I have referred to the actual report previously in the post The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on
The reason I asked about who the report was written by was because the report did not disclose who EY was and as I pointed out the report on its last page provides the definition for EY as being
EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member
firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.
© 2013 Ernst & Young, New Zealand.
All Rights Reserved.
If you visit the companies register you will note that there are several EY companies
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
Go to the intellectual property office and you will find that the trade mark EY is registered to EYGN Limited which is not even registered in New Zealand but is apparently registered in Nassau in the Bahamas. The general disclaimer with regards to that company can be found here
The person at Auckland Council who dealt with the request could well have assumed who the company was which prepared the and assumed wrong we will follow up requesting evidence .
As a private Investigator myself I find it most disturbing that a report has been issued which has no evidential value at all for the quoted price of $198,751. I have to wonder if that is before or after GST .
The law issue
I requested the legal basis on which this report was commissioned
the response states
The report was commissioned in accordance with s12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b) of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). Additionally, the Chief Executive has broad power
under s42 of the LGA to ensure the effective and efficient management of the
activities of the local authority.
This response totally circumvents the requirements of the code of conduct elected members set out in part 8 and has requirement for an independent panel .
The sections which have been quotes in the response are nothing more than a brush off
12Status and powers
(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—
(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.
and section 42 sets out the general duties of the Chief executive
But when a specific duty is placed on the CEO that takes prescient over any general responsibility in this case the obligations were to the provisions of the code of conduct and an independent panel should have been appointed not an organsiation which had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Mayor .
Item 2 time sheets
In an open transparent and democratic society one would expect a bill for $198,751 to be explained . Private investigators work at $150 per hour this represents over 33 weeks of work , how many people worked on it and WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE .
The report is such that it has no accountability paying 200,000 for which amounts to unsubstantiated opinion is reckless.
Item 3 Engagement agreement dated 26 October 2013
I have to question the terms of any agreement between EY and Council. the previous CEO Doug Mc Kay was a member of the committee for Auckland and met with the members of this elite group behind closed doors without any requirement to report back to council see Download View as HTML
Membership to the committee for Auckland was justified as follows
Membership to this committee is an operational issue and was approved by the Chief
Executive, or his staff, within delegated financial authority. As such, no Governing Body
approval is required, nor is the Chief Executive required to report back to the Governing
Once we drew the attention of the CEOs placement on this committee to the attention of he world Stephen towns name was removed from the membership of the committee for Auckland .
Doug Mc Kay who was concurrently with being CEO of Auckland council a director of another committee for Auckland member BNZ .
It appears to me that a CEO who does not appear to know what conflict of interest is , spent more time instructing his fellow members of the committee for Auckland than properly consulting with the executive body of council who employed him.
We await with baited breath to see the path the new CEO follows, his removal from the membership of the committee for Auckland is a step in the right direction
First of all congratulations to all of you.
I hope that you have got a better Idea of what I have been up against these past 7 ½ years. The corruption I questioned is pretty much the same as what the prosecution has been for on the north shore and the investigation is about in Auckland Transport .
The manager whose actions I questioned contracted council services to himself using a pseudonym
He also rebranded the council premises as per attached and if you look at the flow chart you will see how the fraud worked.
I have been told this is historic but it was operating in 2010 and so were these other frauds which have been actioned.
No whistle-blower should have to endure what I have been exposed to . I request an urgent meeting so that we can start dealing with this matter before I have to sell my house because of councils neglect to investigate.
I look forward to hearing from you all
To: Grace Haden; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Jazz Singh; Doug McKay
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
The last time you asked to meet with us, the advice that Councillor Fletcher and I received from legal counsel is that all of your allegations have been exhaustively investigated and there is no action that we as councillors can take.
If you have any new evidence, please provide that to our legal department.
I am copying in CEO Doug McKay and Acting General Counsel Jazz Singh.
Dr Cathy Casey
Councillor, Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward
Governing Body, Auckland Council
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:23 a.m.
To: ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’
Cc: ‘Jazz Singh’; ‘Doug McKay’
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Thank you Cathy
I have been somewhat unfortunate to have had Bias directed at me by your counsel Wendy Brandon . I have sent her evidence which any competent lawyer would recognise as being a conflict of interest in a mangers role however she responded that she refuses to investigate .
I have supplied tons of evidence , I can conclusively prove that there was no trust in existence and the manager was using council resources and infrastructure for self-enrichment. He was contracting to himself using a pseudonym. I think the vital ingredient all along has been is that Mr Wells is a colleague of Bob Harvey and there is also involvement of former mayor Wyn Hoadley . This is serious corruption and the councils lack of action has had major repercussions on me and my family.
I should have been able to ask the simple question Why is a manager contracting to himself without fear of losing my home. Council appear to have learnt nothing from this as I am dismissed as some freak.
Just in the past week globally there have been a number of fraud incidents where mayors and councillors have been involved in fraud , it won’t happen in Auckland as we have great control measures within which ensure cover ups. I have I believe conclusively proved that
Just because former mayors are associated with the fraud does not mean that there is no fraud. I can appreciate that there is a huge amount of influence within council which has stopped this from being investigated. I am sure that Waitakere council fully knew what was going on but in the words of mission impossible they would have said “ if you are exposed we will disavow any knowledge of your action. “ The on going proof of this is the fact that I could not even get a straight response to my LGOIMA requesting why the branding at the concourse changed from Animal welfare to animal management. When council knowingly conceals corruption it condones it .
I have spent nearly 8 years hitting my head against a brick wall. The very people who should investigate have not done so . I am a Fraud professional I have the evidence – it is conclusive , real and verifiable . I have given it to your lawyers and your CEO multiple times and I am discredited in return.. A good policy is to attack the person when you cannot attack the issue , I am sick of being discredited and I am sick of being bled dry by your former employee who is using the charitable funds of a retrospectively set up trust to do as much damage to me as possible. A proper council investigation would have prevented that- Most of the evidence is on your files! That is why I am again approaching the councillors.
Cathy it was good to learn that you have a degree in criminology as such you may appreciate this perfect fraud .. it was a perfect fraud until I came along - few people would have picked up what I discovered, my mistake was to ask the question of accountability from council. I was taken to court for defamation and denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, NO EVIDENCE was ever produced and the court simply skipped the formal proof hearing, its like being sentenced without being found guilty ! .
I have never done anything but speak the truth, the price I have paid is excessive that is why I stood and I am sure with the number of hits on my site that I have drawn attention to the issue .
Wendy Brandon falsely claims that there is an injunction, there is no injunction against AWINZ. AWINZ (Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) does not exist, it had an appearance of existing and it was your staff, buildings and vehicles which gave it that appearance.. very clever really.
The only injunction is against me saying nasty things about Mr wells, so I say nothing bad about him and only confine myself to producing documents which show what he has done, I frequently ask him if there is anything I have published which he wasn’t correcting and not once in the past 7 years has he objected to anything or taken me back to court.
Cathy I Made another Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption last year and the end result was that Wendy Brandon had my emails diverted to exclude councillors . You have all the evidence- what is the point of giving you more when you won’t look at what you have .
I even made a complaint with regards to the conduct of counsel to council but it appears to be a diverted email which only Ms Brandon received see Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon there was supposed to be an investigation into her blocking my emails and that disappeared into thin air. In return I was harassed by council and a person claiming to be W is posting the obscene things directed at me on web sites belonging to my associates .
I can go blue in the face sending evidence to Ms Brandon she simply will not look at it that is why I am addressing this to councillors because you employ the CEO and he employs the counsel. If counsel does not take corruption seriously then that is an issue for the governing body.
If you allow this fraud to be concealed then I can only ask what else is going on., I am making a determined effort to expose the corruption in Auckland council and have already started with my latest LGOIMA where I have addressed the issue of some 55 million of undefined “ other “ employee benefits in excess of last years 8 million “ other benefits “ which are shown in your annual report Council Employee Benefits v Mowing verges
Cathy so here we go another three years of me being fobbed off. What do I need to do to get some one to look at the evidence. I am very happy to sit down with them and take them through it but in 7 years that has never occurred.
In my normal transparent manner I will be publishing this on Transparency .net.nz
I won’t hold my breath I know I will be ignored again. After all electioneering is over and were back as usual.
You will be hearing a lot from me I would love to meet with you and Christine as this is a governance issue it is very serious.
Back on the subject of Mowing Verges
Len Brown when he heard he had won said he would go out an celebrate by mowing his Berm this prompted me to look at how big his berms were and I noted that he might mow them but it also seems that he can use them for parking, the address is 8 Tiffany close have a look for yourself on Google earth , Google maps or wises.
Perhaps this is an employee Benefit ?
Maybe if we had a house like his an income of some $200,000 then we wouldn’t begrudge mowing the berms, the chances are the mowing contractor would be doing it .. For the rest of us there is nothing like paying for a service and then doing the work yourself and not being allowed to park on it.
I had asked by way of LGOIMA as to the policy for mowing verges, we are told it went through council yet in this email I have been clearly redirected to Auckland Transport as follows
Thank you for your response.
As your enquiry requires more detailed information about the berm mowing policy, we have referred it to Auckland Transport.
You can expect to receive a reply from them directly within 10 working days.
Should you wish to follow up on this enquiry, please contact Auckland Transport on (09) 355 3553.
In the mean time, you may wish to read through the information provided on the Auckland Transport website in regard to urban berm mowing:
Nāku noa nā | Regards
Written Communications Team
(09) 301 0101
So I shall wait for Auckland transport to reply, I actually don’t pay rates to Auckland transport , I pay them to the council who owns the grass verges .
Yet we are saving 15 million in not mowing them.. this pales into insignificance in light of this item in the annual report
I have addressed this in a LGOIMA request via FYI. as follows
Dear Auckland Council,
In your annual report item 7 (www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoli…) you list the following
7 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ( millions )
Other 2013 Group 42 million 2012 7 million
2013 Council 21 million 2012 1 million
Please give a breakdown of the 35 million difference in the group
benefits between last annual report and current report and also the
20 million difference in the council benefits
Please also advise the number of employees council has and how many
of them benefited from these benefits and also detail how these
benefits were approved.
Will keep you posed I will be sure to bring the parking on the berm to the attention of Auckland transport if it si good enough for Len then is good enough for all of us.
Last night I attended a meet the candidates meeting at Mt Albert Baptist church. I heard Cathy Casey say that the council had been addressed by the lady who cleans the town hall who had 6 children and was on $14.00 per hour Cathy said that this lady was employed by Spotless cleaning.
I note that spotless on their web site states “Spotless Group is an Australian owned, managed and operated provider of integrated facility management services. “ Why are we paying an Australian corporate to employ locals and pay them peanuts to do the work which these very same people could do if they were employed directly. How many employees are there how much is the contract worth ? We would probably be able to pay these people a much better hourly rate if we employed them directly through a council cleaning division.
Council owns film studios so why not a cleaning division which provides direct contract to cleaners. Why does everything need to be contracted to multinationals why in the interim can we not utilize local companies or is it that the contracts are now so big that locals cannot compete.
It therefore comes as no surprise that spotless cleaning is a member of the NZ council for Infrastructure the very organization which pushed for the super city and the very organization which first came up with the phrase ” most livable city ”
I have submitted a LGOIMA request to seek the number of persons employed by spotless on council contracts and the value of that contract see the FYI request here
Last week this news Item appeared Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial the scene is totally set for this in Auckland council . but new Zealand defends its least corrupt status so much that it has got to the stage where corruption is condoned.
Good morning Len
I put a question to you last night with regards to the corruption which I exposed at Waitakere city council.
At the council meeting earlier this year you said you knew nothing about it but would not investigate due to it being historic
Last night at the meeting you stated that there were two sides to the story, thereby indicating that you knew of another side which somehow implied that it exonerated the corruption
Your statement indicated to me that you know a version which I am not familiar with which makes me a villain and Mr Wells an employee acting legitimately and I therefore by way of privacy act request all information which you hold or have been told of which concerns the corruption in the dog and stock control division of Waitakere city council where Mr Wells was contracting to himself via the attached MOU
To spell it out Mr Wells signed the attached MOU with the previous dog control manager Tom Didovich.
Didovich plays a vital role in this corruption he had written to the minister consenting for Waitakere and North shore cities to become a linked organisations when in reality MAF expected this to be a council supported matter not something done in house in dog control this is reflected in the cabinet papers as attached and in the audit report
Not only did AWINZ not exist ( basically that is proved by the fact that the audit papers shows that it only had four meetings since 2004). The trust was established in 2000 by its own terms it ceased to exist 1.3 .2003 see page 4 .
The audit report proves it never held bank accounts so we now have a trust which never met and did not hold assets.
It also did not make the application for approved status on 22.11.1999 and it was not an oral trust as claimed by Neil Wells as the trustees that Tom Didovich paid him to recruit were recruited under a different deed
It was Tom Didovich the manager of dog control who witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the deed established in 2000 and Paid Wells to train the dog control officers. He acted without authority for and on behalf of council went on to become a trustee of a trust designed to conceal the corruption in 2006 .
I hope that you do not condone such actions
Under the privacy act I have the right to make corrections and quite obviously you have the story wrong.
I am extremely concerned that you should think that there are two sides as there is only one side portrayed in the documents I recovered from council and MAF and that is that Council has failed to investigate this properly preferring to see me the whistle-blower as the villain
I will be putting this email and my letter to you up on Transparency and will be directing everyone to it at each and every candidate meeting.
I felt that you got close to defaming me last night by suggesting that I knew of the other side.
I was denied a defence for the defamation claim .Wells never produced one bit of evidence. It is being appealed at this very moment for obtaining a judgment by fraud. .. the alleged defamation does not change the facts revealed in the documents held by council . if you can’t find them I will be happy to supply them to you . Your own documents will reveal corruption . Look at the audit report they expected AWINZ to be incorporated, and to be acting with the councils consent . council denied any involvement. The audit report does not look for corruption it only dealt with the obligations of AWINZ as far as MAF was concerned.. no one went back to the fact that AWINZ did not exist.. it was quickly re created in 2006 to cover up
For ease here is the video The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council
It’s complex but I can simply take you through it if I was to be given the chance.
No one should have to pay the price I have had to pay for questioning corruption in council , the questions I asked were legitimate and had foundation .
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
I am currently standing for council and receive a number of questionnaires this one from Mangere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association,Manukau Harbour Restoration Soc. and The Onehunga Enhancement Soc. supported by their submissions
this is my response
Questionnaire for Auckland Council Local Body Candidates
1. In respect of the request for an independent inquiry(unrestricted and able to consider all aspects and ramifications of the proposed Central Interceptor and associated strategies)
2. In respect of the request for a comprehensive study with reliable modeling to establish the effects of the proposed Central Interceptor and related strategies on the Manukau Harbour before the proposal is implemented
3. The costs of the Central Interceptor and of the associated strategies versus alternative options being worthy of a full and transparent economic study
Would you be prepared to initiate such an inquiry?
Support suc an inquiry?
interest in the matter?
Yes I am very interested in these issues
· Comments… the three issues you have listed are actually related and strike at the heart of the corruption which I wish to expose.
First a bit about me. I have lived In Auckland on and off since 1960 ( Ellerslie , Pakuranga Manurewea and Epsom since 1984 .
My children are direct descendants of John Jermyn Symonds after whom Symonds street in Onehunga is named ( he was Governor Greys secretary and a Fencible captain residing in Onehunga) They are also descendants of Dr Scott a prominent Onehunga Physician .
I served in the New Zealand Police I left in 1989 when I was a Sergeant The ERA had not come not effect and raising a family while serving in the police was not well catered for. My children attended Cornwall park primary school which is also well attended by children from Mangere and Onehunga.
With my friend Helen Wenley I am coauthor of short walks in Auckland we document walks all over Auckland and have documented a number of magnificent coastal walks on the Manukau harbour.
The harbour is a treasure, a recreational reserve which is not being treated with dignity , I have discovered why and it strikes at the root of corruption which is practiced in Auckland today.
When My children grew I became a Private Investigator I was approached one day by Lyn Macdonald the bird lady who at the time was a dog and stock control officer at Waitakere city council at the concourse. She asked me to find out who or what The animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ) was as she was required to “volunteer” her council paid time to AWINZ. See the video here
I discovered that AWINZ did not exist. I basically asked two questions
1. Of Waitakere city council why is a manager contracting to himself under a pseudonym ?
2. Of MAF why have you given law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation.
The only thing which happened was that I was sued for defamation , no evidence was ever produced and I was denied a defence.
The proceedings were won using tactics and lies. In 7 years I have ever been able to put the evidence before the court but last week my evidence was seen in the high court, I proved that
1. AWINZ was a sham trust
2. It was only Mr. Wells the manager of Dog and stock control from 2005 -2010
3. He lied to the minister by claiming that he was making an application on behalf of a trust when no trust existed at the time and as a result of these lies AWINZ which had no existence other than in Mr. Wells mind became a law enforcement authority under legislation which Mr. Wells had written the bill for and had been independent advisor to the select committee.
I brought the conflict of interest to the attention of council in 2006, and the deceit to the attention of Government at the same time . My experience in this matter has caused me to look closely at the corruption which prevails in this the least corrupt country in the world.
Len brown who is aware of the matter flatly refused to investigate he claimed that it “ historic” I claim that the fact that it is still being covered up is indicative of the corruption which prevails in council.
I Applied to join transparency International which produces the statistics that New Zealand is perceived to be the least corrupt in the world. I applied stating that I was a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant, Licenced private Investigator and member of the certified fraud examiners association with a special interest in corruption. I was turned down, not just once but three times. So I set up Transparency New Zealand which specializes in exposing the corruption which exists and is well hidden so as to fool the perception index.
When it comes to corruption Government often states “well look at the statistics we must be doing things right “ the reality is that corruption is everywhere but we just don’t recognize it As such and if you speak up you stand to pay a price which will put you out of business for ever. My price has been over $300,000 costs, over $200,000 has paid Mr. Wells and his sham trust backed by Former Mayor Wyn Hoadley and JP Graeme Coutts and Tom Didovich a life coach who was the manager of Dog and stock control who has been a very active accomplice.
Brookfields Lawyers have not acted according to the law at all and are still trying to liquidate my company despite the fact that I have conclusively proved that AWINZ was a sham and that their clients Neil Wells Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts could not legally bring their claims.
I am telling you all this because you need to think outside the square to see where the corruption is. I would not believe my own story had I heard it 7 years ago . New Zealand’s corruption is alive and well it is a false illusion which claims that it is not there.
With an open mind I wish you to look at the following facts
Watercare.. is a member of the NZCID the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development, this is the body which was behind the one Auckland concept .
This was their initial board Alasdair Thompson, Brent Waldron, Jim McLay,
A capture of their web site back in 2008 shows this
Change now is vital. The way that our local government leads us is central to our quality of life. The
supply of water, energy, transportation and communications underpin the quality of our health,
education, agriculture, trade and commerce, personal safety and security, culture and entertainment.
For Aucklanders, having a good standard of living and being able to make progress relies on several
Our ability to:
· Improve our productivity
· Trade successfully in international markets
· Attract international investment
Yet in Auckland local government is extremely complex. We are facing huge challenges which are
frustrated even more by the governance situation.
There have already been a number of initiatives to try to get Auckland’s eight local authorities to work
together. Because the responsibilities for funding and delivery of regional infrastructure and facilities
are split between a lot of independent parties, there has been no real success. The region is also facing a massive infrastructure funding gap, $3.5 billion in roading and public transport alone.
In fact if you read their early intentions you will see that the whole livable city concept comes from them we will have a livable city the problem is that no Aucklander will be able to afford to live here.
The NZCID worked alongside the committee for Auckland .They are members of the committee for Auckland and the committee for Auckland are members of them.
The Committee for Auckland Board 2003 Bryan Mogridge – Chairman.Richard Didsbury, David McConnell, Diane Robertson, David Tapper
It may come as no surprise that the patron of the committee for Auckland is Sir Ron Cater , of Beca fame was the contracting company which put the Waikato pipe line in. He has also endorsed Penny Hulse who is standing again , in 2010 she was Chair Council’s Policy and Strategy Committee overseeing the economic, environmental and community direction needles to say she was a good horse to back by the committee for Auckland. In my experience , support generally comes with a pay off.
Penny would not be the first to be endorsed by the developers who support huge expenditure for infrastructure. David Tapper had his wife Margret “on the inside in council “ I have no doubt that there are many more .
The super city has had massive influence from the committee for Auckland and the NZCID by looking at the industry connections and the many interrelationships you have to wonder is it planned?
I generally find that when officials are fearful of what you say then you are striking close to the bone, such was the case last Monday when I spoke at the select committee but was not able to give my submission to the NEW ZEALAND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE BILL without interruption from the chair.
The investigation which needs to happen is into the whole development of Auckland , why have we gone silly with development? why are those who are connected with the committee for Auckland driving the recruitment of foreigners to Auckland .. hat is wrong with natural growth ?
Why do we want to relocate half of the world onto the narrowest part of New Zealand. Is it to drive up prices? It would appear so, but it is also reducing the quality of living in which once was a truly super city.
By driving up population there is a need for infrastructure and the committee for Auckland and the NZCID are able to provide this through their many internationally owned corporates .
Why Auckland? Well I believe that it is because the corruption and influence on council here is so rife that it facilitates this venture.
Auckland was the most livable city, why fix something which was not broken.
An illustration of how these people are inter t wined in public private relationships is in this summary of Richard Didsbury (Committee for Auckland)
Mr. Richard Didsbury, B.E. (Auck) has been an Advisor of Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd. since November 2011. Mr. Didsbury serves as Executive Officer of Housing New Zealand Corp. He chairs the Project Control Group directing the Sylvia Park Development. Mr. Didsbury was a founding shareholder at Kiwi Income Property Limited, when it was established in 1992. His career evolved with Lend Lease and other New Zealand based property companies. Mr. Didsbury is also well
Another worthy mention is that the NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED is at LEVEL 20, ASB BANK CENTRE, 135 ALBERT STREET, AUCKLAND the building which was in the news in 2012 and owned by
Multiplex New Zealand Property Now BROOKFIELD JOHNSON CONTROLS PROPERTY SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED whose former director Peter George WALL is on the Auckland harbour trust responsible for developing the Takapuna camp ground , he is also on the board of directors of Auckland Council Property Limited, he too is a member of the committee for Auckland
But then I have heard it say that NZ is a small country. Well I would not have thought it was THAT small
It’s all about $$$ for developer$ and bringing in more people than we need keeps them in business , unfortunately people need a sewerage system and that is why the central interceptor is so important and that is exactly why it needs to be stopped my reason for this .
There was once an argument between two orifices, the mouth and the anus . The mouth claimed to be more important. To which the anus said nothing and just ceased work. You can guess what happened.
We therefore need an urgent enquiry into the need for this Central interceptor, and an inquiry into the role and influence of developers in running council and why the whole world is being recruited to come to Auckland .
Each and every voter can play a part by voting for those who speak up about corruption, and those who are NOT incumbent or supported by those associated with the construction industry.
Auckland is for Aucklanders we need a functioning affordable city , a city which works for us and is not a vessel which uses our rates money for the prosperity of a few.
Given the serious state of some of the water ways and harbours in the region
Would you be prepared to initiate an urgent corrective action
Support such action
Given the dissatisfaction on its handling of the Central Interceptor proposal and other matters– the Auckland Long Term Plan,Unitary Plan,Transport Plan etc.it could be appropriate to assess and review Auckland Council’s performance in respect of its compliance with the requirements
of relevant acts and its responsibility to democratic principles
Would you be prepared to initiate such a study?
Support such a study?
· Comments……You need only look at the committee for Auckland and their involvement with buses to see who the tail is which wags the dog.
If we pay buses regardless of performance then they have no need to improve their service
Name…Grace Haden....Date 9/9/2013
Sent:Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40 p.m.
Cc: ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘Councillor Wayne Walker’
Subject: Who governs Auckland
Open letter to Councillors and LGOIMA
I have just updated the blog site with an article Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?
It is very clear that you are the democratically elected members you are according to statute the Governing body, So how come the hired help is dictating to you
I see the plight of Sandra Coney and I also know of other Councillors who have had the same issue .
What is the point of voting for any of you if you cannot hold your proper place with the council employees.
I also have to wonder how effective your CEO is when he holds so many directorships including one for the BNZ and wonder if this is not a conflict of interest depending on who you are banking with.
Also by way of LGOIMA could you please advise if the directorship of Doug McKay as director of BNZ was disclosed to you . Please provide all documents which were provided as a back drop for you to consider any potential conflict of interest in his appointment.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Response Response_council re McKay
It would appear that his right to privacy is greater than our right to democracy . How and Why is it a breach of privacy to advise us if the conflict was disclosed or not ?
Your request has been declined. We are withholding the information requested pursuant to
section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
7. Other reasons for withholding official information
(2) Subject to sections 6, 8, and 17 of this Act, this section applies if, and only if, the
withholding of the information is necessary to—
(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural
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
Is near enough Good enough or do we believe that there is amoral and ethical obligation for them to place only true matters before the court.
It is in my experience that David Neutze of Brookfields is extremely ” loose ” with his facts. In fact the facts are so Loose that they are not facts at all , like loose bowls it is a load of S….
Its a bit of a hoot he blatantly states that his maths is spot on . I had added the items up dozens of times using different means and continually got the same result.
Now Neutze associate Lisa Walsh says that the list that they put in to the court for the cost application was not a verbatim list it appears that I have left off an item.. Yes like I am clairvoyant ! .. always shifting blame good way to cover up .
But most hilarious of all is that we now have a clear cut case of double entry bookkeeping we have one set of accounts which they submitted to court for the July 2012 period and another set that they sent in now for the same period .. the content is the same but the totals are vastly different. its only a $3,000 discrepancy hardly worth worrying about ?, I justhave to wonder why there are two sets of accounts any way.. bit liek the two sets of trust deeds for AWINZ one for me and one for MAF . yes same date allegedly the same deed but different content… don’t such things matter ?
So Neutze bookkeeping is as good as his concept of who trustees are he is employed by Wells and Hoadley alleging that they are a trust called Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )
Neutze Accepts proof that they are a trust based on a trust deed signed by Nuala Grove, Graeme Coutts , Sarah Giltrap and Neil Wells .
He then takes legal action in the name of AWINZ represented by Wells Coutts and Hoadley when it has been spelled out to him by the ministry of economic developments that Wells 2000 trust does not have body corporate status.
Identity is the key to the fiction behind this litigation and just this week I picked up a new word Conflate “the word is seldom used in a positive or neutral sense, but instead highlights a negative or careless blending of two otherwise disconnected ideas. To conflate is to confuse “
Basically it goes like this
Joe the accountant wears brown shoes . Trevor wears brown shoes therefore he is an accountant.
or John Smith is a baker here is another John Smith he must be a baker as well.
The David Neutze version is
AWINZ is a law enforcement authority with coercive public powers resulting from an application 27.11.1999
AWINZ is a trust purportedly formed by trust deed 1.3.2000 between Coutts, Grove, Giltrap and Wells
His clients casually use the name AWINZ therefore they are the law enforcement authority and the trust.
It would appear that law and accounts make as much sense to Brookfields as gibberish does to the rest of us.. except Brookfields can sell this tripe to courts and win.
I’m just the one paying the bills for this Bullshit.. that’s NZ justice for you .
Personally I am over the lies.. without truth there can be no justice !
New Flash : Accounts as explained by Lisa Walsh
The invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “C” to the defendants’ costs memorandum) shows that our total costs of attendances for this period were reduced from $12,964 to $10,516 (plus GST and disbursements). The reduction related to attendances unrelated to this matter.
The schedule of attendances in relation to the invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “A” to the defendants’ memorandum in response to the plaintiffs’ recall application) lists all attendances before the reduction. You will note that the attendances on the invoice also total $12,964.
The total of $16,532.17 on the schedule includes GST and disbursements. However, this full amount was not billed to our client, in accordance with the reduction recorded on the invoice itself.
Senior Registered Legal Executive
DDI: +64 9 979 2219
Fax: +64 9 379 3224
19 Victoria Street West
P O Box 240, Auckland 1140
Note : if indemnity fees means payment of what the client paid then I should not be paying the inflated accounts but actual costs.
The internet certainly brings people together and brings information out on a global front. Yesterdays article was sent to me by a man in Majorca and today I have been sent a copy of an email which equity trust International has sent out far and wide.
EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (2136248) previously known as Star chambers 26 May 2008 directors Liliya SOBOLEVA and Greg Roderick STEWART
share holder Liliya SOBOLEVA
as mentioned in the earlier article Lillia is barrister Eugine Orlovs wife she doesn’t use her own address and this just proves how slack our companies office is at administering the requirement for residential addresses. her home address is 30 Wood Bay Road, Titirangi, Auckland, 0604
Greg Roderick Stewart also has a nice collection of companies under his name he is shown as a practicing lawyer at Stewart & Associates Lawyers Limited PO Box 438 Alexandra 9340
I worked in the chambers of Equity law for a short period of time and saw many lawyers take to their heels when they saw what was going on.
I do hope that mr Stewart has gone into this relationship with his eyes open.
Steven James GREEN appears to be doing the filing at the companies office for Orlovs ventures , I note that some of the companies which Green operates have been swung over into foreign ownership, could well be the model to circumvent the new legislation even before it kicks off.
Mr Green has quite a connection with equity he has been listed as the very first testimonial on the equity web site obviously so impressed he joined the company. He is a director of companies which he manages himself on behalf of equity trust international Director Consent Form and for good measure also administers Lillia ‘s company trust holdings which in turn ownes many of the companies which have come to notice internationally .
Hope the IRD looks at Lillias list of companies and multiplies them out by the charge out rates for tax purposes.
The dynamite email we received is below.
It costs less than $200 to set up a company in New Zealand, you can do it yourself on line , would you want to pay through the nose to set up a company which is associated with the Russian MAFIA? see New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia
this particular story relates to Inter hold another one of Lillias companies and also to
Falcona Systems main shareholder is Interhold Ltd, of Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland…
This location seems to have a profusion of alternative versions in the register; for instance:
Level 4 Outsource It Tower, Grafton, Auckland 1150, New Zealand
Level 4 Newcall Tower, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland , New Zealand
Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland
which again are the offices of Equity Law.
the email which came to hand is a direct copy. only deletion is my informants details
I wonder if the prices include a trip to NZ for mr Erik Vanagels see previous story here
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Equity Law LTD Alex <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Subject: New Zealand Trust, LTD, LTC, FSP Registration Special Prices
Only till the end of JUNE Equity Trust International offers these SPECIAL PRICES to our agents and clients:
New Zealand Limited Corporation – $649 USD
- Offshore Director(s)
- Offshore Shareholder(s)
- NZ Registered Office Address
- IRD Registration
- Standard Constitution, Opening Minutes
- Apostilled Certificate of Incorporation, couriered delivery
New Zealand Look-Through Company – $799 USD
- Offshore Director(s)
- Offshore Shareholder(s)
- NZ Registered Office Address
- New Zealand IRD Registration & Look-Through Registration (from incorporation date)
- Standard Constitution, Opening Minutes
- Apostilled Certificate of Incorporation, couriered delivery
New Zealand Limited Partnership – $1.299 USD
- Offshore General Partner(s)
- Offshore Limited Partner(s)
- NZ Registered Office Address
- New Zealand IRD Registration(from incorporation date)
- Partnership Agreement (template supplied), Opening Minutes
- Apostilled Certificate of Registration, couriered delivery
New Zealand Non-Resident Trust – $1.999 USD
- Non-Resident Trust Formation
- Offshore Trustee – your non-resident Trustee (if required)
- New Zealand (Corporate) Private Trustee incorporation
- NZ Registered Office Address
- New Zealand IRD Registration (from formation date)
- Trust Deed, Minutes, Registers etc
- 3 hours of free legal / documentation support per Trust
New Zealand Financial Service Provider Registration – $10,999 USD
all documentation, coordination, AML policy and manual, and filing through to liaising with Companies Office to registration + more
Please, use our order form to express your interest in our services.
Equity Trust International Limited
You have received this email message because you have previously contacted us about our services. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain material which is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering to the addressee, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use of it is strictly prohibited.
I have removed the link to the order form but you can see copy of order form here New Zealand Offshore Trust Asset Protection Tax Solutions Immigration