Samuel North was interviewed on Concrete playground
We would like to set the record straight by providing facts .
Yup okay that was impressively disastrous. You’ve certainly picked up from there though, you established this place at 21, which is ridiculously young, what gave you the confidence to do that?
SN: My parents gave me really good support, they’ve supported me the whole way through it. Especially my dad, he’s been in business before and really wanted me to do this I think. Probably not so young though. I could have waited a few more years but I was just too keen, too eager to own my own place, even if it was going to be something else. This place actually wasn’t even supposed to be a restaurant – I just wanted to have a bar but it turned out completely differently.
The chattels of Muse on Allen were purchased using Jozsefs money . this is a copy of the sale and purchase agreement as can be seen the place was purchased for $90.000 of which $70,000 was funds which Jozsef introduced see here ( all enlarge on clicking )
In return Jozsef received a 70 % share holding
Samuel $30 % based on the fact that HE was getting a loan from his parents and girlfriend as can be seen Samuel’s total investment into Muse on Allen which he claims he owns is a staggering $10,000 from his bonus bonds.
What was behind that huge need to h ave your own place?
SN: I just really hated working for people to be honest. I hated getting told what to do all the time. It was driving me crazy. I was just like fuck, what am I doing? I just wanted to do my own thing.
yes the reality is that this statement is true and it would appear that this dislike of being told what to do extended to working with some one who has just purchased the chattels for the business . How true “I just wanted to do my own thing.”
Starting a business so young, was it kind of hard to get people to take you seriously?
SN: Yeah it was really hard, especially in the first year. I’d hired all these young people who were like fuck it, he’s 21 what the fuck does he know? It made me realise that I needed to be hiring the right people who were going to support me and who wanted to listen to me. I find that actually hiring older and more mature is better. I’ve got a lot of older staff now. They’re still in their like, thirties and twenties and stuff but they are passionate about the restaurant, the food and the service.
From what we have seen the person who was calling all the shots in the restaurant was Malcolm North, he was calling all the shots even before he was made a director. the scenario goes Samuel and Jozsef were directors. Samuel gets his mother Debbie North , to be an alternate director she completes her own forms ( which is actually a no no ) and uploads this to the companies register and back dates it to the date of the company formation.
They now use this as a two votes to one directorship and use this to reduce Jozsefs share holding without any new capital going into the business and without any consent from Jozsef. what they did is totally against the companies act .
It is in reality Malcolm and Debbie who were directors with Samuel in the first year after passing resolutions in private to get Jozsef out .
In a herald article –Your Business: Young Entrepreneurs Samuel North is reported as saying
The founder and head chef of Wellington-based restaurant Muse on Allen worked and saved hard for six years, and got a loan from his parents and help from his partner to set up the restaurant, which last year took out a top culinary prize – the Visa Wellington on a Plate Award.
As we have shown earlier the opening accounts of Muse on Allen , they are evidence that Samuel put in $10,000.
Samuel Norths statement above is correct but it conveniently leaves out the $70,000 investment of his business partner who was then in our opinion and no doubt in the opinion of any right thinking person “ shafted.”
The financial accounts for Muse on Allen show the Loans from his parents and Anabel Torrejos and the share holding of Jozsef but the companies records up until May this year showed Samuel as the only share holder. After that date they brought in Janine Corke a strategist of Corum Limited just days after she became a director Jozsef was sued in the district court . Ironically Janine in her linked in profile claims to have been part of victim support . (Good work Janine do you know what a victim is ??? )
The shares Samuel North held were effectively stolen from Jozsef and were never legally transferred and have certainly never been compensated for – there is no other way of saying but it is Fraud at the worst and a serious breach of the companies act at the least
Muse on Allen opened in September three months later Jozsef was kicked out and they blamed him for the company not being profitable.. show us a company which is profitable after 3 months .
Now Malcolm North on behalf of Muse on Allen is suing Jozsef for the losses in what is reported in the press to be a ” very successful ” business owned and operated by Samuel North , so successful that the company is claiming to be insolvent see Statement of Claim. Goes to show that even after three years the company is still running at a loss despite all the glowing press reports which say it is full night after night.. but then that is the power of advertising and a different story .
Malcolm North supplied free of privilege the end of year accounts which clearly show that Jozsef is a share holder and has been totally alienated from the company which Samuel pretends that it is his own- even issuing a trespass notice against Jozsef. annual accounts
False allegations are now being made of contempt of court this is because lies have a way of getting tangled and drive desperate people to making desperate accusations.
Samuel and Malcolm you could try paying Jozsef back his money and his costs that you have trumped up through delay tactics.
Let us look at the future by being responsible with regard to what you have done in the past , what you have done to Jozsef is not right .
We also include the some real feed back with Samuel North’s responses which we captured before it was removed .. they speak for themselves..click to enlarge they originate from Trip advisor
From: Samuel North [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:26 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
You have the wrong BMW on your website along with all the other wrong information
Its actually only a 2.5L not 3L
On 9 Jul 2015 4:12 pm, “Samuel North” <email@example.com> wrote:
I’m getting phone calls from friends and Hotel management about the email you sent out they find it very amusing.
Its very embarrassing having a BMW X3 on there that has done 90,000ks mines only done 50,000ks and my alloys are way different.
Can you please correct and re send
Head Chef / Owner
Muse on Allen Restaurant & Bar
My response : Certainly
On 9 Jul 2015 4:18 pm, “Samuel North” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Much appreciated, mines a 2007 model as well.
Also can you please add in the shareholders agreement we had with Jozsef, want to make sure we are transparent here.
My response :Yes that’s there. Twice
On 9 Jul 2015 4:24 pm, “Samuel North” <email@example.com> wrote:
Sweet as, I love reading over those articles of myself again, really makes me feel good and I achieved things as a chef and business owner.
Hope we get a few clicks out of it.
My response :Am Sure you will. Happy to help
by the way for accuracy could you send me a photo of your. BMW.
From: Samuel North [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 4:30 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
I don’t have one on hand but will get one to you soon with a few shortys hanging off it in those beautiful nickers you mentioned
I did not respond :the knickers he is referring to are the ones he purchases on Trade me see these purchased by gamgee1
From: Samuel North [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 5:35 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Very amusing how much of the information you posted on your pathetic website is wrong
The car loan is under my name and my partners not through the company.
My response:Tut tut tut telling lies gets you caught out
Attachment sent BMW…. this is the PPSR report which very clearly shows the vehicle being purchased in the name of Muse on Allen Ltd
Open letter to Craig Foss Minister of small business
Good Morning Minster
I am approaching you in your capacity as minster for small business and wish to bring to your attention a major flaw which I have identified in the enforcement of the companies act with regards to small businesses.
We appear to have entered a phase where economics are considered before justice and this is distinctly in favour of those who breach the provisions of the companies act.
I am a licenced Private Investigator / Former long serving police and prosecuting sergeant . Earlier this year a young man approached me when his lawyers advised him that after spending $50,000 with them to seek justice it would take another $42,000 to get the matter to trial and since it appeared that the company was insolvent there was no point in pursuing the matter .
In brief the circumstances are my client Jozsef Gabor SZEKELY and Samuel Raymond North are chefs, together they purchased a restaurant for $90,000 they set up a company called Muse on Allen Limited and were 70/30 share holders .
Jozsef is an immigrant to New Zealand . Samuels Father, Malcolm North is an Employment Broker for the ministry of Social Development. Malcolm helped and supported the two boys in getting the business started but it now appears that as far as Jozsef was concerned there as an ulterior motive, that was to provide his son with a company financed by some one else.
Samuel gave the company key to his mother she used this to appointed herself as director and backdated this to the companies date of formation.
Samuel reduced Jozsef’s shares to 49% , then appointed his father as director, removed Jozsef and finally transferring all the shares into his own name. this was all done contrary to the act and without the injection of more share capital
This occurred in January 2013 less than 6 months after the company was formed. Jozsef immediately went to see lawyers . It was correctly identified as fraud but could not get the police to take a complaint .
The lawyers took the matter to court under section 174 of the companies act and Jozsef spent most of his time earning money to pay the lawyers.
Malcolm represented the company in court and even posed as though he was counsel this caused Jozsef’s expenses with the lawyers to go out of hand .
The company would not give Jozsef any of the documents which a shareholder is rightfully entitled to but they were released to Jozsef’s lawyers under confidentiality and copies remain in their office and no duplicates have been released.
When the lawyers withdrew Jozsef approached me, I attempted to get the registrar to correct the on line register based on a set of accounts which we had obtained outside the discovery process.
The registrar however would not act as they claimed that redress was available through the courts .
I acted as a Mc Kenzie friend for Jozsef and supported him in representing himself in court ,the matter was to have been set down for a formal proof hearing but now the company has engaged counsel ( instructed by the very directors who have breached the companies act in so many ways ) and it is set for a three day trial in September on the matter of Jozsef being a disadvantaged shareholder.
In early June we were advised By Malcolm North that the former lawyers for the company have taken the company to liquidation court and the company could be wound up before the hearing.
Jozsef has not only lost his $64,000 investment in the company but has paid $50,000 in an attempt to have his rights enforced.
The final straw came when the company sued Jozsef on 19 June in the district court for the losses which the directors have incurred in the company since unlawfully removing Josef’s shareholding .
The whole purpose of a limited liability company is that the losses are limited to that of the shareholders equity yet Jozsef now finds himself burdened with a second set of court proceedings.
So we now have an ironic situation where by Josef’s shareholding has been removed from him and he is being held responsible for losses in the company due to being a share holder
I have prepared and filed an extensive complaint with the registry integrity , there are some 30 serious companies act offences which the directors and their associates have committed. Yet in again a parallel move they are attempting to hold Jozsef for contempt of court for allegedly using the accounts and the documents which have never been copied or been outside his lawyers office .
The entire process has been total bullying and abuse .
Those who invest in NZ companies should not be subjected to this lunacy, it destroys confidence in small business and shows that there is a major flaw in the system which allows people to effectively steal shareholders equity and use it for their own means. The law is there to protect persons such as Jozsef and ot should be affordable and expedient.
Samuel North has a deficit of shareholders equity in the company yet drives around in a late model BMW vehicle owned by the company while the only person to have invested in the company is being hammered in the court
We request urgent intervention in this matter where by the registrar seeks to hold the company and its directors accountable to the act.
We need a system which prevents this type of scenario from repeating .
In the interest of public confidence in small business ,we hope that you can open a ministerial enquiry into this matter so that this cannot happen again.
I am happy to supply the complaint to the registrar and the evidence on your request .
A Ted talk has been forwarded to us by a member , it is extremely relevant it is only 10 minutes long and a must see
Last week I made submission to the select committee on the anti corruption and money laundering bill
I note that in the bill we do not define corruption
This makes our anti-corruption initiatives extremely effective as you cannot have something which is not defined.
As such the following are NOT examples of corruption in New Zealand
1. Having a business plan to amalgamate local government duties with those of central government for private pecuniary gain then writing the bill for and advising on legislation to facilitate this
2. Making an application for law enforcement powers under that legislation pretending to be a trust when no trust exists .
3. Deceiving a minister by making false claims so as to get the law enforcement approval
4. Getting law enforcement powers for a fictional body by pretending that it is a legal person when it is not.
5. Operating that Fictional law enforcement body from council premises using the staff vehicle and infrastructure for private pecuniary gain
6. Setting up a pretend trust in 2006 to pretend to be applicant and issuing court action to cover up
7. Deceiving the court through lawyers and denying the defendant a hearing or the right of defence of truth and honest opinion so as to re write history using a court judgement obtained through deceit
Through the journey I have found that we effectively try to Kill off Whistle-blowers , through stress financial hardship and making their life hell on every front as such a simple question of “ why does that law enforcement authority not exist as a legal person ?” has cost me my family , my marriage, nearly 10 years of my life well over $400,000 hard cash and goodness only knows how much in lost earnings.
I took on a lawyer who has since been found by the courts to have been “ incompetent “ he is now suing me because I complained of double billing. I made a complaint about a billing issue 4 years ago , it is still not resolved and instead the lawyer has taken me to court in a series of actions seeking to bankrupt me when he has overcharged me some $28,000.- message- don’t complain about your lawyers double billing – he will sue you and make your life hell .
I am a licenced Private investigator and former long serving police officer , I know a thing or two about fraud and corruption and I know that it is impossible to report fraud and corruption in New Zealand because it damages our clean green image.
I have found the greatest issue to be that lawyers are not held accountable to the rule of law, and crooked lawyers have a licence to use our legislation in the most convoluted manner to cover up fraud and corruption . The law society has conflicting roles of member society and lawyers authority , nothing is going to change until those conflicting roles are separated .
The so called public watchdogs, are under resourced and under staffed by competent personnel and we function be throwing up walls for people to bang their heads up against until they either drop dead or go away.
My matter is well researched, I have a ton of documents, from the government’s own files , No government authority has ever looked at them , they all claim it has been through court and it is therefore settled.
This proves that using the court to conceal fraud and corruption in new Zealand works and makes this even more serious.
I have even gone to the extent of filing a petition for a commission against corruption only to find that Mike Sabin, who was on the wrong side of the law himself , threw it out because my evidence disclosed fraud.
It appears that peoples reputations are paramount, that is their reputations not mine – My crime is to have exposed corruption and I have paid a very high price .
I request that you use my scenario as an investigation into corruption in New Zealand , it proves that it exists at every level and that we would sooner shoot the messenger than deal with the real issue.
Are you the minister who will turn corruption in NZ around ? I hope so for all our sakes
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 2:20 p.m.
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘email@example.com'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘email@example.com'; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org'; ‘Mahesh.email@example.com'; ‘KanwaljitSingh.Bakshi@parliament.govt.nz'; ‘Andrew Little’
Subject: Petition for a commission against corruption
Last year Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption
I am a former police officer and now a private Investigator who has found herself at the fore front of corruption In New Zealand because I believed the spin that NZ was corruption free.
I thought it was the proper thing to do, to draw attention to the fact that a man had written legislation for his own business plan, advised on it at select committee level and then using a false name applied for the coercive law enforcement powers which he had helped create.
The powers were under the animal welfare act and he claimed that he made an application on behalf of a trust called the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ ) . The trust was fictional, the minister was misled and no one checked that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed.
In 2006 a lady working at the Waitakere city council dog control unit asked me if I could find out who or what AWINZ was. The council vehicles and the buildings had been rebranded to have the appearance of belonging to AWINZ, the council officers were required to Volunteer their council paid time to AWINZ and prioritize animal welfare over dog control . The prosecutions were performed by the council dog control manager who was one and the same as the person who had written the bill which ultimately became foundation for the law. This was a classic case of public office for private pecuniary gain – which is deemed to be corruption by international standards.
Through my journey with corruption many people have come to me and have told me of the brick walls which they , like me have encountered. The police say they had no time , the SFO say not serious or complex, the ombudsmen took 2 ½ years to get a document then went quite ,the office of the auditor general total ignored it .. IT HAS NEVER BEEN INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATED except by the society for promotion of community standards , who confirmed what I had alleged.
In having my petition rejected, I have struck yet another brick wall and again things are done with an appearance of legitimacy but without any real legal foundation and ability.
Mike Sabin rejected the evidence of my petition on the basis of standing order 236 b . this quite clearly states that the evidence is considered to be an irrelevant or unjustified allegation can be expunged. It does not state that all of the evidence can be thrown out and indeed there are various issues raised in my evidence not just that of AWINZ .
236 Irrelevant or unjustified allegations
When a witness gives evidence that contains an allegation that may seriously damage the reputation of a person and the select committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to its proceedings or is satisfied that the evidence creates a risk of harm to that person, which risk exceeds the benefit of the evidence, the committee will give consideration—
(a) to returning any written evidence and requesting that it be resubmitted without the offending material:
(b) to expunging that evidence from any transcript of evidence:
(c) to seeking an order of the House preventing the disclosure of that evidence.
It concerns me that Mike SABIN was so actively involved in the removal of this petition and in light of the events of the last week it is entirely possible that a conflict of interest existed.
Mr SABIN does not state that the allegations are irrelevant or unjustified , and 236 b clearly states “to expunge that evidence from any transcript of evidence “ this does not give open licence to dispose of all of the evidence.
Additionally my evidence does not make it clear that the matter has been” thoroughly investigated” my evidence is that it has never been investigated by the proper authorities .
As a former Police officer Mr Sabin is well versed at writing complaints off but this is a matter before parliament , it needs to be dealt with according to the rules and I do not see that 236(b) can have all the evidence expunged.
Additionally standing Orders have ways of dealing with evidence which could have impact on persons reputation . I have deliberately not named any one however the evidence in support which were obtained from government and council files show who the players are in the game. The Animal welfare institute of New Zealand does not have legal existence hence does not have any legal rights and therefore cannot have a reputation .
It is precisely the use of such fictional personas which makes fraud prevalent in new Zealand , this practice is being condoned and this is exactly why we need a commission against corruption . It is a huge elephant which is being ignored.
I request that the committee review the manner in which this petition has been disposed of and ensure that it was done lawfully if they up hold the decision. I am happy to resubmit eh evidence with names removed if that assists .
Additionally under the OIA I request the names of those who sat on the committee with Mr SABIN and voted on dumping the petition and writing the letter attached above and the minutes pertaining to this .
I will be publishing this letter on www.transparency.net.nz as the public have a right to know .
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Last year Auckland council announced a Proposed Air Quality Bylaw, this drew an editorial from the Herald and concerns from us and others as to where the facts and figures came from. Bernard Orsman also did a article entitled “City plan spells end for old flames” and “Plan to ban open fireplaces affects thousands of homes”
the questions we asked were
1) All research which has been conducted into this matter – showing location and time frames over which this has been monitored.
Their response :The Herald article mentions the number of households that would be affected by any proposed ban of older wood burners and open fires.The information on total number of households using wood for home heating was taken from the 2013 census. The proportion of wood burners using old wood burners (pre 2005) and open fires was then calculated using information from the 2012 Auckland Council Heating Survey (attached).1. 2012 Auckland Council Home heating survey result
Our response :in the report the word assume features 14 times and “estimate” 64 times , they conducted the survey based on responses and not actual emission readings . the data was obtained from
Now just by applying logic you will find more people in the rural areas using open fires than in the central city .
In total just over half a percent was surveyed of which 50% lived outside the isthmus area.
The isthmus area has the greatest population and has greater pollution from other sources eg. vehicles
It is of note that there appear to be actual measurements and pollution readings.
2) Evidence that the domestic fire places are to blame for deaths in Auckland as implied by Councillor Darby.
Their response :The Herald article also mentioned the number of people affected in Auckland by discharges of fine particulate (or PM10) from domestic home heating information. The number of people affected by PM10 from domestic home heating was taken from the evidence of the health effects of indoor fires as well as all other sources of PM10 emissions can be found in the following the independent report: “Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study 2012 ” this report will also answer questions 6 and 7.
Our response : The word assume appears 31 times in this document and Estimate 141 times.
“The authors estimated that air pollution from all sources in New Zealand was responsible for approximately 1,400 premature deaths per year, of which 1,100 premature deaths were attributed to anthropogenic (human-caused) sources” this statement could easily cover deaths from smoking .There appears to be no evidence that wood fires are responsible for or contribute to these deaths 2.1 discusses these issues along with “sources such as burning coal, oil, wood, petrol and diesel in domestic fires, motor vehicles and industrial processes”
Our response : The word assume appears 34 times in this document and Estimate 132 times It appears that this report relates to NZ generally and not to the specific issues of wood burning in Auckland . Health figures are also not available for Auckland. Christchurch and Auckland have vastly different demographics and the issues and problems there cannot be applied to Auckland.
3) Research which shows that fireplaces since 2005 emit less particles than those prior to 2005, please supply details of makes and models.
Their response :The New Zealand Government introduced the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (AQNES) in 2004. The regulation set national standards for air quality and introduced the new design standard for wood burners; they had to meet new emission and efficiency standards from 2005 (discharge less than 1.5gm/kg of particle for each kilogram of wood burnt and have a thermal efficiency of not less than 65 per cent). The AQNES required all models of wood burners sold to be tested to ensure they meet these standards, a list of wood burners that meeting the standards is kept on the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) website. (see attached National Environmental Standards for Air Quality)
Prior to the AQNES there was no national standards for the emission levels or thermal efficiency, however some testing has been carried out on older wood burners. (see attached Real Life Emissions Testing of Pre 1994 Woodburners in New Zealand)
Our response : So why the 2005 cut off when quite clearly some pre 2005 wood burners are complaint why not place a specification on types. 11 years passed between 1994 and 2005 and those who installed their wood burners in the early 2000’s may well have compliant burners.
4) Comparisons of fine particle pollution in Auckland to other cities, at what height does it occur, how long does it linger or disperse, is our isthmus location an attribute which makes air linger?
Their response :The council does not keep records of air quality monitoring undertaken in other areas of New Zealand. However a summary of all ambient air quality monitoring undertaken in New Zealand can be found on the Ministry for the Environment website.
Whilst other cities in New Zealand such as Christchurch and Rotorua have more incidences of air pollution caused by fine particulates (PM10) the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 requires all regional councils to meet the limits on the number of exceedances of the PM10 standard as specified in the regulations. Areas such as Christchurch and Rotorua have a higher level of historical exceedances of the PM10 standard and have more time than Auckland to meet the requirements of the regulations.
The monitoring undertaken in Auckland is done using fixed monitoring sites that sample the air close to the ground; they measures the air that people are exposed to and breathe. Exceedances of the PM10 standards in Auckland and other areas occurs during periods of cold and calm weather during winter when the pollution from domestic fires collects under temperature inversions caused by the conditions.
Being particulate matter the time it takes for PM10 to settle out will depend on climatic conditions such as wind speed and direction. On very still evenings it is likely that PM10 will remain near the fires that produce the particulate. Exceedances of the PM10 standard in the last 5 years have been found at monitoring stations in Takapuna, Pakuranga and Khyber Pass.
Our response : the spread sheet actually mentions how long and why these limits were exceeded at the time – House fires etc, the exceedence is minimal considering the circumstances.
5) Consideration to existing usage rights, traditional .. going back to the year dot.
Their response :There are no existing use right for any fire if it causes a health nuisance because of large levels of particulate emissions. The AQNES allows councils to make bylaws that are more stringent than the regulations.
Our response : But why make by laws when they are not requires and will not have any impact on the problem you are trying to solve or a problem which does not exist.
6) The dangers of open fire/ firebox pollution as opposed to industrial, vehicle pollution and cigarette smoking.
Their response :The Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study (HAPINZ) (attached) looked at health effects and included a number of New Zealand and overseas studies on health effect from fine particulate. There are a number of studies that have looked at health effects from wood smoke compared to other combustion particles i.e. vehicles, cigarettes smoke etc.
(Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects, Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, first published in Inhalation Toxicology 2007)
Our response : But how does this relate to Auckland????
7) Who conducted the research, how was it verified, which standards were applied.
Their response :The HAPINZ report was undertaken on behalf of the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Ministry for the Environment, NZ Transport Agency and was based on Epidemiology studies similar to that used to determine the effects of cigarette smoke. If you have any question about this study please contact the authors of the HAPINZ report.
The following reports have been used as to support the proposed Air Quality Bylaw. These are also attached to this response for your reference.
• 2012 Home Heating Survey Results (TR 2013/011), April 2013as above
• Statement of Proposal – Introduction to the Air Quality Bylaw 3. StatementofProposal introduction of the air qua
It would appear from this docuemtn that the cause of our pollution is not from domestic fires, but we guess its easier target the rate payers and residents that the industrial sector.
• National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (Update June 2011)4. National Environmental Standards for Air Qualit
this is the statute . there is no evidence that we do not comply with statute . ther is a design standard referd to in the statute at (23) , the statute states that these wood burners should not be installed after 1 September 2005 it does not say they need to be removed.
• Domestic Fire Emissions 2012: Options for Meeting the National Environmental Standard for PM10. (TR 2013/022)5. domesticfireemissions2012optionsformeetingnatio
this document states “Domestic fires are a major source of particulate in the Auckland region, contributing to 41 per cent of total annual PM10 emissions and 43 per cent of PM2.5 emissions in 2011 (Auckland Council, 2012a). Levels are even higher during winter, with domestic fires accounting for 70 per cent of daily PM10 and PM2.5 emissions on a typical winter’s day. The annual social cost of health effects associated with domestic fire pollution is estimated at $411 million for the Auckland region ($NZ as at June 2010, Kuschel et al., 2012).” What we are looking for is the evidence upon which that statement is made.
• Air Quality Domestic Options – Cost Benefit Analysis 2012 (TR 2013/0X29)6. airqualitydomesticoptionscostbenefitanalysis201 the word assumption appears 24 times in this 44 page document and Estimate 27 time. there is no REAL data. There is no analysis of what is in the air specific to Auckland
• Real Life Emissions Testing of Pre 1994 Woodburners in New Zealand this is pre 1994 there is no evidence that wood burners 1994-2005 are non compliant .
• Clean Healthy Air for All New Zealanders: The National Air Quality Compliance Strategy to Meet the PM10 Standard, MfE, 1 August 2011.Download PDF (945 KB) Ministerial document setting he limits for air pollution, we have so far not seen any evidence that Auckland exceeds these limits
• Exceedances to data: Auckland Council 2005 – 2012 as discussed above the excrescences are due to exception circumstances
• Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review, first published in Inhalation Toxicology 2007 10. Wood Smoke Health Effects A review first publi this is a document wEstimate 28 times there si no REAL data hich speaks of the dangers of air pollution , we do not dispute that, we want to see factual evidence that there is air polution n Auckland caused by wood burners.
• Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects 11. Air pollution combustion emissions (health).pd this is a document which speaks of the dangers of air pollution , we do not dispute that, we want to see factual evidence that there is air polution n Auckland caused by wood burners.
• ARC – estimation of Domestic Fire Emissions in 2006.12. ARC Estimation_of domestic_woodburner_emission note the word estimate appears in this 59 page document 138 times. it even appears an additional time in the title . The word assume or derivatives there of appears 105 times – Our question How factual is a document based on estimates and assumptions ?
ARC_SA_Presentation_GNS_9_May_2008 If this report was an account it would be thrown out due to its data being over 7 years old , the cover photo loos suspiciously like morning fog as opposed to pollution.
Yesterday we discussed the ability for council to charge penalties on installments today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge penalties on GST which they are collecting for the government ? We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all below is how we come to that.
Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a GST content of $147
The rates notice states
Pay on time to avoid penalties
“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.
You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”
The operative words are any part of your rates. The Gst is the GST portion of your rates. The rates is what is set and what the GST is payable on .
The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10% therefore they can only charge a penalty of 10% on the rates being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980 being $98 .
By charging penalty of $112.70 they are charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case ) which is and $14.70 over charge per instalment and not made lawfully .
This is of course also subject to the ability for council to charge penalties on instalments as discussed previously
If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due being 30 June 2015 then by imposing penalties on rates which are inclusive of GST ,they will be collecting a further $58.80 per year ( presuming that you then pay just prior to the 30th June )*
Strangely enough this sum is more than the sum which they give you for early payment .
Where this really gets tricky is in compounding penalties on the Gst of previous payments/ years .
Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the penalty or is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?
We will put that to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this kind of thing does not happen ???
*based on instalments being 29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that even by instalments all rates due are paid a month early .
The article is about Suzanne Snively and Victor Cattermole
Susan Snively of transparency International fame is the chair person of Vault compliance systems .
She works along side Victor Cattermole sole director and share holder of the company.
382 Wairakei Road, Burnside, Christchurch, 8053 , New Zealand
According to Whale Oil “Victor Cattermole is one such dodgy ratbag standing for public office. Amongst other things he has been censured by Securities and Commerce Commissions for running a (likely) ponzi scheme.”
Despite this the company registered to 3/38 Clearwater Drive, Belfast, Christchurch, 8011 , New Zealand gives its address on the web site as Level 19, Two International Finance Centre,8 Finance Street,Central, Hong Kong .
This is also the address for http://suisseinternationalgroup.com/contact/
I personally find that funny as Suzanne used to work for Jarden and co which became credit Suisse.
It would appear that Clearwater Avenue is a new development on the golf club Zoodle is the only site which locates it , we still need to check it out perhaps Suzanne can help us out on this one.
It is not clear where Mr Cattermole, who uses both Victor and Thomas as his first name , lives as the company records on 5 August show him using the address of 25 Northcote Road,Northcote Christchurch 8052 which is the address he used as Thomas Cattermole on the vault shareholder application form but at the same time as Director Thomas victor Henry Ronald Catermole and using the same signature claimed to live at 382 Wairakei Road, Burnside,vault compliance
I find this all very confusing Suzanne do you work from Hong Kong or do you work from Christchurch.
what is the registered office of the company and who exactly works in Hong Kong.
And what about the transparency of your business partner what standards do you have .. what can we expect?
We found that the finding that we had ” the least corrupt public sector ” came about due to a number of factors.
- Corruption was not defined or looked at – due to the assumption that as”the least corrupt country ” we must be doing things right .
- Transparency Internationals New Zealand itself having given NZ the status of being perceived to be the least corrupt so as to encourage business growth in NZ
- Transparency International New Zealand funded by government departments
see correspondence with the minister Judith Collins Please provide the evidence to support that New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world.
and the response from the companies office
the following is a news release
We repeatedly hear that Shanghai Pengxin has purchased land in New Zealand previously the Crafar farms and now poised to buy the Lochinver Station.
It is time that we got our facts right as to who actually owns the property and just a tiny bit of research brings massive concerns.
There is no company in New Zealand called Shanghai Pengxin and no land in New Zealand owned by a company of that name
There is however an entity called PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED which owns some 76 titles according to Terranet .
PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED has one director, Chinese billionaire Zhaobai JIANG, the company’s sole shareholder is MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED which in turn is also directed by Mr Jiang.
But look at the shareholding of MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED and it is allegedly owned by Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central.
Strangely enough Milk New Zealand investment does not exist on the New Zealand company register.
The question is how can a non-existent company make an application to be a shareholder?
According to the lawyers for the company’s registrar takes applications on face value, this is the reality of the integrity systems which Transparency New Zealand reported on recently .
It was these very same integrity systems which Judith Collins attributed to New Zealand being perceived as the least corrupt.
If we don’t look we don’t see
If we don’t define it we cannot have it
Will there be an enquiry into the company structure of PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED ?
Grace Haden Independent candidate for Epsom.