accountability
Open letter to the ethics committee of the New Zealand association of Counsellors
December 11, 2015 | 
Author Op
en letter New Zealand association of Counsellors
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 11 December 2015 10:22 a.m.
To: ‘ethicssecretary@nzac.org.nz’ <ethicssecretary@nzac.org.nz>
Subject: harassment and bullying by Debbie Norths son and Husband.
I am a licenced Private investigator.
I have been assisting a young chef who has had all his equity in a company stolen from him by Debbie North , her husband and son.
Jozsef invested $64,000 in a restaurant Muse on Allen there were two share holders Debbie’s son Sam and Jozsef 30 % Samuel 70% Jozsef .
Debbie became an alternate director but exercised full director powers and allowed her son to transfer 21% of the shares from Jozsef into his own name contrary to the provisions of legislation and without any legal basis. This reduced Jozsef’s share holding to 49%. No other money was invested into the company apart from funds clearly introduced as LOANS by the Norths and Samuels girlfriend Annabelle Torrejos
Debbie was then party to making her husband Malcolm a director and the three of them removed Jozsef as director and then transferred the remailing shares to Samuel making him the 100% shareholder of the company while he had not introduced any equity in to the company and was in fact showing a deficit of some $6000 of drawings against equity in 2014
In court documents she claimed this was an error how ever this error has not been corrected by her despite the fact that she filed the annual reports with the companies office 21 October 2013 and
09 October 2014 and failed to correct the share holding . these are serious offences under the companies act
I was taken to court for alleged Harassment after the lawyer they employed to act for the company ( but in reality only acting for their interests) accused me of contempt. I advised him that he had a legal duty to comply with the law and be independent in acting for the company and so I was taken to court for harassment .
The court action was in Wellington ( I live in Auckland ) I told the lawyers who were taking this action that I would give an undertaking not to contact this sensitive lawyer who apparently did not wish to be independent and comply with the law .
The court date was concealed from me and I was advised of the hearing at 9 am on the day of the hearing and therefore could not make it to wellington on time. I was called a serial defamer and harasser based on the lawyers submissions and have been ordered to pay $5000 for this privilege I have asked for this decision to be recalled as the process was not fair and transparent.
The Bullying and harassment in this matter is beyond belief. I am not he only one subjected to it – Jozsef has had abuse hurled at him and has been physically threatened in court by Malcolm North .
After losing his own restaurant Samuel taunts him by saying what is it like flipping ham burgers.. and making himself out to be the all successful chef based on the fact that he “ owns “ a restaurant which Jozsef has effectively purchased the chattels for before being kicked out three months into the operation .
The police are only good for writing warning letters and nothing further appears to be on their agenda other than getting people to take things to court where they are subjected to massive legal bills ( Jozsef has already paid out over $50,000)
amendment: It is our honest opinion that Malcolm has been attempting to interfere with Jozsef’s employment apparently by using his capacity as Employment Support Representative in the ministry of social development . This honest opinion is based on events which occurred at Jozsefs work place and events which played out . Malcolm has alleged that this statement is declamatory but it is our honest opinion that this is the case perhaps Malcom would like to explain why he met with Jozsefs supervisor and why Jozsef was then put in the position that he was placed in . Honest opinion is never defamatory
Jozsef is under extreme pressure and I fear that the ongoing attacks on may have serious repercussions . this has been going on for three years
Even after the police told Samuel and Malcolm not to send any more emails they have continued to do so making false claims and bullying remarks about personal relationships remarks which are untrue and have no substance but are made in an attempt to hurt and denigrate
I find it ironic that Debbie works for the mediation service and I see the ethics of her and her family counterproductive to the aims and values of your organization
Since Debbie made a claim to the court that Jozsef’s shares were transferred in error she should seek to correct it, instead she chose to resign as director and has allowed her husband and son to continue harassing and bullying.
This has to stop and that is why I am bringing this to your attention
I have Lots of information about this on Transparency.net.nz and in the interest of transparency I will publish this letter there as an open letter the public has a tight to know that you employ a membership secretary who is party to all of this .
I doubt that you will do anything as we appear to be incredibly good at duck shoving in NZ it is always someone else’s problem . The problem in this case is the lack of enforcement of our laws once upon a time people who committed these offences were behind bars now they just bully people and hopefully their victims will commit suicide and then they can say see he/ she was mad all along.
This is why NZ’s suicide rate is higher than our road toll and drownings put together . You and any one reading this has to act we force people to go to extreme expense to save the one or two toddlers who drown in domestic pools each year but we allow bulling in adults and through lawyers to continue .
I do hope that you act. I fear that you will not .
Regards
Grace Haden
Posted in 
Abuse of company legislation
It is well worth watching this U tube clip from fair go this was filmed in 2013 things are probably worse now
new-zealand-great-place-shady-business-video-5650808
Samuel North alleged owner of Muse On Allen – interview and comments.
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.
Reality
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.
Reality
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.
Reality
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.
Reality
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 .
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
Malcolm North responds and Lawyer gets his facts wrong
Our post MUSE ON ALLEN we reveal the secret to Samuel North’s success. Has met with total acceptance of Malcolm and Samuel North but no so of the lawyer for Muse on Allen XXXXXXXXXXof Johnston Lawrence limited
XXXX immediately filed documents in which he again made very serious and incorrect allegations . see Third Urgent Memorandum of Counsel – 090715 and Affidavit of Judith Louella Jane Burge sworn 9 July 2015
this response was sent to court people have the right to defend themselves against false accusations.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:04 p.m.
To: xxxxxxxx’; ‘Stack, Michaela’
Cc: ‘Jozsef Szekely’; ‘malcolm north’; ‘Samuel North (samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz)’; ‘The Norths’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
Good Morning Michaela
I refer you to the latest post on Transparency New Zealand . Open letter to the minister of small business
I also advise the court that Mr xxxxxxxxx is willfully misdirecting the court as per His honour Justice Collins minute the documents which were provided under rule 8.30 (4) are held in the offices of Duncan Cotterill . They have not been made available to me .
The documents on Transparency were provided by me and as shown in the attachment that Mr xxxxxxxx attached to his legal secretaries affidavit the documents came from the following sources
Page 1. Direct from the plaintiff he had this document in his possessing from the time he purchased the assets.
Page 2 this is available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 3 this is a copy of a document which Jozsef has had in his possession from a date prior to the court proceedings .
Page 4 -10 these are available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 11-54 . these are the documents for the district court proceedings in Which Muse on Allen , whichis currently in liquidating court took against Jozsef for the losses which were incurred in the company based on the 63.4% share holding which the SOC alleged he has , being the majority shares in Muse On Allen the very shares which were unlawfully transferred by Samuel north from Jozsef to himself.
Page 55 a document available through the land transport register
I have repeatedly made Mr xxxxxxxxx aware that the documents did not come from discovery in the high court and indeed it is self evident that they were served free of confidentiality By Malcolm North in the district court .
I appreciate that this may not be convenient for Mr Abricrossow but he should not be using his office to conceal fraud and the evidence is obvious that a fraud has occurred in that Jozsefs shares have been deceitfully removed and withheld using the court.
I remind Mr xxxxxxxxxx that he should be acting in accordance with Section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act.
We have not breached the discovery in the high court and it is an abuse of process form Mr xxxxxxxxxx that allege that .
Regards
Grace Haden
From: malcolm north [mailto:malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 6:10 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen LtdHello Grace
Thanks for the update you haven’t taken any notice of me at all about your grammar ,punctuation and spelling.
Response :Thank you Malcolm did I mention that English is my second language .
On 9 Jul 2015 9:19 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:
Thanks for that .Probably why you can’t understand Szekely walked out of the Restaurant after eleven weeks .Funny how you haven’t told anyone this.
Response :Did he walk or was he pushed. I suspect he walked just like pirate’s made their victims walk the plank. Yes its all Jozsef’s fault because he wouldn’t put up with the bullying. Bullies always blame their victims.
On 9 Jul 2015 11:01 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:
He walked.
Response : Yes he walked….. Straight to his lawyers see letter here letter from lawyer 16Jan
Note: Samuel did an interview in Concrete Playground these are extracts show how he started Muse on Allen the reality is reflected in the fact that he transferred the share holding of 
another chef into his own name and then denied Jozsef any rights . The accounts in 2014 show that there were two share holders in the accounts although Samuel was listed as the 100% share holder on the companies office site .
Jozsef had $64,118 equity in the company while Samuel owed the company $6420 yet Samuel went out a bought a 207 BMW SUV loaned against the company BMW
Remembering this read the article below and remember that Samuel is being acclaimed as begin the youngest Chef in Wellington to OWN a restaurant .. He actually OWNS NOTHING and OWES it all to Jozsef
The opening accounts speak volumes prizes fro those who spot the contributions by Samuel click to enlarge 
This is the real secret to opening your very own restaurant. its called other peoples money .
In our professional opinion it is fraud when you get a person to invest in a company they are the majority share holder and then you move all their shares into the name of a person who makes a living off the company . At the same time the majority share holder is excluded and is sued for the losses incurred by the company.
to put the icing on the cake the losses include the purchase of a 2007 BMW which the person who has no share capital in the company but who has claimed all the shares as his own, uses as his own .
Any way back to Concrete playground
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.
What was behind that huge need to have 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.
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.
We also include the some real feed back with Samuel’s responses which we captured before it was removed .. they
speak for themselves..click to enlarge they originate from Trip advisor
Abuse of Companies act – Muse on Allen Limited- request for ministerial investigation
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 .
Regards
Grace Haden
AstroTurf : making you seek truth from lies
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
Corruption in New Zealand – Open letter to the minister of Justice
Good morning Minister
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
Regards
Grace Haden
Was Mike Sabin’s disposal of the petition for a commission against corruption lawful ?
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 2:20 p.m.
To: ‘select.committees@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘jonathan.young@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘ian.mckelvie@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘david.clendon@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Mahesh.bindra@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘KanwaljitSingh.Bakshi@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Andrew Little’
Subject: Petition for a commission against corruption
Good afternoon
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 .
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Proposed Air Quality Bylaw- Information received from Auckland Council
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 committee is due to meet in February on their web site the council provides the governing body report and an article about managing Auckland’s air quality .
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
In terms of % this is what they surveyed
this is the area they surveyed 
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.
HAPINZ_Update_Vol_1_Summary_Report
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”
HAPINZ_Update_Vol_2_Technical_Report
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.
9. Exceedences to Date Auckland Council 2005-2012.
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
• Census output – wood use in Auckland 2001 to 2013 
• 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.
• Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand Study – March 2012, volumes 1 and 2.as discussed above
• 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.
Its time to sort out the confusion with regards to law firms.
The law society have a statutory duty to deal with two groups of persons – lawyers and incorporated law firms .
The first one is seemingly straight forward a lawyer gets a practicing certificate and is for that year a lawyer and is placed on the law societies register .
The law society also provides a page called “Find a Lawyer or Organisation” and by entering a name onto that search field and selecting “organisation” names come up.
Basic logic would have you think that the “organisations’ would be incorporated law firms but that is not so. The reality is that the organisation search is grossly deceptive, to such an extent that even the staff administering the register cannot tell you if these ” organisations “are incorporated law firms or not.
An incorporated law firm is defined as
incorporated law firm means, subject to sections 15 and 16, a company that—(a) provides to the public services that are, in relation to a lawyer, regulated services; and(b) has as its directors no persons other than lawyers who are actively involved in the provision by the body corporate of regulated services; and(c) has as its shareholders, in respect of shares that confer voting rights, no persons other than—(i) lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); or(ii) persons who are administrators of the estates of persons who, at the time of their death, were lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); and(d) has as its shareholders, in respect of shares that do not confer voting rights, no persons other than—(i) lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b) (any 1 or more or each of whom may, but none of whom is required to, hold those shares as a trustee of a qualifying trust); or(ii) persons who are relatives of lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); or(iii) persons who are administrators of the estates of persons who, at the time of their death, were shareholders of the kind described in subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii)
the act then goes on to relies on section 21 Provision of legal services for the protection of legal services and states
(1) A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—(a) provides legal services in New Zealand; and(b) describes himself, herself, or itself as—(i) a lawyer; or(ii) a law practitioner; or(iii) a legal practitioner; or(iv) a barrister; or(v) a solicitor; or(vi) a barrister and solicitor; or(vii) an attorney-at-law; or(viii) counsel.
So does this mean that a firm which is not a law firm does not commit an offence if it provides legal services and
- cannot be identified as a person
- does not call itself lawyer, barrister etc as above.
section 22 Misleading descriptions
It is clear that this section is there for non lawyers who hold themselves out to be lawyers but what if a lawyer is holding a fictional company out to be a law firm. – section 23 does not give much support, it appears to exonerate actions as long as there is a lawyer involved somewhere in the process.
But Lawyers have rules too , they are enforced more or less through the law society . However the law society is frequently conflicted in their roles of membership organisation and a disciplinary body.
It is after all lawyers controlling their own and this too of deception has been part of a lawyers artillery for centuries so why should they give away a tool of deception ? It suits lawyers and the law society to be vague about law firms as this way they preserve their fidelity fund as no one can bring a claim against a fictional law firm.
The rules of conduct are found here You may be wondering why we have brought this issue up .. well it is for very good reason it is one of those twisty nasty tings which makes lawyers always right and you always wrong.. In our opinion it is Identity deception/fraud.
Our director engages a lawyer .. she met him in what she believed to be the offices of his law firm Equity law Barristers Limited , he sends away a staff member to complete the contract and a contract emerges in the name of Equity law Chambers .
The law practice is referred to as Equity law regularly in correspondence and the current web page at the time shows the People involved with what is referred to as Equity law.
Equity Law barristers Limited started its life as Equity law 2007 limited. there are no other companies on the companies register which bear the name “equity law ” and the company now known as Equity law barristers is shown as having been co directed by the the lawyers wife and she also held 50% shareholding of the company up until 16 November 2011 this means that by the legal definition of Incorporated law firm equity law barristers was not and could not have been an incorporated law firm at the time when it agreed , under a trading name to provide me with legal services.
The agreement was that Barristers from within the chambers supervised by the head of chambers, were to do the work . However the staff who worked on my matter were generally new graduates who had neither been admitted to the bar and therefore did not have a practicing certificate ( you will also find that the law society claims privacy when you ask who had a practicing certificate when )
Inquiries with the law society have complicated matters further , they tell me that Equity law barristers limited was an ” an incorporated barristers practice ” from November 2008 they will not go so far as to say if it was incorporated law firm and they will not say on what basis it is an incorporated law firm. – vagueness is protecting their fidelity fund.
On the other hand the court is very strict on identities a company is a separate legal identity from a person but here were have a situation where a company is using a trading name and the director has now claimed the trading name as his own. The law society in their wisdom made a decision naming the director of Equity law barristers limited and told him to reduce his invoices and refund our director. However he refused we now have a gigantic mess where by the incorporated barristers firm may not have been an incorporated law firm and could not have provided andy legal services, but because there was a lawyer hanging about in the side office it is not an offence.
Another point of interest with this law firm is that the shareholder and other director the Lawyers common law wife appears to have had her signature forged. But that wont matter either they will have some explanation for that like a sprained wrist .
It appears that the law applies strictly to us and loosely to lawyers .. that has to change.
This brings about massive identity issues and made us focus on the organizations which the law society lists.
Many of the ” law firms ” are just trading names, unidentified trading names
some of the limited liability companies listed do not qualify as Incorporated law firms because of the share holding issue.
Solicitors trust accounts which do have lawyers as directors and share holders are not incorporated law firms but would qualify on face value as such .
This whole area is a massive deception
Stewart & Associates Equity Law still appears on the ” organisation list” it is neither a company nor is it a firm as it only has one employee a lawyer who is not capable due to her lack of seniority to practice on her own account.
Also look at Brookfields and Brookfields – Wellington branch , who is it a trading name for ? it could be any of these or none.
It is time that the law society tidied up their ” find a lawyer data base. we the public should be able to go to the database and identify the law firms and the lawyers practicing in their own name.