Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) has released the first wave of its emergent findings in its independent review of New Zealand’s National Integrity Systems with a public forum at Victoria University, Wellington according to Voxy .
The article was picked up by Kiwis First where it is pointed out that “The New Zealand government has less of a problem getting TINZ’s ear than the public” this article is worth a read and the web site is worth repeated visits
Our research has revealed the reason behind this could be their connections with government which are listed in their latest news letter .
It is interesting that the very parties who are Paying Susan Snively’s wages are the very parties whose integrity she is reporting on . Also amongst the members are the very organsiations which we seek accountability from .
Our question is can you be part of a watchdog organization if you are the dog being watched ? IS this not a conflict of interest ? even bribery in another form ? If I am paying for a study , if I am funding it does that not sway the study to be favourable to me so that I can fund the next study? so TINZ in my opinion is using corrupt practices to show that New Zealand is NOT corrupt.
the national integrity survey sponsors according to the May 2013 Transparency Times May 2013 include
The Office of the Auditor General
School of Government, VUW
Ministry for Justice
Statistics New Zealand
The Human Rights Commission
NZ Public Service Association
The Gamma Foundation
The State Services Commission
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
The Civil Aviation Authority
The Department of Conservation
The Ministry of Social Development
The New Zealand Defence Force
The Ministry of Transport
Te Puni Kokori
UVW School of Government PwC
and members include
NZ Post Ltd
Office of the Auditor General
Serious Fraud Office
In the September 2012 Transparency Times the Office of the Ombudsmen is welcomed as a new member and the Human rights commission is thanked for their donations .
Transparency Times January 2013 new members
NZ Public Service Association
Ministry for Justice
Statistics New Zealand
partners Office of the Auditor General
new members Human Rights commission
Transparency Times April 2013 new members Ministry of Social Development
The May 2013 Transparency Times May 2013 issue the pillars of society are discussed with regards to integrity they are
Pillar 3 Judiciary
Sub-pillar 4a Fiscal Transparency
Sub-pillar 4b Procurement
Sub-pillar 4c Environmental Governance
Pillar 6 Electoral Management Body
Pillar 7 Ombudsman
Pillar 8 Supreme Audit Institution
Pillar 11 The Media
Fortunately for TINZ their members which number about 70 include representatives if not entire government departments for most of these sectors – therefore the internal in put will be vast and favorable to the perception of New Zealand being corruption free.
I for one believe that the resulting ” integrity survey “ wil not be worth the paper it is written on
If you wish to discuss this subject further you can do so on the new zealand justice forum
Every charity needs to show their accounts and the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, formed 5.12.200 is no exception except its accounts went up on the charities web site in December with a annotation along side saying restricted.
Over the weekend they finally materialized. No real reason to see them withheld except for the fact that I know that I have paid well over $100,000 into what was claimed to be their coffers but which now appears to have gone somewhere else.
Apparently Mr Wells had asked for the accounts to be withheld.
I have gone through the accounts available on the charities web site and put together the following summary (click to down load ) AWINZ accounts summary
In the 2012 disclaimer they claim under the heading Contingent asset
On 30 July 2008 Judge Roderick Joyce QC made an order in the matter AWINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following :
Damages– $57 ,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
On 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal struck out an application by Haden to appeal the High Court decision.
Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
This statement is false in many ways and shows that the deception and corruption In Waitakere are still on going and shows that we do not have the staff with the necessary ability or ethics to deal with such corruption in either councils or Government department.
I must say to be fair that if some one was to do the right thing they would probably find themselves out of a job, corruption in New Zealand is that big. Corruption like this is actively concealed .
- The $57,500 was awarded in favour of Neil Wells only from litigation which did not involve the charity , or its trustees in their capacity of trustees of this charity .
- and although this litigation was commenced when the old trust deed was operative, the litigation was not undertaken by the trustees of the 2000 trust
- Neil Wells was the only person who could profit from the prosecution which misled the court as to who or what AWINZ was and treated AWINZ as though it was a legal person in its own right when this was not the case.
- It is untrue to say Costs and interest awarded to AWINZ have yet to be finally fixed .
- The charitable trust were not party to the litigation they allowed their charitable funds to be used for personal gain of one trustee which follows the fact that I have evidence that in Waitakere City he used public resources for private pecuniary gain .. so why would he not use charitable funds for private gain ?
- Not only have the costs been fixed they have calculated the interest and collected nearly $111,000 a further $30,000 is held in trust and they have a statutory demand for $70,000 which includes the sum held in trust .
- These claims have not been made in the name of the trust and have been made by Wells alone and not as trustee of AWINZ in fact I cannot recall any of the court documents for liquidation or bankruptcy referring to AWINZ or trust or trustee. .
- The high court matters were not against the trust they were against the individual persons and not the charity .
- This charity was set up as a trust 5.12.2006 is a different trust to the trust which allegedly existed from 1.3.2000
- The trust set up 5.12 .2006 became a charity. It did not exist when litigation commenced.
- Neither of these two trusts the trust deed 5/12/2006 or 1.3.2000 were the law enforcement authority as the application the minister relied upon was made 22.11.1999 some three months before the 2000 trust deed was allegedly signed and the trustees other than Neil Wells had no involvement in any way with the law enforcement authority
- The trustees of the 2000 trust had such little knowledge of the approved status ( law enforcement status) that it had to be explained to them at their one and only meeting which occurred 6 years after the deed was signed and without any evidence of the trustees being re appointed. after three years which is a requirement of the deed.
- Neither of these two trusts were the litigants in the court case. Although some of the trustees were litigants there has never been any proof that they were together trustees at the time as litigation commenced and they had no evidence that they had any legla capacity to act together as trustees prior to 5/12/2006 or together had responsibilities to the deed prior to 2/12/2006 and from that date they could only act with one other.
- Costs have been finalized for the court action which was taken by three people who called themselves AWINZ but had no proof of being a trust. ,
- Wells commenced liquidation proceedings on Verisure 22 December 2011 by attaching a statutory demand to my Christmas wreath.
- He had told MAF in September that he was going to bankrupt me. He was paid out some $91,000 in mid June 2012 this sum does not show in the accounts he appears to have used charitable funds for self-enrichment but no one appears to care.
- I was besieged by demands $7,090.48 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day , $17.244.26 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day, $23091.47 demanded 21 June 2012 payable the next day, a total of some 47426.21, to be found over night .
- 28 June , 82,987.43 to be found over night
- 10 July 76,000 demanded by Wells and wells and others to be paid within 7 days
- As soon as he was paid out Wyn Hoadley went after me for $16638 but no one bothered to tell me. I still cant see where that sum came from because nothing makes sense it certainly is not in the demand 28 June or in the July demand or the June amounts
- They succeeded in putting my company into liquidation when they failed to serve document on me, they were caught out and the liquidation was reversed.
- This all occurred while I had proceedings before the court to set the judgement aside because it had been obtained by fraud.
- They also attempted to bankrupt me but the court allowed the money to stay in a trust account while the setting aside of the judgement is considered.
- He succeeded in releasing most of this money through the liquidation proceedings.
- Neil Wells currently has a statutory demand out against the company
Evidence is available upon request
What the charities commission have done by allowing this matter to stand is to condone litigants for setting up a charitable trust so that litigation can be funded from charitable funds.
It opens the door to more corruption in New Zealand simply because many investigators dont understand the legal requirements of Trust .
The chronology speaks volumes any other interpretation of fact defies logic anc common sense. ther is no law or statute which supports any way that this chronology is invalid.
- 22/12/1999 application for approved status Neil wells tells minister of agriculture that AWINZ will be legally incorporated.
- 1.3.2000 trust deed signed this copy came to me in 2006 from Brookfields, this trust deed is different to the deed which is supplied by Wells to MAF they go this version
- The application 22/11/1999 is approved , not one of the persons who signed the trust deed ( apart from Wells) AWINZ despite not existing gets coercive law enforcement powers. Effectively Wells has coercive law enforcement powers in a pseudonym. the minister confirms to Wells that this was the application he relied upon
- Neil Wells lied in court on this point he said that the application had been made after the trust existed.
- 27.4.2006 a trust by the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand is formed and is legally incorporated, and obtains charitable status from IRD, this was done by myself and others to prove conclusively that no legal person by the nae of animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed. MAF had believed it existed and they needed to get the egg off their face because they simply did not check they had trusted Wells
- This threw a spanner in the works for Wells and he now had to cover up the fact that the law enforcement authority did not exist.
- 10.5.2006 the only recorded meeting of the trust 1.3.2000 which by its trust deed should meet no less than 4x per year , trustees said they had not met they did not even meet to sign the deed.! Wyn Hoadley becomes trustee by invisible means.
- 25 May 2006 Hoadley and Wells see lawyers to have the incorporated trust removed from the register. As proof of their existence they send a copy of the trust deed 1.3.200 for which trustees have resigned.
- 18.7.2006 despite being told by the registrar of incorporated societies to challenge the registration in the high court they decide to use the district court for intimidation and thereby get a quick way to force the name to be given up.
- 5.12.2006 After trying to get charitable status Wells is forced into a position where by he needs a new and current deed as the old deed does not qualify so with half the original trustees he changed the purpose of the trust and writes in clauses which allow the funds he has to be used for the litigation .
Its identity fraud 101 and just because they all share a name it does not mean that they are all the same.
All you need in New Zealand to commit charity fraud is a law degree standing as a barrister and the charities commission will like MAF accept any BS you put their way.
Every day people are locked up for minor matter but slick words manipulation of words and confusion allow you to get away with crime.
I am continually surprised at the lengths that Government departments and the Council have gone to condone this corruption shows that Corruption is not just condoned in New Zealand it is concealed.
See the Mayor of Auckland brush off the ” historic” Corruption of Neil Wells , he does so unilaterally and without allegedly knowing the facts Len Brown acts as judge and jury. http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1 you will need to log in it is free.
this is my presentation Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013
I have wondered why we actually bother electing our Councillors why not just have Wendy Brandon in charge. Today she pulled rank on the mayor andmisled him by alleging that I could not give my address to council because there was an injunction out to prevent me from speaking out.
Funny but I don’t recall an injunction with regards to AWINZ and there is certainly no injunction which stops me from referring to council documents and pointing out the discrepancies between them.
My address to council can be found here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013
As soon as I got the word AWINZ, Brandon jumped up and started talking to the Mayor. I was told that I could not continue because there was an injunction. I pointed out that AWINZ does not exist, it never has existed and there is no and can not be an injunction against something which is not a real.
There appeared to be considerable apathy with regards to corruption , the two ladies who gave an earlier address on the Mt Roskill buildings drew far more questions than serious corruption. Wendy had done her work well.
I later got an email purporting to come from her which said “HAHAHAHAHA Grace. I’ve told EVERYONE you are crazy and they believe me. In fact I’m getting you locked up HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…Tadpoles in small ponds get eaten up by big fish yum yum yum!”
This was the second such email I have received from what purports to be her the earlier one said “Crazy cow. Soon they will come to lock you up…” very professional if this is her . Guess to some people it is a crime to speak up about corruption.
I had sent Wendy the two documents which i later attached to my presentation , I had thought that if she was only half competent as a lawyer she would have seen alarm bells ringing lets look at the Memorandum of understanding and the job application for Neil Wells and I will show you what I mean.
As you will see the MOU is between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) and the Animal Welfare services of Waitakere ( “the linked organisation ” )
1. The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand did not exist in any real or identifiable form apart from being a trading name for Mr Wells alone and later a trust which he set up to cover up but got the dates all wrong.
2. The so called Linked organisation was Animal Welfare services of Waitakere
The agreement was for Animal Welfare services of Waitakere to provide inspectors and resources to AWINZ, this agreement had not been passed through Councillors or the council solicitor.
Neil Wells signs on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand, no mention of a trust or of him being a trustee. The council lawyer never had a trust deed on file, but then aparently he was not in the loop. Wells signed in the name of a fictitious organization a pseudonym for himself.
Lets look at the job application this application was made when Tom Didovich( the signatory sor the so called Linked organisation) had to leave the services of Waitakere.
In his application Wells states “ In animal welfare compliance, by successfully leading a pilot programme with MAF
and Waitakere City Council. This led to the formation in 1999 of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and established an alternative to the SPCA in animal welfare law enforcement, which is able to be extended nationally. The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “
Lets identify the spin This led to the formation in 1999
- In court Wells claimed that the ” oral trust had formed in 1998, but supplied a deed showing that the trust deed was signed in 2000 . I still have difficulty getting my head around the fact that the people who allegedly formed a trust in 2000 made an application for approved status the year before the deed was signed.but then do such time frames matter?……apparently not
- As to the argument of an oral trust the people came together in late 1998 when Wells was paid by Didovich with council funds, to set up a trust this is the concept he came up with: note that one of the trustees was the city itself.
- An email is sent 23/12/98 stating “Waitakere City Animal Welfare is setting the standard and to assist its future progress as an approved organisation it is proposing the Council should create a trust with which it will work in harness. An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. The Council’s final decision on the Trust will be in May”… You wont find any records of this in council minutes its all done without Councillors approval. Bit like the truck that was bought a few weeks ago… makes you wonder who runs the show
- Things change quickly and although we were told in December98 that the trust existed by 19 January 1999 Neil Wells tells MAF that “It has now been agreed that Waitakere will no longer be in the trust.”
- Neil Wells who had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act is also employed as ” independent adviser to the select committee to advise on the animal bill at this time and it appears that at this stage he has not declared his conflict of interest. Why should he he was after all writing and advising onlegislatin fro his business plan .. apparenlty that is quite acceptable here in the least corrupt country see territorial animal welfare authority
- While MAF lawyers were confused by the entire set up the council lawyers appear to have been completely oblivious to what was going on and the elected representatives even more so.
- MAF request a legal opinion on the involvement of Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
- On 14/2/99 or there about Wells writes To MAF stating that AWINZ will be a charitable trust, this indicates to me that AWINZ has not as yet been set up and therefore there is no oral trust.
- MAF ‘s legal adviser returns a negative response and the Maf staff become uncomfortable with the entire venture, in the mean time council has been left out of the loop entirely.
- MAF produces a document involvement of territorial authorities AWwith regards to the involvement of Territorial authority staff in animal welfare which if councillors had seen would have caused them to reject any proposal from wells, hence they were on my opinion left out of the loop.
- Tom Didovich the manager of animal welfare then seeks to have Wells complete the documents for animal welfare there by taking the council lawyer out of the loop and this set teh scene for Didovich to directly contract with Wells.
- When a trust emerged in 2006 , although back dated to 2000 , not one of the persons other than Wells had any involvement with the running of AWINZ, in fact they did not meetand significantly in the minutes of the only recorded meeting since the trust was allegedly set up , he explains to the trustees what an approved organisatin is . Despite the fact that their deed said they would meet 4 x per year they had never had a recorded meeting and allegedly last met two years earlier.
Lets identify the spin The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “
- we need to look back at the MOU it clearly states that the linked organization is Waitakere animal welfare.
- No definition is provided for AWINZ and AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
- therefore this statement is entirely false Wendy do you tolerate lies in job application? Perhaps I am pedantic about this because I do pre employment screening and to me truth in an application is essential, if an employee tells porkies in the application then he/she is not going to b honest with you further down the road
No where in his job application does Neil Wells refer to the MOU that he signed with the previous manager whose job he is now seeking. Wendy is this not a conflict of interest that you expect prospective employees to declare ?
Do you not care either Wendy that section 171 of the animal welfare act which Wells wrote and advised on, allows for the proceeds of prosecution to be returned to approved organizations? Fines are up to $350,000 Wells was using your staff to locate offenders which he then prosecuted himself and banked the proceeds in to a bank account only he had access to.
Wendy does it not concern you that all the correspondence for animal welfare went missing from 2000 – on, do you know what a red flag in fraud is ? or are you there to protect some council employees? I had rather hoped that you would be protecting the rights of the rate payers to open and transparent governance.
Wendy thsi is a perfect example of corruption in council , much can be learned from it, if you ignoe it it only serves to prove that you condone corruption ? If you condone corruption of teh past you will also condone corruption of the future.. as I said coruption is like cancer you can thave just a little bit .. once you have it it spreads.
Subject: RE: complaint with regards to Wendy Brandon
I wish to clarify the fact with regards to AWINZ. I am not on a campaign and I’m not in contempt. I have asked questions from council repeatedly with regards to the right of “AWINZ “ to operate from council premises .. AWINZ does not exist it is a fiction created by the then manager of dog and stock control . I cannot be in contempt for questioning something which does not exist and something for which there is no court order.
Council has never investigated this use of council resources for private pecuniary gain and it has been covered up by both you and the previous counsel for council.
I am the victim of gross injustice , I questioned serious corruption in council and was sued for it in circumstances where I was denied a defence and the uncorroborated evidence of the council manager is the subject of a perjury complaint.
The matter is now before the court to overturn the judgement which was obtained by fraud. The evidence to show that the judgement was obtained by fraud was evidence which the council manager sought to have withheld from me.
To get the evidence it has been like extracting hens teeth. Had Waitakere council and Auckland council conducted an investigation at any time they would have found that the council premises were being used for other than council business.
This is evident from the audit report of MAF which states “it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC page 9 all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations” these words are not mine they are the words of MAF source http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/final-draft-audit-2008.pdf
You appear to have a fixation about concealing this corruption in Waitakere and then on top of it you do business with Brookfields who are heavily involved in the court action and against whom I have lodged complaint with the LCRO and the Law society.
I make a complaint about your actions and you see it fit to have my emails diverted so that they only go to you , where does that fit in with the ethical requirements of lawyers ?
Please provide me with the authority which enabled you to do divert me emails You have an obligation to the law and as Counsel for council you have to ensure open and transparent governance as set out in the Local Government act.
I consider your actions to be a gross conflict of interest and corruption.
I am somewhat confused by your statement
I also confirm that all of the information, records, reports, correspondence and material that is the subject of your ongoing requests has been provided to you by Auckland Council and its predecessor local authority, Waitakere City Council, or it cannot be located, or it does not exist.
I know that I did not obtain everything that was in the Waitakere animal welfare file so how can you make the statement above ? It appears to be a fob off to me, I am sorry if it is an inconvenience to you that I ask for transparency on a very serious matter of council corruption.
I have asked you to look at just a few documents, if you were only a half competent lawyer those documents would have had alarm bells ringing.
The evidence and the questions are set out in my email and blog entitled Councillors kept in the dark with regards to corruption
The evidence which proved that your council manager was involved in corrupting are in your own documents you have no place in protecting employees, former employees or fellow lawyers. You are paid by the public and need to protect the public from what was a perfect fraud.
I am writing to you in an effort to deal with this before taking it to the law society , I look forward to you providing answers to the following urgently Please provide me( by way of privacy act ) and as a provision of the lawyers and conveyancers act rules of conduct.
- with the authority which gave you the claim of right to divert me emails from the council computer system.
- With copies of all my emails which did not go through to the person or persons to whom they were addressed and were intercepted by you
- The memorandum which you sent through to the person in charge of the computer system instructing them to divert emails from me.
- Any correspondence between yourself and Brookfields lawyers which pertains to me.
- I would like you to address the criminal offences section 248-253 crimes act what I am looking for is your evidence that proves that you did not breach any of these provisions of the crimes act when you sought to have my emails diverted. I would also like to know how these criminal offences fir in with your interpretation that “Such diversion is entirely legitimate and simply a practical measure to ensure that your correspondence is managed appropriately”
Looking forward to your prompt reply
The following is an email sent to Steve Hoadley,firstname.lastname@example.org after I had phoned him 22.01.2013 on ext 87031 (ph + 64 9 373 7599) and asked him to assist and mediate, he refused to speak to me .
the email reads
Stephen as a professor of human rights I am somewhat disappointed that you stand by and let WYN commit such atrocities on a fellow human being. If you condone this it appears somewhat Hypocritical to me.
She is supporting a breach of the united nations convention against corruption and if you were to take some time to look at the evidence you would see that she is not acting in any ethical or legal manner.
She has been using her standing and her perceived reputation to oppress me, she has torn my family apart, brought huge stress on me physical physiological and financial , liquidated my company on false evidence ( it was discovered and the company was reinstated ) , and is supporting the concealment of corruption.
None of this would have happened if she had checked the facts when she started with AWINZ or if AWINZ had actually existed instead of being a pseudonym for Neil Wells. I realise that she is now in it too deep and it is much easier to keep on the attack of me and hold on to that glimmer of hope that she can get away with it. Her incompetence and negligence is what has contributed to this and I hold her responsible for the part she has played in the concealment of corruption .
She is a public figure and I will ensure accountability of her , I may even have to resort to picketing outside your home and the TCDC but I will do it . 7 years of attack is too much this has to stop.
They are still after $70-80,000, what is the point of me working I don’t earn money like that I will have to sell the family home My crime has been to be a whistle blower on serious public corruption… do you also condone what has happened?
If you are concerned you would talk to me you would at least take time to listen but I now realise that this is how the so called elite keep themselves “ pure “ it is by refusing to talk and throwing up brick walls.
Thanks goodness for the internet. I will be posting this letter to you on Transparency.net.nz so that there is a public record of my plea for help to you .
The following is an article which has been forwarded to me by the father of a girl who was sexually abused her in New Zealand.
A very valid point is raised so I will publish the news item in the interest of transparency
In India this month, in the wake of a violent rape in Delhi, there are calls to suspend politicians accused of sex crimes1.
In the UK over the past few months, resulting from the fallout from the Jimmy Savile scandal, a large number of BBC employees and politicians have been investigated and/or arrested in connection with child sex abuse2.
In the US over the past few weeks, hundreds have been arrested for child sex crimes3.
In Australia in Nov 2012, the government announced a Royal Commission of Inquiry into child sex abuse4.
In New Zealand in Nov 2012, the Head of State, His Excellency, Lieutenant General the Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae presented Queen’s awards to two known serial paedophiles, Karl Berghan and Sam Brens5.
Spot the difference?
Dave (surname withheld to protect the identity of our daughter, this email address is a pseudonym, please contact me via return email email@example.com )
TOM DIDOVICH talking works .. if Talking works Tom Didovich why don’t you talk and discuss instead of covering up corruption !
I am making this an open letter and addressing it to those associated with the talking works web site.
I have to wonder if you have any formal relationship or just simply all come under the same informal banner I have not been able to establish if you are a proper organisation as such because that very much touches at the heart of my communication to you.
I was wondering if you have a code of ethics ? each of you are associated with one another under the same umbrella and I wondered if you actually tolerate unscrupulous actions of one of your number and if you have required standards of conduct.
I am talking about Tom Didovich who does not practice what he preaches. He is one of three people who have made my life hell over the past 7 years and I very much would like this to end.
Tom is on a trust which has allowed charitable funds to be used to relentlessly pursue me through the court on a un proved claim of defamation so that the gross corruption which he is party to could be covered up.
Tom was the manager of Dog control in Waitakere city council and facilitated a scam which meant that public resources were being misused for personal gain.
I have written to some of you about Tom before the post is here http://www.transparency.net.nz/2012/03/01/talking-works-tom-didovich/
I have just completed three articles about the misuse of the funds which the trust which Tom Didovich is on –
I am a licenced Private Investigator, Former Police Sergeant and was acting for a dog control officer employed at Waitakere who wanted to know why she was volunteering her council paid time to the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand( AWINZ )
AWINZ transpired to be just a name , a name which was promoted and associated with Tom Didovich and through false information which Tom Didovich supplied to the minister attained law enforcement powers identical to those enjoyed by the RNZSPCA.
When I Proved that AWINZ did not exist I asked the simple question of MAF “ why does this law enforcement authority not exist?”
and asked Waitakere city council “why this organisation operated from their premises and used their staff and infrastructure?”. Didovich had signed an agreement with Neil Wells for AWINZ see here then when he left council Wells took Toms position and Tom became a member of a trust called AWINZ all in an attempt to cover up. Tom is up to his neck in this convoluted corrupt practice .
As a result of this Tom Didovich has been a party to the supporting the court proceedings financially through the use of the Lord Dowding fund , and becoming part of a cover up trust to confuse the authorities and mislead the court. I have approached him several times and asked him to talk because talking works but he continues down the path of abuse, which in my mind contradicts everything he is now supposed to stand for.
He is intrinsically entwined in this entire corrupt saga which has torn my family apart , cost me my 23 year marriage , saw my company liquidated on false evidence, seen continued court action to financially strip me( it has cost me some $300,000) . My crime: I was a whistle blower on a matter of public concern.
So I am asking each and every one of you
- do you condone one of your own causing the very problems which you are there to solve, I was near suicide a number of times, suffered depression and lived in fear for many years with what Tom and his associates were doing to me.
- If talking works and you live by your mantra would you intervene and assist someone who is being abused at the hands of one of your own.
- Will you help me and support me
You either walk the talk or you stand by and allow abuse to continue.
I would welcome your support.
I will post a copy of this on my transparency web site . I look forward to seeing that you people are genuine with regards to your cause.
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
From: Grace Haden [@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 2:27 p.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Cc: ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Subject: corrupt practices of Tom Didovich will you support me or condone his actions?
A kind contributor has brought the The Wislang Case to my attention . Wendy Brandon was at that time Chair woman of the medical disciplinary tribunal .
This document contains a Quote from Sir William Wade
“It is fundamental that the procedure before a tribunal, like that in a court of law, should be adversary and not inquisitorial. The tribunal should have both sides of the case presented to it and should judge between them, without itself having to conduct an inquiry of its own motion, enter into the controversy, and call evidence for or against either party. If it allows itself to become involved in the investigation and argument, parties will quickly lose confidence in its impartiality, however fair-minded it may be. This principle is observed throughout the tribunal system, even in the adjudging of small claims before social security local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals by a departmental officer. Naturally this done not mean that the tribunal should not tactfully assist an application to develop his case, particularly when he has no representative to speak for him, just as a judge will do with an unrepresented litigant.”
I have seen in the handling of the AWINZ matter that Wendy Brandon does not undertake investigations and is even reluctant to look at the story from both sides , she has totally ignored my pleas to her to look at a simple document. The MOU in which Mr Wells is both sides of the agreement.
One would have thought that it would have been acceptable for Mr Wells to have declared his conflict of interest in his application for Mr Didovich’s position But Wendy Brandon prefers to throw court documents which were obtained through fraudulent means -at me and attack my character.
I have to wonder if Wendy still thinks that she is on a tribunal? her position now is as a lawyer for council protecting the public interest. It is in the public interest that the public resources are not used for personal gain.
One lesson I have have learn is that when people cannot attack the issue they attack the person.
Wendy why are you attacking me and why are you advising the Mayor that he should not speak to me? What agenda is hidden why do we hide public corruption why do you condone it?
If I receive a response from Wendy I will let you know.. don’t hold your breath I’m not.
Please read the Wislang case it speaks volumes.
I have received a further reply from Wendy Brandon it appears that attack is the best form of defense . In the interest of transparency, the correspondence is below
From: Grace Haden [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012 10:08 a.m.
To: ‘Wendy Brandon’
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘Catriona McDougall’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Rob Stock (SUN)’; ‘Councillor Sharon Stewart’
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council
You would not be re litigating anything. There is a huge difference between a defamation claim and the claim of corruption. Why does it take 7 years to bring corruption to the attention of council ?
The court has been used to pervert the course of justice and as I have told you there is a proceeding currently before the court for obtaining a judgement by fraud.
You appear to have a very back to front way of dealing with corruption .
I would presume that you have assessed the information which I have sent you and that you are now actively condoning the use of council premises for private pecuniary gain by council employees and that you are condoning council managers contracting to themselves. You are now allowing your office to be used for the concealment of crime and I will be making a complaint to the law society accordingly.
You are making me out to vexatious based on the uncorroborated evidence of Mr Wells who was compelled to deceive the court because of the implications the truth had on his career.
You are condoning the use of council facilities fraudulently and you are not acting in the interest of the administration of justice .
Questioning corruption has cost me an obscene amount of money. Do you honestly think that any one in their right mind will ever question corruption In council again.
Those who are employed are quietly disposed of by confidentiality clauses , those who are not employed like myself are hammered into the ground and totally annihilated through persons like yourself who will not even look at the most basic of documents and asses that there is something terribly wrong.
Wendy attack has always been the best form of defence and by you attacking my character and reputation using judgements which are before the court for having been obtained by fraud are denigrating me You are attacking me because you cannot attack the issue . the issue is that council resources have been used fraudulently and you are ignoring it.
You are doing everything in your power to get me out of the picture. You know that through your actions Corruption will flourish in Auckland city because you are condoning it.
Just let the rate payers pay more so more people can gain privately.
This is a well-documented and researched example of corruption it is under your nose and you don’t even want to learn from it.. that is not just ignorance it goes to negligence.
A lawyer with integrity would look at the documents I have brought to your attention and would act to ensure that councillors are briefed on the perpetration of corruption in council learning from the past prevents expensive mistakes in the future.
How much more is going on and how much more are you condoning? What is in it for You Wendy? Surely your objective should be to protect the councils assets and resources and ensure that they are being used for a proper purpose. You are not doing that Wendy and it appears to me that you are failing the people of Auckland.
I do have to wonder who is paying your wages , strangely enough I thought it was the rate payers not employees within council who have your loyalty to ensure that corruption is concealed.
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 23 November 2012 9:10 a.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Catriona McDougall; email@example.com; Mayor Len Brown; ‘Rob Stock (SUN)’; Councillor Sharon Stewart
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council
Dear Ms Haden
I refer to my email correspondence of yesterday and confirm that if you wish to complain about the responses you have received to your various LGOIMA requests of the past weeks, you have the right to complain to the Ombudsman. I have read both of the High Court and District Court judgments (attached) and it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any re-litigation of matters that have been heard and determined by the courts.
As per below, I am satisfied that over the past several years you have received all of the information held by the former WCC in relation to AWINZ. No new information relating to AWINZ has come into existence in Auckland Council. Given the very strong findings in both the District Court and High Court judgments, your continued requests are vexatious and are accordingly, declined.
I had a reply from Council Only after I sent a chaser through FYI My response and Wendy Brandon’s email here with
Are you aware that the decision which you are referring to was obtained by fraud. It is currently before the court to set aside the judgement .
Whistle-blowers have historically been targets for defamation claims.
In any case it has nothing to do with the complaint that the council premises , staff and infrastructure were being used by the fictional organisation AWINZ which was in reality a private enterprise run by the manager of dog control . a form of corruption called public office for private pecuniary advantage.
As a lawyer you would be shocked at how the defamation matter was won.
It is extremely difficult to win if they use false claim to create costs against you, strike out your defence of truth and honest opinion , skip the formal proof hearing, use your affidavit in mitigation of damages against you and then they commit perjury in their uncorroborated evidence.
I was in the LCRO with regards to the conduct of the lawyers concerned on Tuesday. They were exonerated by the law society when Neil Wells provided the law society with fabricated evidence- relying on a council employee to manufacture a minute dated 2006 in 2011 when overwhelming independent evidence exists that the 2006 minute had been lost in a computer crash .
In the meantime all this would have been averted if the council lawyer at the time Denis Sheard had actually gone and spoken to the dog control officers and questioned why Mr Wells did not declare his conflict of inters in his application for the position of manager animal welfare. Instead three council employees were dismissed because they were seen as a threat to exposing this venture .
AS council lawyer you need only look at one document to see the red flags that document is the attached or available at http://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mou-waitakere.pdf
- Animal welfare institute did not exist it is not a legal entity in its own right, council did not have a copy of any evidence of its existence.
- Wells and Didovich sign the MOU Didovich for council wells for the fictional organisation
- Wells later took over Didovich’s role and became both parties to this agreement he never declared the conflict of interest in his application http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/4-oct-2005-job-application.pdf
If that doesn’t have alarms ringing then I don’t know what will ,, if you can condone such evidence without investigation then I have serious concerns about your integrity.
Didovich is intrinsically entwined in this whole matter , he paid for legal opinions to facilitate the setting up of AWINZ , he paid Wells to set up AWINZ and later became a trustee of a trust which was used to cover the whole thing up. Yet you continue to attack me !
Mr Wells re branded the council facilities so that the logos of the council pound and AWINZ were identical.
these Logo’s are still on the council premises and vehicles.
Maf commented final draft audit 2008 “it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC page 9 all personnel ( including the AWINZ inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry to monitor AW issues, this did lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations”
Wendy if you can in all fairness ignore all the evidence that I have put before you then you are either incompetent or corrupt yourself.
You are all that stands between the public’s money being misappropriated
If you do not act then I take it then that you condone
- managers contracting to themselves
- changing the logos of a council facility so that they are almost identical to those of their fictitious entity
- making money from the work of council staff as a side line
and that such action then does not warrant investigation . You simply prefer to shoot the messenger.
Wendy as an in house solicitor I am advising you that your obligations are to the rule of law and the administration of justice You have a legal obligation not to use your office for fraud. Section 66 Of the crimes act parties to the offence must strike close to the heart. If you actively cover up the corruption and the fraud then you are not only in breach of your rules of ethical conduct you will also become an accessory after the fact.
I look forward to an invitation from you to meet with you so that I can place all the evidence I have before you . Ordinary people get it they understand they are appalled.
The reasons I have asked for more information is that under the public records act your records should be available and archived. The fact that the records are missing on such a contentious matter is another red flag which you should be noting.
The council has not once investigated this matter had the council acted properly in the beginning I could have been spared many years of character assassination and a lot of expense.
I am able to come in and see you tomorrow or next week and I will personally place the documents in front of you which will illustrate that there was a serious issue in Waitakere dog and stock control.
Please let me know what time suits you and I will be there.
The council cannot condone corruption – If this corruption occurred and you have allowed a blind eye to be turned then what else is being ignored?
Because truth matters
From: Wendy Brandon [mailto:Wendy.Brandon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012 3:29 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: request for urgent investigation by council
Dear Ms Haden
For the record:
1. I did not respond to a LGOIMA request from you within an hour. You made the request in question on 24 October 2012, and I responded on 2 November. On 5 November I confirmed that response. My response was made in good faith and I am satisfied that the WCC documents (dating back to 2000 and 2008) cannot now be located and possibly never existed. In one of your emails and/or your request you alleged that the information was “actively concealed” from Waitakere City Councillors and Council officers at the time so its not surprising that it cannot now be located, or its existence confirmed.
2. My response was given in good faith.
3. The information you have listed below is not the same information that you requested on 24 October. Accordingly, it has been treated and considered as a fresh request and it is refused pursuant to section 17(h) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, because it is vexatious.
4. This response to your most recent request is similarly made in good faith and because I am satisfied on the basis of my inquiries that all of the information held by the former Waitakere City Council in relation to AWINZ has been provided to you in response to the many, many requests for information you have made to both Auckland Council and Waitakere City Council since approximately 2006. I am also mindful of the Decisions of the District Court and High Court (attached) and the findings and orders made in those judgments, and your apparent refusal to observe due process either in the context of the court orders or the LGOIMA process.
5. As always, you have the right by way of a complaint to an Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the LGOIMA to seek an investigation and review of this refusal.