit the page  Good administration guides you will note that

Good decision making  is 10 pages long

Effective complaint handling 23 pages

and Managing unreasonable complainant conduct is 123 pages long

the  ironic thing is that there is no corresponding manual for  unreasonable conduct from public sector agencies.

As a Private investigator I have found that the no 1 failing of our public sector agencies  is the failure to  verify .

  1. No one checked to see if the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)existed  before giving it  law enforcement powers ,
  2. the lawyers   prosecuting me for defamation never checked that  a trust deed for AWINZ existed or if this was actually the law enforcement trust which they were representing and not a similarly named trust set up with the intention to conceal the fact that AWINZ was fictitious
  3.  The police did not check to see if there was actually an order before charging me with 5 counts of breaching an order made under section 240  Lawyers and conveyancers act  .
  4.  and I could go on

The  runner up failure  goes to failure to  stick to the law. 

  1. the law applies to us not the the government agencies they have the ability to make things up.. might is right

And in  number three place  there  is  lack of  accountability everyone is looking after their mates  after all that is what mates are for  and in NZ our public service is practically incestuous and   funds  Transparency International to ensure that  integrity is always  rated as high.

To understand why this is  you have to first accept that New Zealand has adopted a business  approach to governance , like a large  supermarket installing  self checkouts  the approach is that the  inevitable losses are cost less than the the wages of  the staff  which would otherwise be employed.

It is therefore   better to ignore the  corruption than it is to deal  with it.. prosecution is not cheap and exposed corruption  could damage  the nations reputation and affect the share market which we  are so focused on .

This aspect is is  covered in the UCC manual  at figure 1  as can be seen this list  is  far longer list than the effects on the person  with a bit of luck they may commit suicide and the problem will be gone but the $$$ saving is there.

So all you need  is for the complainant  to be under a lot of external pressure  e.g being sued for defamation and being denied  a defence of truth and honest opinion  , hitting a brick wall  with public sector  agencies who are determined to cover up the wrong doing and/or neglect  of their  fellow workers   and the   whistleblower  is left to be attacked for ever more.

When the complainant thinks that the   public sector agency  is not grasping what is going on and sends in more evidence they are doomed  as one of the criteria for listing a person as a UCC is in chapter 4 ,

This document is by no means  unique it appears that it was  totally copied from the NSW ombudsman’s office.   The difference is that there they have a commission against corruption …  in New Zealand we don’t  and  there is no one independent who looks at   the complaints of Whistle blowers .. Its all too easy Whistleblowers are deemed  Unreasonable complainants and persecuted .

In My case it has been going on for 11 years  and it is still  going on with   unseen cowards beavering away in the background making certain that I stay silent.The police have said it is too serious for them and the  SFO say that there is not sufficient capital involved . All along my character has been under attack  I  am  bad and the perpetrator of this massive  public fraud (which is now  culminating in turning the RNZSPCA’s member societies and  branches into one large expectorate ) has been concealed because the lawyer involved is Holier than thou

I recently read  a Law society article Censured Lawyer  gets name suppression I wrote an article  speculating on who this was  as  due to the circumstances of the events it appeared to me that this was the one and the same person who had sued me for defamation  and  misled the court over the identity of  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand a law enforcement authority which had no legal existence  but which had been given   coercive legal powers  following a fraudulent application  for Approved status under the legislation  which this  censured lawyer had written.  The legislation was initially  to  fulfill his business plan of creating a  inspectorate that could prosecute people for animal neglect, that all sounds pretty good   but  now that the RNZSPCA has filed its constitution  show its objectives  as being to give animals a better life  . This  would mean that i am a prime candidate for prosecution  as my cat  always believes that what she is getting is  not good enough .

The animal welfare bill was  initially written by this corrupt lawyer , he later advised on the  the two bills which were considered  and did not declare his conflict of interest , he created offences which are  strict liability and  Basically subjective  being that they are in the opinion of the  inspector . It is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation  especially in the hands of a private body .

12 Animal welfare offences

A person commits an offence who, being the owner of, or a person in charge of, an animal,—(a)fails to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 10; or(b)fails, in the case of an animal that is ill or injured, to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 11; or(c)kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

10 Obligation in relation to physical, health, and behavioural needs of animals

The owner of an animal, and every person in charge of an animal, must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in a manner that is in accordance with both—(a)good practice; and(b)scientific knowledge.

11 Obligation to alleviate pain or distress of ill or injured animals

(1)The owner of an animal that is ill or injured, and every person in charge of such an animal, must ensure that the animal receives treatment that alleviates any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the animal.

(2)This section does not—(a)limit section 10; or(b)require a person to keep an animal alive when it is in such a condition that it is suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

the  real clincher comes in section 13

13Strict liability

(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.

Penalties

A person who commits an offence against section 12 or section 14(1) or section 14(2) or section 21(1) or section 21(2) or section 22(2) or section 23(1) or section 23(2) is liable on conviction,—(a)in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding$50,000 or to both; or b)in the case of a body corporate to a fine not exceeding $250,000.

The act is water tight  relies on the opinion of the inspector  and  has virtually no defence.  If you go to a lawyer and make an appointment   for next week you are too late as your defence has to be filed within  7 days .

The legislation is a licence to print money ,  You cannot turn off the life support of a loved one   but if you  think your dog is comfortable and want to keep  it alive you  will be prosecuted for not  having put him down .

When you have been  attacked by a person as long as I have you get to know the way they work  and think  and I recognise the fact that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand was the trial for amalgamating  the SPCA’s  and the things which have been done over the years  have been trials to  set this one spca in action .

An associate of mine had his horse seized by Sarah Elliott- Warren  who had been  working for AWINZ , was a lecturer at Unitec   teaching  animal welfare inspectors, went to the SPCA  and took over the management of several SPCA’s. The reoports that I had with regards to the horse was that $3,000 grazing fees were demanded  when the  horse was grazed  by Elliot on  family property, when the owner could not find the cash  the horse was put down . The protocol for disposing of animals is  set out here 

Sarah  worked on the lord of the rings project  for the fictional AWINZ   this is the american humane societies    letter regarding the investigation where  animals were both hurt and   died .

The Letter  where this  excerpt appears is here 

it also goes on  to say “There appears to be a very unusual relationship between the SPCA and AWINZ. If the SPCA has
‘ tent”. for reward, a warranted inspector to AWINZ and that inspector was present in order to exercise powers under the AWA, then in my view the arrangement is against the spirit of the AWA.”

The fact that  the  barrister  who wrote  the legislation and   has set the  SPCA up for this change ( he states that he was responsible  for amalgamating them all under the RNZSPCA )  is less than honest can be found here  and here

Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No. 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 24 [PDF, 46 KB]Decision on liability (6 September 2016)

Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [PDF, 42 KB]Reasons of the Tribunal for decision on penalty (24 November 2016)

When you read these decisions you will note   that this man  is playing the poor   “stressed out me” card ,

He did exactly the same in  2008  when he  attacked me  and has  kept up his attack all these years .

In reality  reading the decision he ripped his client off to the tune of  20,000  he was  wanting to  transfer the rest of her assets   to his   animal welfare charity which  did not exist .

He still operates other  charities which  other trustees believe were wound up .

The  one spca is not about   better care for animals it is about $$  and this corrupt  former  Barrister is totally behind this .

I have been blogging about this  for years  fallen on deaf ears he remains the hero  Me the villain even to the extent that I am now charged with 5 offences of breaching a fictional order  for suppression .

The   connections between  AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have always plagued me and the fact that there is now a very desperate attempt to silence me   makes me believe that my suspicions are well founded . All I had available to me when I named the  Barrister was this 

I would love some one to tell me where  the suppression order is in the decisions  relating to mr M  especially the suppression order under section  240, this again is a  claim fabricated by the corrupt mr M  see here

In 2010  I wrote about the Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ and  I also explained the missing  funds  from the waikato RNZSPCA in various articles

It will come as no surprise that this  same bent  former lawyer set up the programme for training the  Inspectors who   are all too keen to  take on the role as the SPCA as a law enforcement body . He is still connected Graeme coutts a “trustee” of the the  cover up trust AWINZ  works  alongside the RNZSPCA on the same floor, Tom didovich another trustee  worked for  the SPCA . Arnja dale   who has now been appointed Chief Scientific Officer is one and the same Arnja who took over  the Unitec inspector training from  the corrupt  barrister .

It appears to me that there are a lot of people stuck in jobs with limited financial future , By developing the inspectorate  they will be writing their own  salaries .The point they miss is that  their  direction will depend on making animals  suffer , there is therefore no  $$ incentive for them to teach people to look after animals  as they  would be out of a job .

I have seen the spin and the secrecy behind this   but then  I am probably an unreasonable person  so lets ignore  me and just wait and see .

Open letter to the Charities Services with regards to the RNZSPCA change of purpose

I wish to file this formal complaint with the charities Services  

on the grounds

  • significant financial loss to the charity, or the illegal or corrupt use of the charity’s funds or resources;
  • serious harm to beneficiaries (especially to vulnerable beneficiaries);
  • charities deliberately being used for private pecuniary profit or to abuse New Zealand’s tax laws;
  • where a charity’s independence may be compromised;
  • serious wrongdoing by a charity, its officers/trustees or employees, that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of the charitable sector;
  • serious non-compliance in a charity which could constitute serious risk to  public interest;
  • damaging public trust and confidence in Charities Services  as an effective regulator

I am a  member of the Hawkes bay  branch of the RNZSPCA ,  That branch is one of  the many members which make up the RNZSPCA.

Recently I attended a meeting of  Taupo residents  and Taupo branch members who were concerned   about being disenfranchised  from  their  society  .

What the Taupo  members and I have in common  is that as members  we have not been able to vote on  the one SPCA proposal

It appears  that there is a group of people who  have taken upon themselves to promote  the one SPCA concept  but have manipulated the   branches and  member societies in such a way as to ensure that their  objective of   disestablishing the   smaller society and taking their   assets is achieved.

Andrea Midgen  has now filed a new constitution which was allegedly passed last week in circumstances  which stretch  the  concept of democracy  as delegates  for at least 15  societies   had no mandate  from the members who  they purported to represent .

The new constitution for he RNZSPCA  which went  live today   differs entirely from the   previous  constitutions and  has  adopted new objectives for  the society  this now reads

4.1 The purposes of SPCA are to create a better life for, and prevent cruelty to and neglect of, Animals in New Zealand and in particular to:

a. be the lead organisation for Animal welfare in New Zealand;

b.educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities including developing and delivering programmes and activities;

c.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals using standards, policies and practices based on best practice and scientific knowledge;

d.promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;

e.act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals

Since the  objectives of the society  have changed  they may now  no longer qualify for charitable status

I note that   in particular they wish to provide a better life for animals  ..  this probably needs to be read in conjunction with this  you tube recording which  demonstrates the   wastage of   donated charitable funds.   Providing a better life could include buying a better car for the owner of the  animal  something which according to this  recording  has happened in the past .

To be the lead Animal welfare  organisation .. sounds like empire building, in the other  hand Andrea Midgens boss, Gordon trainer has already registered a company called  SPCA Aotearoa.  this brings about a potential of conflict of interest for her  as acting CEO of the RNZSPCA and raises the question  is she acting for the RNZSPCA or for her employer  the  Auckland SPCA and sole  share holder of  SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd

Gordon Trainer  is the sole director  of SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd  he  is also the only person  from the Auckland SPCA  who   has  control of some sort of the   25 million dollars which unsuspecting benefactors have left the the SPCA and which has found its way to the   Auckland SPCA. In  the mean time  smaller branches burdened by extra financial  commitments by being billed to take on an employee of the RNZSPCA choosing , have been   wound up

educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities  , they are currently  euthanizing more animals than ever before  , they  are spending more on   human  resources  and corporate wages  particularly looking at getting the inspectorate   going and prosecuting more new  Zealanders.    so is education  going to be through prosecution ?  It has to be of note that it is the SPCA   and not the RNZSPCA  who have the team of lawyers on board .

.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals, since the one spca movement began a number of  local SPCA”s have  been  disestablished , their buildings sold  and   as a result  there are fewer SPCA’a than before , e.g. Te Kuiti, Waikato  , Te Awamutu  etc

promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards  again their objectives appear to be more in line with a law enforcement authority than a charity  whose beneficiaries are animals

act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, The government  has responsibilities for animal welfare this is primarily   performed through the MPI and the police .   A former  RNZPSCA  president , Neil Wells ,who was also a barrister wrote the bill for  animal welfare act and was  Independent adviser  to the select committee  and  did not declare his conflict of interest when he included  the provisions for the concept  of  Approved organisations.

Mr Wells went on to   set up his own ” approved organisation  The animal welfare institute of new Zealand   which in reality did not exist and was just a trading name for himself.  He relied on  what I have found to be a fraudulent application, followed by misleading information to the minister there is more just search this site  using the  key word AWINZ

The persons who have been behind this drive for the  SPCA to develop the inspectorate just happen to former  MPI inspectors . this   whole concept is not about  being a charity but  about starting a law enforcement group  using  the 25 million or so ,this has been   side lined into trusts.

These funds  which were given to the SPCA have been deprived  from the true  beneficiaries , the animals.   there appears to be a massive misappropriation of charitable funds  because  people dont realize that the SPCA  has been hijacked.

The new powers are equally   frightening

establish a Board, commissions, committees. forums, and other groups, including consultative groups,and to delegate its powers and functions to such groups;

be an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with such powers and .authority as specified under that Act

invest, lend, advance or otherwise deal with monies and secure the payment of such monies with or without charges, or guarantees; ( these are charitable funds ! )

produce, develop. create, own, licence and otherwise exploit. use and protect Intellectual Property;

purchase or otherwise acquire all or any part of the property, assets and liabilities of any one or more companies, institutions, trusts, incorporated societies or organisations whose activities or objects are similar (in whole or in part} to those of SPCA, or with which SPCA is authorised to merge or amalgamate,or for any purpose designed to benefit SPCA;

And this is the bit where   I believe SPCA aotearoa comes in

establish, acquire, carry on or participate in any business or enterprise which fulfills the Purposes of SPCA (in whole or part);

q. be a member of, affiliate or be associated in any other way with, any organisation which has objects which are similar, in whole or in part, to the Purposes of SPCA; and.

With the   change in the objectives   the transformation is complete   below is the  former purpose  for comparison

OBJECTS

  1. The Objects for which the Royal Society is established are:

(a) To prevent cruelty to animals by:

(i) Encouraging and sustaining an intelligent public opinion regarding man’s duty to animals;

(ii) Enforcing where practicable the laws which exist for animals’protection;

(iii) Promoting further legislation for the protection of animals, as may be appropriate;

(iv) Any other ways and means as the Royal Society may deem appropriate.

(b) To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies;

(c) To promote Branches in districts where there is no Branch or Member Society in existence;

(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or in the interests of animals and their welfare.

Evidence  that the RNZSPCA has not  been acting  in accordance with its former objectives  can be found   by looking at

  1. the increase of euthanasia this is not in the interest of animals
  2. the closure of branches which could have been saved  with charitable funds which according to this recording have been misappropriated 
  3. the   replacement of volunteers with paid RNZSPCA staff and then passing  the   costs on to the branch so as to  cause financial hardship  which is then used to  wind up the   society
  4. the unlawful ” administration of  incorporated societies “
  5. by denying members the right to contact  other members and by  calling only a SGM when it suits the RNZSPCA but not  calling a  AGM in three years ( Taupo) or allowing  new people to become members.  This is not  acting in the benefit of branches
  6. there is a gross conflict of interest between the  Auckland SPCA   and the RNZSPCA  . there has been a  historical    fight for power , it now appears to me ,  that the  Auckland SPCA   which has posed as the SPCA see here   has succeeded   in taking control of money and is now taking over the  RNZSPCA  and  will pass that control   through to   itself  by virtue of  this new constitution .

all that is required is  for the  smaller branches to   wind up and the Auckland SPCA will   take over  the RNZSPCA  and put it under the umbrella of SPCA aotearoa.  Public money  corporate wages private gain and a private law enforcement power  with strict liability offences and a  licence to print money .. certainly not  acting charitably  in my opinion

Constitutions  for branches taken into administration , (for which there is no legal provision) , have been unlawfully filed  to ensure that the latest constitutions  state  that on winding up or dissolution the assets go to the RNZSPCA.

I have been told that  well over 2 million dollars of charitable funds have been used for this restructuring. Money which could have been put to good use  by saving branches which have been closed down   by  people other than the members.

The new constitution allows for the   new organisation , (that is what it is   as the  whole constitution appears to have been replaced in one go) to pick and choose its members

the emphasis is  on   the inspectorate   and it is  not  coincidental that   Mr Wells who wrote the legislation also set up the training program at Unitec for inspectors,  so by  becoming inspector focused there is a financial spin off for others  but what has been forgotten is that before a prosecution can occur  an animal has to suffer . so the  society for prevention of  cruelty no longer fulfills its   traditional  role  having instead become an enforcement agency  and therefore by definition is no longer a charity .

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I therefore request an urgent revue of the RNZSPCA   with regards to its charitable status, misappropriation of charitable fund and the grounds stated above

I have posted this on transparency in the interest of transparency .

 

Smear campaigns a well practiced form of attack

History often repeats  and the  view is frequently clearest when looking back

The SPCA’s Public relations officer mentioned in the article along side is now none other than Mrs Christine Wells

from the events of this last week   and of the past 11 years I can see a trend emerging.   Neil Wells Good ..Grace Haden    Bad.

By smearing a person  and throwing a lot of mud  there is  the  hope that some of it will stick  and people do tend to say  where there is smoke there is fire , well sometimes  the apparition of the fire is actually a smoke screen.

Mud slinging can only be addresses with truth  and facts  and so often the person doing he slinging  does so to keep the focus off himself.

To look at what Mr Wells has been involved in  we need to look at the trusts which he  has operated with total  disregard of the law.

You have to remember that  He was a barrister  , by definition and officer of the court and a person  legally charged to uphold the rule of Law in New Zealand

Fundamental obligations of lawyers

Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

we have seen Neil Wells CV   it makes no mention   of the NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH  of which Neil Wells was a trustee

In 2006 when  donation flyers were being sent out By Neil Wells  via Wyn Hoadley soliciting donations he claimed  in June 2006 that AWINZ administers the NZ fund for Humane research ( lord Dowding fund )

The reality was that all those involved in the  NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH were either dead or believed that the  fund had been  wound up  , except Neil wells who was still soliciting  donations for this  long forgotten trust

The Lord Dowding fund  was  not even administers by the  NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH but by Mrs Heather through a  trust called BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED In 2000 it was struck off but still had  well over $100,ooo  in its coffers  which Neil Wells Solicits  for his fictional AWINZ in  2005   the letter is found here

Interestingly enough the  bank account  at  the national bank mount Albert  only had one signatory  and had no trust deed associated with it. the one signatory was  Neil Wells. He assures the secretary  that ” Any funds from The Lord Dowding Fund would be kept as a special trust fund within AWINZ to be applied according to the original tenets of the Fund.”  Signed By Neil Wells Trustee . The reality is that AWINZ had no legal existence   it  did not have trustees  and it did not operate as a trust  it was like   The fund for humane research  something Neil Wells took upon himself to call a trust .

as mentioned earlier the Lord Dowding fund  was used to sue me  the  charities records show  how  the sum has changed  over the years  from 98,000   to   22,000  yet Neil wells has  some how made a personal profit of 57,000 and not repaid the  money he used to sue me .

the interesting thing is that  the trust which  obtains the money doesn’t  legally exist  and there are so many holes in this  trust structure that a truck  would  fall through.

The origins of AWINZ .

Neil Wells   after leaving  the world society quits in a row over the kaimanawa horses  see the decision here  and sets up shop as solicitor sole, I suspect that he found  business slow and approaches Waitakere city council to  work on a project to amalgamate dog and stock control with animal welfare .

In the defamation hearing  in 2007 Neil wells falsely claimed that the council  had approached him with regards to amalgamating the two functions  but the  documents I have  clearly prove that  he  misled the court  on this point  ( and many others )  I call it perjury .

IN 1994 he  approaches  the Waitakere city council  with his idea of  combining  animal welfare and animal control and suggests to the council that they could set up an SPCA type organisation.

His no 1 accomplice Tom Didovich   the  manager of dog control in Waitakere  helps push the   venture  see 

Neil Wells has taken some initiatives with respect to enhancing our animal welfare services by proposing the establishment of a pilot programme whereby our staff fulfill the role of animal welfare inspectors by providing an SPCA type operation.

Wells quickly turns this into  lobbying for  new animal welfare legislation 

In a parallel move  Wells  promotes himself as  a ” consultant for Waitakere city council ” To Maf  David Bayvel  who he knows well and has already  done groundwork with .

While on the one hand  Wells  claims to be acting as ” consultant ”  on the other  he is  looking at ways  to make  money for himself  by facilitating the interface between animal control and animal welfare 

This point is not  lost on the  the SPCA who  write 

By august that  95 council officers were appointed as Inspectors .

Neil Wells then  lobby’s councils up and down the country to   encourage them to  consider his proposal  this is a sample letter   he does this using a very impressive letter head which is just a pseudonym for himself .

By mid January 1996 less than two weeks after  sending a proposal to councils over the holiday period , he has put together his business plan for the territorial animal welfare authority

Neil Wells  gets Didovich to prepare a ” blurb sheet to make it appear that  this is an initiative of the council

but by 1997  the local government  NZ  lets it be  known that they are not supportive of Wells idea

During this time  Wells  is busy writing new legislation to facilitate his plan and  in september 1997 the Hodgson bill is produced     Wells has inserted a new  clause providing for  Territorial bodies to be compliance  Bodies

The No 1 bill is rejected as it   infringes on the bill of rights , the powers which wells was  seeking for the inspectors  appear to be draconian  and so  A second bill is  introduced   and  the two bills are integrated into one, Neil Wells is taken on as the  ” independent adviser to the select committee .  He does this without declaring his conflict of interest.

In September 1997 the Hodgson bill was referred to us. The Government decided to introduce its own bill to remedy laps in that bill and in earlier Government policy work on
animal welfare decided that it would be more effective and efficient to consider the two bills together, and delayed consideration of the Hodgson bill in order to do this.

In early 1998   Wells promotes the concept of a trust     and suggests that the council be  involved  and provides a flow of  funds  diagram he appears to make this move to circumvent the intention of the legislation following the introduction of the second bill.

Wells has already preempted the formation of a trust and tom Didovich then pushes this to council 

While the bill is  still being discussed Wells  liaises with various people   to  overcome any hurdles that the  legislation may throw up 

He first comes up with the name AWINZ  in Mid 1998  while the legislation is still being drafted and he states

For this exercise let’s assume that there will be a new charitable trust formed, independent of Waitakere City, to be known as the
Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ). AWINZ could be that national body and would be responsible to MAF Reg through a memorandum of understanding or contract.

….It is possibly premature to propose Part 2 at this stage as there needs to be a little more certainty in terms of what is in the Bill, when will AWINZ be up and running, what transitional  procedures can be used for Waitakere City.

He presents and advisory board  document    and attaches a draft trust deed   , he  alleges that this trust will be set up by the council and The founding trustees will be appointed by the Waitakere city council 

He gets Didovich to gather people the criteria being  that they should be  well know to  give the trust ” credibility ”   and so some people are called together  and Wells is paid for their meeting.

Wells again take advantage of year end and sends the   unexecuted deed to Maf 

It has to be noted that  the deed  makes it clear that Waitakere city  is allegedly a trustee under the deed

You may have noted that crucial events take place at christmas time  this is a very good tactic as things get rushed through or overlooked.

More to come  about the AWINZ  trust deception and why Neil Wells is so fearful that one day  some one may believe me

In the mean time  I found the evidence that wells brought the  independent SPCA’s together   in  a job application at waitakere city council  he states

Undertaking a constitutional reform of the SPCA as National President of the Royal New Zealand SPCA by drawing 45 independent SPCAs into a national society, and as National Director by establishing the first National Office in Auckland.

Interestingly with this job application he does not disclose to Waitakere city council his gross conflict of interest   that by taking the  position he will be contracting to himself 

but that is the nature of  the beast