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

Neil Wells distances himself from AWINZ

wells flow chart_Page_2I have just taken time to look at submissions for the animal welfare bill  and  within the multitude of pages I find a  submission by Neil Wells . Neil Wells evidence text [PDF 258k] and  Neil Wells  supp  [PDF 141k]

In the  submission  he starts off stating

I agree with the general policy statement that the Bill will “improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.”

Transparency ?  run that past me gain  ? wasn’t  it   Mr Wells  who made an application to the minister for approved status  using a  false name ?

Did he then not run  this enterprise himself   using the councils staff and resources while not  disclosing that there was no one else involved ?

So why does he  not list his experience of 10 years running  an approved organization?  and why did  he not even mention the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand? ( AWINZ ) .

I rather suspect that he has not mentioned AWINZ because  it would not read well saying

I was the author of a Private Member’s Bill presented to Parliament by Hon Pete Hodgson in 1998, which was later joined with the government’s Animal Welfare Bill (No. 2).

I served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills.

applied for approved status  for an organization which did not exist and which was actually me using a pseudonym.

I  ran the approved organization for 10 years using the Waitakere  city council staff and resources  , prosecuted and  banked the proceeds into a bank account   which I  operated in the  name of AWINZ .

I suspect that if he had written that  some one might have said..  there is something wrong here.. perhaps  conflict or interest   even and some  one might  say  “hey is it OK to write legislation for your own business plan and advise on it and implement it under a false name   then cover up using the court. ? ”

At Point three of his main submission Wells states

A statute is only as good as the procedures available for enforcement of its provisions, the detection of offences, and the prosecution of offenders.

3.1 Enforcement and prosecuting authorities
There are three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations.

3.2 The Police
While every member of the Police is deemed to be an inspector the Police rarely take complaints related to animal welfare breaches and instead refer the complainant to the SPCA.

3.3 MPI
MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.

3.4 Approved organisations

It appears odd to me  that Neil Wells does not  mention his own first hand experience  with running an approved organization .  but for once I  find myself agreeing  with Mr Wells he states

MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.

It transpires the MPI could not even  discern the difference between  a legal  person and  a fiction, a truth and a falsehood .   The falsehoods  from Mr Wells as to the existence of  AWINZ were  swallowed hook line and sinker  and   each obstacle was overcome with   another  tall tale . he goes on to say

There is currently one approved organisation that is authorised to recommend the appointment of Inspectors and through those appointments, to enforce the Act and prosecute offenders — the Royal New Zealand SPCA.

But he doesn’t mention  AWINZ Mr Wells using council  staff which had been offered for use  by his associate  Tom Didovich  without apparent  authority from the  council hierarchy . Wells points out how rare it is to have private law enforcement authorities

There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of animal welfare law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.

Mr Wells   using the council  staff  and resources prosecuted under the  guise of the fictional AWINZ  and  pocketed the money into an account only he had access too, funds  which he has since used to  haul me through court  so as to cover up the  criminal activity associated with AWINZ.

If we were to adapt the model  which Mr Wells had  set up there would be no need for  funding as it   ensured that public assets were used for private pecuniary gain. I am sure that  any   accountant would tell you that there were serious flaws with Mr Wells model  and to prosecute through an  authority which has no legal existence  ensures that there is no accountability to the public and no one can hold you accountable as  there is no identifiable and sue able person to  take on. the dangers of  this relationship are  expressed by Mr Wells in  this comment

Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.

I could not agree more  , when an organization can  increase its income through prosecution  and  incidentally giving people a  criminal conviction  it  becomes very serious , take that one step further  and if there is no organization and the law enforcement authority   is in reality  just one  person  who has obtained law enforcement powers  using a false identity then it has to be SERIOUS , especially when    council, MPI, ministers, OAG  all go out of their  way to cover this up or turn a blind eye to it.

The statements he made  in  his submisson shows  just how serious the matter with regards to the  fictional AWINZ was

The Law Commission in its paper Delivering Justice For All (2004) commented that “the operation of the criminal justice system is the responsibility of the state.” Judge Garland in R v Balfour said that “the SPCA was effectively standing in the shoes of the government.”

In reality therefore  Neil Wells was one person standing in the   shoes of the government , so when I asked the question  why AWINZ did not exist, it was  far easier to  crucify me than it was for any government department   to say  Oops we gave law enforcement authority to  a fictional organisation.

AWINZ has proved that there was a lack of accountability , we still do not know   who  was regarded to be the organisation no one can identify the real people  actually involved.  we know that  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil wells and  Tom Didovich posed as the organsiation and claimed the law enforcement powers as their own  but there is not one document which can be produced from any legitimate source which  supports that claim.

Incidentally it Was Tom Didovich who  supported Wells application  on behalf of Waitakere city council

When the application for approved status  was made there was no trust deed, there was no group of people who had decided to apply for approved  organization  status, there was just Neil Wells and his own business plan for making money .  In 2006 when I discovered that AWINZ did not exist , Neil Wells   tried to contact  four people  who he had spoken to in 1998 who had been recruited  by Didovich  for the possibility of forming a trust with council  to facilitate the delivery of animal welfare services.

Council paid for this through Didovich , but  the persons never met as a trust.  In 2006 there was not a trust deed ( it was claimed to be missing )  and I have conclusively proved that these persons did not form a trust until three months after the application for approved status  was made and that they were not the approved organisation .

Graeme Coutts , Nuala Grove and  Sarah Giltrap were all recruited because of their station in life or perceived station in life , they never met as a trust  and never applied for  approved status  , they were not  the law enforcement authority .

Under Item 17 clause 35 Mr Wells   describes the pilot scheme set up by him to trial   animal welfare in councils , he again fails to mention that it was set up at his  instigation and that this led on to the fictitious AWINZ  being created.

While I commend Mr Wells concern for little furry things  he has  had no such compassion for Humans  especially  when it came to me and my family.  Wells has totally destroyed my family  and  financially stripped me.   Mr Wells in my opinion  is nothing but a criminal at large  who has used the  courts to pervert the course of justice  so as to  conceal his criminal offending.

I do not believe that any one can treat humans and animals  differently , to be cruel to a human ( yes I have suffered at Mr Wells hands for 8 Years )  makes a mockery of the perception of being humanitarian .

If AWINZ had been legitimate ( it was not ) I would have expected Mr Wells to have made mention of it.  His  manner of dealing with AWINZ , or should I say avoiding it in his submission   , to me at least  proves  his guilt .

I think that it is about  time some one dealt with the reality  that AWINZ was nothing more than a name Mr Wells had given himself, he  had  used others to cover up , when they realized how serious things had become ,they could not  back out  for they too had committed  offences through him by  being party to a raft of offences  from being accessory after the  fact to  parties tothe  the offence of using the court to pervert the course of justice.

this was done through a tactic  called

DARVO – Acronym of “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”.

I was the  whistle blower and  was made out to be the villain   Wells became the Victim picked on by this deranged woman   .  It is a powerful strategy   and   it works in New Zealand especially when you   can show that  you are kind to animals.

Well I am kind to animals and  to humans.. hasn’t helped me.

The victim stance  is a powerful one  . the victim is always morally  right  neither responsible  nor accountable and forever entitled to sympathy

I can prove everything I say   and I am speaking the truth  , I will again send this to Mr Wells and draw this to his attention   so that corrections can be made .

Again I will ask him to provide evidence.. that is the one thing  that those who make things up always lack. If you want  evidence from my side  all you need to do is ask  I have truckloads of the stuff.

Is the AWINZ Charity complicit in fraud on the courts ?

 To the trustees of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand – Tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil Wells.  And to the  party to litigation   Hoadley Coutts and Wells

23 December 2013

 Ben Atkins   of Brookfields  has told me to pay the $19,000 cost demand payable to AWINZfor the legal action  for obtaining  a judgement by fraud into  a bank account number National Bank of New Zealand  060 968 0067 4 77 00, this is  the bank account  used by the  charity  animal welfare institute of New Zealand, it is not   the account for  Hoadley wells and Coutts  parties to the  litigation .   

Before I pay this money into the account  I  wish  to inform all those associated with the charity, the person running  the account  and those  party to the legal  action ,of the implications of receiving these  funds which have been  directed to be paid for deceiving the court.

 For 8 years there has been much obfuscation about who AWINZ is.  I have evidence to prove that the charity the law enforcement authority   or the former trust.  The charity does not run its own bank accounts Neil Wells does and the trustees are not running the charity in any proper manner.  They are not even meeting.

 In 2007 there was no trust deed associated with the national bank account   I am certain that the banking ombudsmen will help sort that one out.

The  account was in the name of a person who does not exist- animal welfare institute of New Zealand .  Neil Wells was the only person running the account and the account was not a trading as account.

I will not pay into a bank account of a non-party without some assurances and without the full knowledge and consent of those whose account it is being passed off as being.  I will not hand over that sum of money and then find that those who have a judgement against me    demand the money again in their personal capacity. 

I am therefore looking for   a letter in which Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as   the defendants agree that the money is paid into a designated account of a non-party being the trust which they are  trustees of  together with Tom Didovich . ( the charity )

As the account is that used by a registered  charity, I request that all of the trustees of the charity  AWINZ consent to the money being paid into that account  and that they accept full responsibility as trustees for  receiving the money which  has been obtained through deception on the court and perverting the course of justice.

 I note that the lawyers have gone on leave and so   will deal with the parties involved direct as the lawyers appear to be totally confused as to who is who. The lawyers in any case were not instructed by the charity but  by Hoadley and Wells  at a time when no trust existed. I   will show there is no continuity to a previously formed trust.

In 2009  Hoadley Wells  Didovich and Coutts  all signed  a document namely a financial return on the charities commission which read

On 30 July 2008 Judge Rod Joyce QC made an order in the matter A WINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following:

Damages $57,500, costs $40,500

On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.

As at 16 December 2009 damages, costs and interest due stood at $117,903

The Trustees have entered a charging order of $100,000 on properties jointly owned by Haden.

Resolved 20 December 2009 “  

Now my issue is that  I have paid some $200,000  to Neil Wells  alone, not in his capacity as   trustee   and I have paid  $16,000  to Wyn Hoadley in her private capacity   and according to these “true and correct” accounts   you have a charging order over my property.

I would like to know which property you have a charging   order over and I would   like proof that it has been  removed, I also want  all references of any debt to the trust  removed as  I have never had a debt to the charity .

I also dispute that there is any money owing to the charity   and I do not wish to put money into the charities account   thereby giving reality to their fiction. I will put the money in that account if I get acknowledgment   from all the parties as to why I am placing into that account.

The whole thing has been Identity fraud 101 and    all those who go along with this are complicit in obtaining a pecuniary advantage through fraud and perverting the course of justice. Facilitating something is enough.. each one of you  is a party to this   fraud.

I  will expect a response from each of you  by 4 pm  31 December .

Before you sign your life away I  wish you to be aware of the evidence  I have  which   I will use next year  ( in private criminal  prosecutions if  necessary )  that   will prove that you  do not have a leg to stand on  for claiming to be the law enforcement authority   or the 2000 trust

In 2006 I  was approached by an animal welfare officer employed by Waitakere  city council  she wanted to know who she was volunteering her council paid time  to  as she was uncertain as to who AWINZ was. I found that AWINZ did not exist and no one had a trust deed.  AWINZ   was a law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act,

We registered a trust  called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  on 27 April 2006  and through this registration proved that no other  legal entity  existed by that name. Neil Wells wanted our trust gone and was informed of the process by the  registrar of  society’s , he chose  litigation  in the district court  and coercive means.

AWINZ operated from Waitakere city council premises using the council staff to   run its business and prosecuted those who fell fowl of the animal welfare law.( this money went into the  same account which your lawyer  now  wants me to put nearly $20,000 in to- this  account  was operated By  Neil Wells alone).

The vehicles, signage   and buildings at council had been re branded by the Neil Wells to look very much like the Logo which AWINZ the law enforcement authority used. There was talk of the   council assets to be transferred to AWINZ as is recorded in the audit report page 4.

Neil Wells had been Manager since 2005 when he took over from Tom Didovich the previous manager who had corresponded with the Minister of primary Industries and had given consents and approvals on behalf of council for matters which council had not been properly   consulted on.

As a result MAF and the minister were of the belief that  it was the councils desire to  take on animal welfare functions  in reality   it was Mr Wells personal desire  one that he had recorded in a business plan.  

I asked    questions as to AWINZ role and contracts with Waitakere Council and the existence of   the law enforcement powers which were obtained after Mr Wells had written the animal welfare bill and consulted on it as independent advisor to the select committee.

In July 2006 Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts commenced legal action,   using clever ploys such as false standing and striking out my defence of trust and honest opinion in defamation proceedings they have managed   to re write history and    confuse facts   .

I now  don’t know who I am dealing with  I believe that there are various parties all called AWINZ    and  various ones have used the bank account  which the   lawyer has given me a number for .

  The groups are

1.       The people who came together   paid for by Waitakere  council to form a trust with Waitakere  council in 1998

2.       1999.The AWINZ which Neil Wells and Tom Didovich told the SPCA existed in 1999, the  one that they  claimed funds from the  community well being fund for  or the one which gave a notice of intent  and a made an application to the minister

3.       2000 The  trust deed   for which there are two versions  One given  to me in 2006, the other sent to MAF in 2006  trust deed MAF version

4.       The AWINZ which monitored the Lord of the rings  and  gave the  false and title

5.        The AWINZ  which received law enforcement powers and the  Awinz which Wells represented when he signed   the MOU Waitakere  and  MAF

6.       The Awinz which met June 2004 which only Mr Wells   knows about.

7.       The AWINZ which opened the bank account and obtained the IRD number and obtained the $100,000 beauty with compassion.

8.       The  people who posed as AWINZ as litigants  June 2006( no trust deed existed  no  evidence of being appointed )

9.       You  . the people who signed a deed 5.12.2006   the  trust which became a charity   and  although you    were not connected to the bank account  let Neil wells and Christine wells operate the bank account which  you were supposedly trustees of.

Not all AWINZ’s are the same   they share a common name but there has to be real verifiable evidence to connect them.

In 2012   I  took action  against Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts  for obtaining a judgement by fraud  but  because their lawyers obfuscation  and  reputation   had more  impact on the court than the 700 odd  government documents which I had collated ,  my claim was struck out   at a cost of  some  $35,000 this and the  preceding  matters won by deceit has resulted in payments of $200,000 which has  mainly been collected by Wells himself in his own capacity.

Wells has been hell bent on bankrupting me and liquidating  my company  we have had three  attempts at liquidation and  in the courts own words it has been done in a very aggressive manner.. so much for animal   welfare .. can’t be nice to humans.

The  latest round the invoices were made out to AWINZ, for them to be made out to AWINZ that is  the charity  then the charity must  be   itself involved  in the   perverting the course of justice , and  I would very much like to establish if   all of you   that is the  December  2006 trustees  consider  all the AWINZ entities  1-9  to be  you .

According to the charities web site you are the trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand  a charity registered 28/09/2007 after you all signed a trust deed on 5 December 2006.

First of all you need to grasp that AWINZ is not a  body corporate  it is nothing more than a  name adopted by various people, in this case you  and only from 5 december 2006 . The trust therefore provides no protection for you for any act done before that date or for actions outside the scope of the trust deed.   

AWINZ cannot sue or be sued only the people who comprise AWINZ can sue and each does so based on legal documents which   support their claim of being legitimate trustees.

I cannot see how you can be a continuation of a trust allegedly formed  1.3.2000   as those trustees never met Let’s look at the audit report and associated document  in detail to establish some   facts which you yourself ( through the lawyers )  have promoted.

 The Affidavit of  Tom Didovich  which sets out the fact that he ( while holding he position of manager  Dog and stock control of Waitakere city ) drove to each trustee and obtained their respective signatures , this proves they never got together at the start and could not have  ratified the  deed.

the  2009  an audit report released by MAF- the audit was  conducted on AWINZ the law enforcement authority   looking at   section  4.1.2

we found  that despite being set up in 2000 AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004 . Since its inception (and at the time of the audit) AWINZ has held 4 Trust

Board meetings – we found that four Trust Board meetings held since 2000,three of.

the meetings minutes were not signed by the chair  and the one minute that was signed was for a meeting which did not have a quorum of trustees “

 

Neil Wells kindly supplied the minutes to   the law society they can be located at the  following links  

  1. minutes  10/5/2006
  2. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting  
  3.  Minutes 14/8/2006

The minutes which we don’t have is the June 2004

We know that the 2000 trustees did not meet when they signed the deed( see Didovich ’s affidavit ) , we know that there were only ever 4 meetings  the earliest was 2004.

The 2000 trust deed calls for the trustees to be reappointed   by 1.3.2000. This trust never met, did not have minutes, passed no resolutions held no assets and by its own terms ceased to exist 1.3.2003

Therefore the meeting in 2004   was by an unknown group of persons or person.

Now let’s look at the   Application for approved status 22 November 1999 how could this application have been made by those whose only act was to sign a trust deed  1.3.2000 , it is  customary for people to sign  such applications  to show that they consent to  it being made in their names.. This is not for a Sunday school picnic this is for law enforcement powers.

How could your deed   5 December 2006 revoke that deed when it was defunct   from 1.3.2003, there was nothing to revoke

In correspondence with   the AWINZ lawyer  Ben ATKINS  it  has become clear that  your lawyers think that AWINZ became the law enforcement authority   as set out in paragraphs 50-52 of their submissions  which read

 

“In paras 57-59, Ms Haden alleges that Mr Wells deceived the Court in “many ways” and in particular, she alleges that Mr Wells misrepresented that an application to the Minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999, was not the final application made. We assume that Ms Haden is referring to Mr Wells’ evidence given in Court when he said that MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until 1 January 2000, when the Animal Welfare Act 1999 was passed. Mr Wells went on to stay that a formal application could not be lodged before that time and that when the Act was passed, a formal application was made, and the trust deed was signed (refer CB p 340, L8-23).  Note how your lawyers cleverly  still put the application before the  signing of the deed , things just don’t happen in that order. 

 

Ms Haden’s claims of perjury in this regard are simply without any foundation. Mr Wells was entirely open with the Court about the formation with the trust and the application to be registered as an approved organisation. He noted that the November 1999 application was made, and this was attached to Mr Wells’ affidavit sworn 10 December 2007 (refer CB p 324, para 31 ). Further, the application was subsequently formalised, after discussions with government officials and further correspondence. In particular, Mr Wells sent a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture on 25 March 2000 to address various issues that had been raised, and to formalise the application (refer CB p 138- 144).

 

You will note that in the letter dated 25 March 2000 om page 7  Wells stated  Having provided all the additional information requested  over the past 3 months we trust you are now in a position to provide  approval in  our original application of November 1999.”

 

So how   can    the persons involved in AWINZ the law enforcement authority become involved without putting their names to the application?  The assurances were at all times that AWINZ was a body corporate a legal person in its own right… It never was… This has a major impact on   the administration of justice   it is creating a false person and by consenting to being part of this you are implicated and  for the actions for keeping that illusion alive  . The audit report quite categorically states bottom of page 5 AWINZ has not  been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . Neil Wells  deliberately deceived the  Minister  in his letter  25 March 2000

 

 A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause  20 (a) of the Deed.”

 

You will note that your deed or the deed of the defunct trust which you claim to have followed on from  , does not contain a section 20  a

 

Your trust and  the  2000 trust were never incorporated  so it was not your deed that was sent in to the  Minister  for registration  and  clearly was not the deed which Mr Wells was referring to.  So how could this be YOU !!!!!!

 

Conclusion: It is therefore   a different AWINZ    which   became the law enforcement authority

In the audit report Wells  contradicts his  own evidence to the court  Neil  is quoted as  saying on Page 4  Neil Wells (AWINZ Trustee) explained in his original application for AWINZ to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (dated 22 November 1999) that in 1996 AWS(animal welfare services made a strategic decision that “a not-for-profit body to act as the interface between community and service delivery” be formed. This strategy led to the formation of the animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), whose objective was “to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ the AWINZ trust  was established in March 2000.”

 

Wells also claims    that the objectives of AWINZ “was ” to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to  be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ You will note that there is no mention of this objective in the  trust deed    1.3.2000  which   you claim to  have as your origins that this objective is  expressed.

 

Neil Wells further stated that the principal purpose of AWINZ was to promote the welfare of.

Animals, and its aims were “to provide a national body to which Inspectors will be properly answerable”. How can that happen   through a trust which   did not meet   at all!!!!!!  Look at yourselves   you don’t meet you all know that  Neil wells is the  only person  who deals  with AWINZ the rest of you are there  to cover up .

 

 On that point  You  did not meet to change the  terms of the  trust deed which you signed, there are no minutes which show a resolution to change the objectives,  there are no meetings  after 5 Dec 2006   which  resolved  that you should become a charity .  I will get a full investigation into this you have been most fraudulent. Trustees have legal obligations   including the requirement of a meeting to decide to take legal action.

I believe that the only explanation is that the trust 1.3.2000 was not the law enforcement authority and Neil wells was   it all by himself and all the rest is a cover up to pervert the course of justice  something you have all conspired in.

 

There are many other   points I could raise which   have come to light due to the audit report    but I won’t go into that now   after all it is Christmas.

Those who want to save their necks   can do so now. I will hand over   the  $19,000 +   subject to being told   by all parties to the proceedings  that they consent to  it being  put into the  charities account   and acknowledging that the charity is  receiving  the money and know that it is money obtained by crime  in light of  this  detailed  letter.

I will not be responsible for any accrual of interest due to your delay

I will release the money as soon as  I have the assurances  and  also an explanation as to why  the charity is claiming the funds as theirs in the annual report  when they are not a party to the proceedings and how   they came to put the caveat over my property  , or if they did not put a caveat over my property  why they  filed false accounts.

 If I don’t hear by 31 december 4 pm   I will assume that You will not be responding   and won’t   be making any  demands on me  due to the fact that   you  are collecting the proceeds of a crime.

   Since its Christmas. Anyone who does not  wish to   be  prosecuted criminally next year   can come clean, I am sure the police  can  deal with   the issue. Having the matter before the court has held it back  but    all that is finished now     . You have cost me well over $300,000, my family and my marriage   I am not about to walk away from the crime you  have perpetrated,  You have  won the  battle  but not the war .

You will be   made accountable for your action and the part you played.   Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Those who facilitate corruption are art of it.

 You can’t put your name to something and then say you are not involved.

 Grace Haden

Copy on transparency.net.nz  as usual.

The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

It has taken me a week and a steep learning curve  but I am happy to announce that I am embarking on  a new chapter.. Video..  This is my first attempt   or should I say the result of many attempts  its not perfect but  it sets out the story. I welcome feed back

Charities commission finally reveal AWINZ accounts

charity fraudEvery charity needs to   show their accounts  and  the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, formed 5.12.200  is no exception  except  its accounts  went up on the  charities web site  in December with a annotation along side   saying restricted.

Over the weekend  they finally materialized.  No real reason to see them withheld  except for the  fact that I know  that I have paid   well over  $100,000 into  what was claimed to be  their coffers  but  which  now appears  to have   gone somewhere else.

Apparently Mr Wells had asked for the accounts  to be withheld.

I have gone through the  accounts available on the charities  web site and   put together the following   summary   (click to down load )   AWINZ accounts summary 

In the 2012  disclaimer they claim  under the heading  Contingent asset

ASSET
On 30 July 2008 Judge Roderick Joyce QC made an order in the matter AWINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following :
Damages– $57 ,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
decision.
On 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal struck out an application by Haden to appeal the High Court decision.
Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .

This statement is false in many ways and shows that the deception and corruption In Waitakere are still on going and shows that we do not have the staff with the necessary   ability or ethics to deal with such  corruption in   either councils or Government department. 

I must say   to be fair that if some one was to   do the right thing they would probably find themselves  out of a job, corruption in New Zealand is  that big.   Corruption like this is  actively concealed .

  1. The $57,500  was awarded  in favour of Neil Wells only from litigation which did not involve the charity , or its trustees  in their capacity  of trustees of this   charity .
  2. and although  this litigation was commenced when the old trust deed  was operative, the litigation was not undertaken  by the trustees of the 2000 trust
  3. Neil Wells was the only person who could profit from the prosecution which  misled the court as to who or what AWINZ was  and treated AWINZ as though it  was a legal person in its own right  when  this was not the case.
  4.  It is untrue to say  Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
  5. The charitable trust   were not party to the litigation  they allowed their charitable funds to  be used  for personal gain of one trustee  which follows the fact that I have evidence that  in Waitakere City   he  used public resources for private pecuniary gain .. so why would  he not  use charitable funds  for  private gain ?
  6.   Not only have the costs been fixed  they have calculated the interest and   collected   nearly $111,000   a further $30,000  is held in trust   and they have  a statutory demand for  $70,000  which includes the sum held in trust .
  7. These claims have not been made in the name of   the trust  and have been made by Wells alone   and not as trustee of  AWINZ in fact I cannot recall  any of the court documents  for liquidation  or bankruptcy referring to AWINZ or trust or trustee.  .
  8.  The high court matters were not against the trust they were against   the individual persons   and not the charity .
  9. This charity   was set up   as a  trust 5.12.2006  is a different trust to the trust  which allegedly existed   from 1.3.2000
  10.  The trust  set up 5.12 .2006   became a charity.  It did not  exist when  litigation commenced.
  11.  Neither of these two trusts  the  trust deed 5/12/2006  or 1.3.2000 were the law enforcement authority  as the application the minister relied upon was    made 22.11.1999  some   three months  before the 2000 trust deed was allegedly signed and  the trustees other  than Neil Wells  had no involvement in any way with the law enforcement  authority
  12. The trustees  of the 2000  trust had such little knowledge of the approved status (  law enforcement  status)  that   it had to be explained to them at their one and only meeting which occurred 6 years after the deed was signed and without any evidence of the trustees being re appointed. after three years  which is a requirement of the deed.
  13.  Neither of these two trusts were the  litigants in the  court case.   Although  some of  the trustees were litigants  there    has never been any proof that they were together  trustees at the  time   as litigation commenced and  they had no evidence that they  had any   legla capacity  to act together as trustees   prior  to 5/12/2006 or together had responsibilities to the deed prior to 2/12/2006   and from that date they   could only act   with one other.
  14. Costs have been finalized   for the court action which was  taken by three people who called themselves AWINZ but had no proof of  being a trust. ,
  15. Wells commenced  liquidation proceedings on   Verisure  22 December 2011 by attaching a statutory demand to my Christmas wreath.
  16. He had told  MAF in September that he was going to bankrupt me.  He was paid out  some $91,000   in mid June 2012   this sum does not show in the accounts   he appears to have  used charitable funds for self-enrichment  but  no one appears to care.
  17. I was besieged by demands   $7,090.48 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day , $17.244.26 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day, $23091.47 demanded  21 June 2012  payable the next day,  a total of  some 47426.21, to be found over night .
    1. 28 June , 82,987.43   to be found over night
    2. 10 July  76,000  demanded by  Wells  and wells and others  to be paid   within 7 days
    3. As soon as he was paid  out  Wyn   Hoadley    went after me for   $16638 but no one bothered to tell me.    I still cant see where that sum  came from  because nothing makes  sense   it certainly is not in the demand  28 June  or in the  July demand  or  the June   amounts
    4. They succeeded in putting my company into liquidation   when they  failed to serve document   on me, they were caught out  and the   liquidation was reversed.
    5. This all occurred while I had proceedings  before the court   to set the  judgement aside because it had been obtained by fraud.
    6. They also attempted to bankrupt me  but the court allowed the money to stay in a trust account  while the   setting aside of the judgement is considered.
    7. He succeeded in releasing most of this money through the  liquidation proceedings.
    8. Neil Wells currently has  a statutory demand  out  against the company

    Evidence is available  upon request

  What the charities commission have done by allowing this  matter to stand is to  condone litigants   for setting up a charitable trust   so that litigation  can be funded from  charitable funds.

 It opens the door to   more corruption in New Zealand  simply because  many investigators  dont understand the  legal requirements of Trust .

The  chronology speaks volumes any other interpretation of fact defies logic anc common sense.  ther is no law or statute which supports   any  way that this chronology  is invalid.

Chronology

  1.  22/12/1999  application for approved status  Neil wells tells minister of  agriculture that AWINZ will be legally incorporated.
  2. 1.3.2000 trust deed signed  this copy came to me in 2006 from Brookfields, this trust deed is different to the deed which is supplied by   Wells to MAF  they go this version
  3. The application  22/11/1999 is approved , not one of  the persons who signed the trust deed  ( apart from Wells)  AWINZ  despite not   existing gets  coercive law enforcement powers. Effectively Wells  has coercive law enforcement powers   in a pseudonym. the minister confirms  to Wells that this was the application he relied upon    
  4. Neil Wells lied in court on this point  he said that the application had been made after the trust existed.
  5. 27.4.2006  a trust by the name of  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand is formed    and is legally incorporated,  and obtains charitable status from IRD, this was  done  by myself and others  to prove conclusively that no  legal person by the nae of animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed. MAF  had believed it existed  and they needed to get the egg off their face because they simply did not check  they had trusted Wells 
  6. This threw a spanner in the works for Wells and he now had to  cover up the fact that  the law enforcement authority did not exist.
  7. 10.5.2006    the   only recorded  meeting of the trust 1.3.2000  which  by its trust deed should meet no less than 4x per year , trustees said they had not met  they did not even meet to sign the deed.! Wyn Hoadley becomes trustee   by invisible means.
  8. 25 May  2006   Hoadley and Wells  see lawyers to have the    incorporated trust  removed from the register.   As proof of their  existence they send  a copy of the trust deed 1.3.200  for which trustees have resigned.
  9. 18.7.2006 despite being told by the registrar of  incorporated societies    to challenge the registration in the  high  court  they decide to use  the district court  for intimidation and thereby   get a quick way to force  the name to be given up.
  10. 5.12.2006   After trying to get charitable status Wells is forced into  a position  where by he needs a new   and current deed  as   the old deed does not qualify    so with half the original trustees    he    changed the purpose of the  trust and writes in clauses which allow the   funds he has to be used for the litigation  .

Its identity fraud 101  and  just because they all share a name  it does not mean that they are all the same.

All you need in New Zealand to commit charity fraud  is a law degree standing as a barrister   and  the charities commission    will like MAF  accept any BS you  put their way.

Every day people  are locked up for minor matter    but     slick words  manipulation of  words  and  confusion allow you to get away with crime.

I am continually surprised at the lengths  that    Government departments  and the Council have gone to  condone this corruption   shows    that  Corruption is not  just  condoned in New Zealand it is concealed.

See the  Mayor of Auckland brush off   the ” historic”  Corruption of Neil Wells , he does so unilaterally  and  without  allegedly knowing the facts Len Brown acts as judge  and jury. http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1   you will need to log in   it is free.

this is my  presentation Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013

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 .

 

Transparency International NZ and whistleblowers

I received a reply from TINZ  director  David McNeill in response to my post Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand

the email can be found here response from TINZ director David McNeill

In the interest of transparency  I publish my response

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 11:37 a.m.
To: ‘David McNeill’ <dm@ti.org.nz>
Subject: RE: open letter to David Mc Neil

Thank you for your response David

I am sorry  that you don’t  agree  with the methods I use to pursue my case but after 11 years  I   think I have tried everything to bring this matter to  the attention of the authorities and misters .

Should bringing corruption to the attention of the government be this hard ?

If it is ignored  what does it say about our values?

The only reason I have kept on  with it is because it has cost me so much  it cost me my marriage and my family not to mention the obscene sum of money which  was  taken t from me through  the subsequent   fraud on the  court where Wyn Hoadley Barrister, Graeme courts  JP and Tom Didovich the  conflicted  former manager Waitakere city council dog control  along with Wells set up  a similarly named trust and passed themselves off as the   law enforcement authority  .. a total legal  nonsense  but the names were the same  so it  was OK

I acted in good faith on a matter of public interest which I raised with the purest of intentions after a council employee had come to me .

In becoming a vocal  whistle-blower I also became a go to person  for  those  with  issues of their own  . In  the 11 years at the coal face of corruption I have found why corruption is so prevalent in New Zealand    and I thought that this information would be of use to TINZ.

How can you  work on the  issues of integrity , change of policy and political attitude if you yourselves remain  uninformed of what is occurring and shun whistle-blowers.

You ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”   well the short answer is   that he  died  last week  but the legacy of what he  set in action lives on.

He has proved that  in New Zealand

  1. writing legislation for your own business plan is condoned.

  2. you can be an independent adviser to the select committee on matters in which you have a  personal  financial interest.

  3.  you can make  a fraudulent application for  Law enforcement powers and influence the decision makers

  4. Those investigating  an application for statutory powers do not check if the organisation exists or any alleged fact

  5. Obtain your own legal opinion for government   and have input into it

  6. You can draft your own documents for    the  government

  7. You can  contract to  councils and government department using a fictional name MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF

  8. That he can influence the government department   to such an extent that  the  Whistle-blower is discredited and  no one verifies   that  a fraud has occurred or not .

Simply put he has proved that   if you make it easy for the public servant  ,  have their trust and liaise with them frequently and meet with minister  then   you can get them to accept anything  and they   won’t check.  Rule number one  never verify . Being a barrister helps   after all   a man of the law  knows and would never be corrupt   .

Ironically today there is an article in the newspaper  “SPCA confiscates man’s dog based on ‘hearsay’, he claims “   this is very relevant  currently the RNZSPCA is  undertaking a very  dodgy “ amalgamation “  and will be focusing on the inspectorate  which   will see more personal properties raided by persons who are privately  employed.  But that is not for now

You say “We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing”    Please tell me the difference  . If I am screaming corruption now it’s probably because  after 11 years of hitting my head against a wall and having my reputation maligned  it’s the only thing left to do .

You state “Transparency International NZ “approaches corruption in a different way, attempting to give the whole system more tools & techniques for exposing and preventing corruption. ‘  How can you prevent corruption when  you   don’t know  what the symptoms are  ?

Cancer left untreated will kill you  corruption left untreated will   kill our country and indeed will have killed many  in its path . I know this  as at one stage I was suicidal .

My criticism  of  TINZ   has been that you   prefer not to know about corruption  and  appear  hell bent on  portraying New Zealand as the least corrupt  to enhance business interest.  When I heard Jose  Ugaz  speak  I was  heartened I would never have  thought that you belong to the same organisation .

You have no idea  how difficult it  is  to see transparency International run programmes such as WHISTLEBLOWING FOR CHANGE, etc  yet be shunned by  your local branch .

ON  https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/whistleblowing/ the following appears

This opens  up onto  https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblowing

“ Through our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres, located in nearly 50 countries, we advise whistleblowers in making their disclosures and work to make sure that their disclosures are duly addressed by appropriate authorities.

The international body recognises the importance of Whistle-blowers

There is growing awareness of the important role whistleblowing plays in stopping corruption. “

yet TINZ say   this approach is wrong.”

We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing.”

I did not wake up one day  and decide to become a whistle-blower.

I  was a mother   had a family of three teenagers thought I was happily married , I helped a lady at Waitakere city council and my  whole life  changed . this should not happen to any one  !

I found something that was  very wrong  and  raised questions with MAF and  Waitakere city council  which I thought  were the appropriate bodies

Rather than checking out my claims they colluded with the perpetrator  who then took me to court  for defamation, deceived the court  and  got a judgement  against  me by denying me  the statutory right of defence. That judgement has been waved about ever since  to discredit me.

My marriage was simultaneously attacked and my funds were frozen I could not fight back .Lawyers cost money  . when My  matrimonial property was settles I got a lawyer  he happened  to be Evgeny orlov  who fleeced me  and was himself embroiled in   matters relating to the panama papers . He  had no credibility with the court and was at one stage struck off , just my hard luck that he was my lawyer .

In 2007 Mr Wells wrote to  MAF   that   he intended to bankrupt me . over the years  he advised them as to what to and  was kept in the loop with every OIA  I made and allowed to make comment . see here for another example

The down side of publishing on transparency NZ has been that it allowed Wells and Hoadley to  engage a Private investigator who   then  assisted in muddying the waters. The intention was to  deny me  my PI licence .  five years later they have succeeded putting me out of  work at age 64  from a career which  is an extension of my police  career which commenced when I was 21

I was discredited  even to my own children . what I have been fighting for is  to get my  reputation back

While Neil Wells  was portrayed to be good I was made out to be a sinister person

Just prior to his  death I found a news item  on the  law society news  Censured lawyer gets name suppression , I recognised  the   events  and from this  have speculated that Mr Wells was  actually a corrupt barrister  . I was charged with  alleged  breach of  a suppression order   , the police didn’t need evidence to charge me , it took them 6 weeks to find  something that  could at a stretch be an order but in reality is vague .

Our biggest issue with corruption in New Zealand is that we  thrive on perception  , make someone out to be bad and they are bad forever and no one will ever look at  the evidence .

Evidence  is what   Jose Ugaz   felt  is essential in proving corruption  but  evidence  plays no part in our courts.

Barristers such as Neil Wells and their legal representatives have the ability to influence the court   without any evidence  this is reflected in a speech made in  2014 by : Justice Helen Winkelmann – Chief High Court Judge of New Zealand (Helen Winkelmann’s 2014 Address).

There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

David  the process of   holding lawyers accountable to the rule of law   is long and  again the lawyers  word is preferred over  the   complainant.

I have lost my  PI licence , the matter is still under review by the LCRO,  I  was accused of harassing a lawyer  for telling him that he had an obligation   to the rule of law and could not use his office for fraud.

Such is  New Zealand  today   have not even touched on to another raft of issues.

I am sure that we could work well together    we would  both  like to see corruption contained  and by providing policies that work   much grief can be avoided.

I wonder if the  Joanne Harrison matter could have been  prevented if the lessons which could have been learned from AWINZ had been  implemented.

No one should have to go through what I have had to endure   there is only  one way forward and that is by providing transparency  .

I would like to join TI NZ   we can learn from each other .

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

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 

 

Fraud and corruption  Is New Zealand up the creek  without a paddle? 

When it comes to back ground screening I tell people that the corrupt  usually don’t do things by  half measures.  what is the point  of  inflating your  Cv just a bit when  you can be dynamic and give yourself a degree which will  take you to the top .

And so it is  with perception ratings.  If we acknowledge that there is fraud and corruption then the perception  of  being fraud and corruption free  is destroyed  .

“Our public-sector agencies have focused successfully on developing processes that prevent corruption and these contribute to New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector” says Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its low corruption reputation and we are increasingly finding how to transfer these behaviours from our public to our private sector to leverage off this enviable reputation for integrity.”

It is ironic however that Transparency International New Zealand    prepares the integrity    report  with funding from theses very sectors .partners / sponsors 

The reality was seen this week when the police    acknowledged that

White collar crime ‘rampant’ as nearly 900 fraud complaints go uninvestigated

It appears that  the investigation into Joanne Harrison has lifted the lid on corruption in New Zealand. within a few days  we got interesting head lines

Fuji Xerox NZ voluntarily suspends competing for government contracts

FujiXerox NZ corruption scandal grows in spite of New Zealand’s silence

Binnie: Bain case tarnished NZ’s reputation

Immigration NZ staff investigated for corruption and fraud after visas issued to family, friends

New Zealand: thousands of bottles of allegedly fraudulent wine exported

Patrick Gower: Metiria Turei’s political fraud is ripping off the New Zealand public

The hypocrisy of NZ’s approach to fraud

see SFO  press releases 

A number of victims of these frauds suffer significant loss. Some of these people would have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings, a lot of these files aren’t minor files.”

And there is another side to it too  Victims  and whistleblowers are attacked  in an effort to ensure that the fraud  goes undetected.    In my experience it appears that  the fraudsters get far more  support from the police than the   person discovering/ reporting/ victim  the  crime does.  I often wonder how  lack of   action on fraud  impacts on our  overly high suicide ratings.

These are true stories  I know they are true because they happened to me , I know suicide is a factor  because there were times when it appealed to   me thanks to neil  Wells Wyn Hoadley , graeme Coutts and tom Didovich

I am ex police   and found myself  working as a private investigator  right in the line of fire

Lulled into the  false sense of security  that NZ  has no  tolerance for corruption   I raised the fraudulent application of AWINZ  to be a law enforcement authority  with   MPI and Waitakere city council . Neil Edward Wells a  barrister who  is now known to  have been  corrupt , had written legislation for his own business plan made an application for law enforcement powers for a fictional organisation  he then had the   council buildings re branded with the name of his  fictional organisation  and worked in a situation of severe conflict of interest using council resources infrastructure and  staff to operate his  own business.

11 years later  and this still has not been independently investigated by the authorities and in a move akin to Joanne Harrison neil edward Wells was able  influence the staff   at MPI  so that the matter was not investigated.  he took me to court  for defamation for claiming that the  trust was a sham ,  I was denied a defence of truth   and honest opinion  , my family was torn apart  and now 11 years later I have been taken to court by the police for speculating that Neil Wells was  the  lawyer  in a law society  news publication .

Not long after I had raised this  issue  I  assisted a lawyer in locating the director and Liquidator of  Fresh prepared Limited 

The  liquidator and  director were both fictional , they had been created by a   Hawaiian  business man  named Terry Hay  .  I found my self being harassed by him when he  posted three advertisements in the mandarin time to ensure that  half the chinese  population descended up on our house hold   to buy a super cheap car,  get  a great accommodation deal, get a   fabulous job .

Simultaneously   I had reported  fresh prepared to  MAF at the time as it  was a border control    facility  and they  had  now claimed to be  a different company . I found myself under investigation by Maf and warned for passing myself off as a Maf officer.  I was to learn that this was handy work of Neil Wells.

Hay  was charged by the National enforcement unit and took of to Honolulu  he remained there for  several years and the 22 charges were dropped

Next up   was fraudster Jonathon Mann and his   partner Dr Gerald Waters , Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims

His victims had to set up a blog site to deal with him,but it appears that fraudsters  don’t like having potential  victims warned

I came under attack by Gerald Waters  but eventually he was charged with companies act offences

Then  I was approached  by  a couple ,  the husband had had a former brief relationship with  a Parisa Hamedi  . Hamedi had gone to  Steven ZINDEL and engaged him on legal aid ,  after a  dozen or so  bonks Hamedi  thought she was entitled to the   mans house . I conducted the investigation and found that  she maintained her housing corp home in Nelson  where she and her children lived with  her former husband.

I committed a terrible crime by suggesting to  ZINDEL that he  should do some home work on the  de facto status as my investigations had proved that   they were a long way off  the  threshold. He came back and suggested that  if   $50,000  compensation was paid then it would all go away . This   wonderful hard working couple  spent some 6 years fighting  this through court   and  in the end the verdict was.. wait for it.. there was no   de facto relationship .  Yet Zindel took me to the Private security licencing authority   because i  told him to check his facts as he may otherwise be using his office for fraud.

Then there is the on going saga  of Muse on allen, where a young immigrant   invested money  in a restaurant o see it all taken away by Samuel North  who then claimed to be  the youngest chef to own his own restaurant.  this has gone through courts   for many years and simply proves that the   civil jurisdiction  cannot cope with fraud ,  on top of being  ripped off the   victim then gets a hiding to nowhere and loses even more funds.

Lawyer  David Abricossow  was acting for the company  and   when I told him that he had an obligation to the rule of law  and could not use his  practice to facilitate fraud  he   took me to court  for harassment and made false  claims that I had defamed him,  I was beautifully set up and lost my Pi licence because this lawyer   was at the start of his career and needed protection .

From what I can see is the  Fraud is left un addressed as it is a fabulous meal ticket for lawyers. Brookfields Lawyers certainly clipped the  ticket on the AWINZ matter .

If you are defrauded  or if you  discover fraud the best thing you can do is close your  eyes and walk away.  make that RUN     the courts appear to support fraudsters   evidence has no place  the ones with the   biggest lawyers  win and when you have been scalped and  the other side has the money  you don’t have much  of a chance at all  .

You have no  rights   there is no justice and in the civil jurisdiction there is actually not right to a fair trial .

But it all helps in   the concealment of  fraud  , if  we do not acknowledge that  fraud exists  then there is no fraud.

You cant find   something that you are not looking for  .. see no fraud problem in New Zealand.

 

 

 

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  .