AWINZ
Vivienne Holm avoids important questions
March 19, 2018 | 
Author 
Below is the email received from Vivienne Holm with regards to the post Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
I have published the message in full with my response I have also updated the earlier posts to reflect Holms views
the questions which I have and would like to see an answer to are
-
1. Why did Two Barristers approach a resource management Law clerk who was working for brookfields from home for legal advice ?
see Hoadley decision ” Mrs Hoadley on behalf of AWINZ instructed Brookfields as a source of independent legal advice.”
see Hoadley response ” AWINZ Trustees resolved to seek legal advice and assistance from Brookfields Barristers and Solicitors.”
Nick Wright in his response narrative of facts states ” Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”
Vivienne Holm Told the law society investigator that she was a law clerk see copy of ltr 11 May to Holm with file notes of conversation SAQ and Holm 18 May 2011
The law society in their decision on Holm 4192 completed decision Vivienne Holm state
6] In 2006 Vivienne Holm worked at Brookfields as a law clerk. She did not have a practising certificate until 15 August 2006 when she became an employed solicitor at that firm. At that time she was married to Mr Nick Wright, about whom Mrs Haden has also complained, and came into contact with Mrs Haden because she knew Neil Wells.
next question
2. In her complaint to the Private security Licencing authority Holm claims “First, I held a practising certificate throughout 2006 as confirmed in the email from the NZLS attached annexure H.
I enquired with the law society and was told that they did not have the records as the records in 2006 were held by a different society which folded when the new legislation came in .( 2008)
I stand by my Enquiries at the time and the findings that the law society came to, ie that you were a law clerk and did not hold a practicing certificate until august I cant see what the big deal is other than that you too can see that there is no logic in two barristers instructing a law clerk. the email copy which you sent is not evidence , it is hearsay and therefore rejected .
3. my contact with you was in 2006 when you phoned me and intimidated me and attempted to blackmail me by making threats against my private investigators licence if we did not change the name of out legally incorporated trust
Why do you consider this defamatory when the evidence speaks for itself .
see emails from vivienne parre
Note Vivienne has been married a number of times her names have been Parre Holm and Wright
4. in the emails mentioned above you say ” I simply wish to alert you to the fact that in my view your registration of the name “AWINZ” and your website are illegal.” what is the basis for this ? we proved through registration and our website clearly proved that we had incorporated to prove that the AWINZ with law enforcement authority did not exist , this was of major public interest.
evidence was sent to you from the registrar of companies see here
So how is it illegal to prove that something which plays such a pivotal role in society is a fraud and why did you go all out and sustain an attack on me for a further 12 years to keep this fraud concealed
5. you contacted me via netsafe to support a complaint under the harmful digital communications act with regards to a post on transparency in 2011 which predates the act . If there was anything incorrect with this why not simply communicate with us and seek a correction .Why did it take till 2016 for you to contact me again
Next contact almost exactly a year later
6. in december 2017 you again contacted me again you made threats against my PI licence , why make threats when if something had been lost in interpretation with net safe and myself it could have been resolved with simple non threatening communications, each time you come at me in the most aggressive manner . Every contact contains a threat of one sort or another .
Despite a most civil response and the promise to provide clarification you made a complaint to the private security licencing authority alleging very serious wrong doing for which you did not provide any evidence .
You even tried to imply something sinister in my arrival at your house in 2006 when I attempted to seek resolution as a result of your threats
7. you state “I note that I gave you a letter from the New Zealand Law Society rebutting your claims about me weeks ago. ” I do not recall getting such a letter are you referring to annexure H ? if not please send me the letter you are referring to happy to look at it and publish it
Now you are threatening defamation again , and no, I don’t know that you are suing me , I do not assume such things . I have repeatedly asked you to point out what you think is defamatory and you will not tell me. Resolution apparently not high o n your list as you know you will have to eat humble pie . as I have said its never too late to apologize
May I remind you that defamation is a two edged sword and at this stage it appears that I have the evidence that you have been defaming and blackmailing me To tell someone to change the name of a legally formed trust or risk losing their professional licence is black mail I have the evidence that I have been speaking the truth .
The fact which matters is that AWINZ the approved organization was not the same as the trust which you claim you were instructed by.
Please Vivienne You are a policy analyst it defies belief that you don’t know about identity 101
- an unincorporated trust which does not have a trust deed, trustees or assets cannot make an application for law enforcement powers
- Neil Wells did not have a trust deed in March 2000 to give the minister a copy, this was two weeks after two copies had allegedly been signed
- Why was Wells claiming that AWINZ existed in 1998 , if it existed it could have incorporated 10 times over , but he was using his position as advisor to the select committee to feel every one so that he could make a fraudulent application to the minister.
- It is this fraud that you have strived so hard to cover up , I can prove it and I welcome your defamation action to prove the truth. the reality is that due diligence would have prevented 12 years of hell for me.
- Last time you initiated definition proceedings with your then husband Nick never proved the content of the statement of claim, it is full of lies and seriously misleads the court , you had my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out so that you could win.
- I call that dirty law it is against the rule of law and only unethical lawyers act in that way, the law society investigated but because this transition over the implementation of new legislation you got out of it this is the decision for nick wright decision
- It is of note that Nick Wright wright response narrative of facts wrote on a letter head for a fictional company a undefined trading name something which cannot enter into a contract and after he had been a committed patient which appeared to escape the law societies notice as to his suitability to hold a practicing certificate.. it gets better all the time see] WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NEW ZEALAND POLICE) [2017] NZHC 2865 [22 November 2017]
as a subtle reminder as the lawyer you are obliged to comply with section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
Any way your email in response to the post is below and my response back to you to which you replied “Thanks for the response Grace, that’s fine.”
From: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 5:09 p.m.
To: ‘Vivienne Holm’ <karen161970@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
Thank you Vivienne
No I will not accept service email
I am happy to make any corrections and will update the posts using your emails as reference.
I am happy to resolve anything but I suspect you are looking for a fight .
The reality is that I checked with the law society and I have been told by them that they do not have the records for 2006 as this was a different society
You escaped the wrath of the law society because the act changed in 2008
I am happy to put an Asterix and a foot note to the posts to clarify your view and the evidence which I obtained at the time and the findings of the law society
I cannot understand why you think that a simple letter can over turn the findings of the law society committee , and you call me unhinged !!!!
I will welcome your defamation proceedings it will once and for all blow the lid on AWINZ .
It is simply beyond me that a policy analyst cannot discern what a trust is or what a lie to the minister is
You have concealed corruption you know that you have to attack me because you are so scared of your own neck
This is nothing more than vexatious you have built up to this over the years probably because you see this way of getting some money due to all your pro bono mindless work.
Sit down Vivienne and have a very good hard think about the reality of AWINZ the law enforcement authority which the trust deed 1.3.2000 which had not been seen prior to 2006 concealed
Also check out the lies that Neil wells told the minister and ask yourself why you never questioned how wyn Hoadley became a trustee of a trust which was missing a deed had no assets and had never met prior to 10 may 2010
Why would two barristers instruct a law clerk working from home and why did you tell Sally Quigley that you were a law clerk.
Open some of the evidence on the site Vivienne look at it do your job you have been covering up for a fictional organisation by consistently attacking me .
Your credibility would be enhanced if you looked at the things which simply do not stack up and say .. oops sorry
I will have no reason to blog about you and AWINZ once the attacks on me stop.
I have the evidence , I will be asking for security for costs and I will get a top lawyer so be prepared .
Will put this up on transparency tomorrow. In the interest of transparency
Its never too late to apologise , this can be resolved amicably you just need to stop attacking me
happy to sit down with a mediator if you pay
Regards
Grace Haden
Copy of letter to Vivienne Holm -Policy analyst – land information NZ –
Vivienne Holm You could have made a massive difference to many lives by asking questions in 2006 , instead I felt bullied by you when you concealed the corruption that was AWINZ.
AWINZ was not just any old organisation there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them ( RNZSPCA the other ) AWINZ did not exist you covered it up and 12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough.
The purpose of this open letter is to get some issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the government directly as a contractor and apparently as an employee For LINZ.
You are reportedly a lobbyist and as such I see the connection between you and Wells .
see Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
As such it is in the public interest that you act with integrity and that your actions are exposed .
As to integrity it is my professional opinion is that your does not reach the threshold for a public servant It is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to damage some ones reputation so that corruption could be concealed.
I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by giving up my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years in an attempt to discredit me . You say so yourself in the complaint to the pspla COMPLAINT DATED 23 JANUARY 2018
Your complaint in January was in my opinion totally malicious and vexatious yet I was supposed to travel to Wellington the following week so that you could have a go at me in person at a ” disciplinary ” hearing. presumably for the defamation claim you were setting me up for.
You have also alleged that you are preparing a defamation prosecution but refuse to say how I have defamed you or given an opportunity to make a correction .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .
In short your actions with the PSPLA appears to me to have been for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .
I have never met you but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link with Neil Wells was that you both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be kept , Like protecting corruption rather than exposing it .
Last year I suspected that Neil Wells was the corrupt barrister who is mentioned in this decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the money he took , perhaps that unsettled you because you had gone all out to defend him and spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth but by denying me the right to a fair trial and a defence you influenced the court and a most defamatory judgement of me emerged when the judge believed the spin the lies and misinformation Nick Wright put to the court.
The resulting Judgement has served you well and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to create a false impression that I am a nasty person, and you are the one who complains of defamation ! You have done everything you can they should not believe my allegations of corruption. It has worked so far but then you thought I would have given up by now , No I have not . with the spotlight currently on rape through the me too movement , corruption will be next this is like being abused for 12 years .
I suspect that in fearing that the tide was turning, you made a complaint against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious and as a result I have given up my licence as it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing attacks by those I suspect that you have encouraged to make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA I have eliminated that avenue for harassment .
You first approached me at 9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june 2006 you rang my home number and told me to change the name of the legal trust which I was a trustee of or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence , you followed this up with an email at 11 pm making similar threats .
You were working from your home as a law clerk at the time for Brookfields which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner of .
You now falsely claim that you had a practicing certificate but the law society investigations Here and the decision here prove otherwise .
there is evidence that you lied to the PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” this reflects on your level of integrity
One has to wonder why Neil Wells a Barrister and Wyn Hoadley a barrister would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter and why she is now rewriting the past about her status as a law clerk. !
The trust which I was a trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand now called the ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively that no other legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that the Approved Organisation by the same name was a fraud. see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging that we were competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive Wells of donations . You had the ability to twist facts then that skill you apparently have retained .
This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time. . Documents in support as attached .submissions in response and emails coa
Vivienne Holm claims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do” Really! at 9.45 pm at night when this is what the law society reported in their finding 
So why not simply hang up when I answered or say sorry wrong number but you went on to intimidate and followed it up with threatening emails at 11 pm on Friday night! You used the names xxxxxxxxx and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is your middle name and date of birth .
You never took any notice of the letter which the registrar sent you in reply to your complaint see here
You may not be aware of the significance of this but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan
AWINZ did not exist despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since at least 1998 , Tom Didovich was working on this fraud with him and paid for the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees see also this file
In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ Neil Wells wrote on 22 november 1999
Now apparently, according to you , I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what you think a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?
I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ? well it might surprise you that when Neil Wells made this application it was three months before the date of the trust deed he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until june 2006 when miraculously there were two ( but they were not the same )
Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a group of people applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which does not exist and does not have a deed,
How did the trustees pass a resolution to apply for law enforcement powers ?
how does the law of contracts apply in this instance what liability would there be for the individuals in running such an organisation .. NONE cause they were not involved
why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200 what being an approved organisation meant, surely they would have known they allegedly ran one for 6 years .. or did they ?
In correspondence to the minister Neil Wells wrote in 2000.
A person such as myself who according to your slanderous comment has ” limited intellectual capabilities” this means that
- there is a trust deed
- it has a clause 20 (a) see the trust deed he produced it only goes to 19 there is no 20 or 20 (a)
- there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
- It is not available because the original has been sent for registration .( he knowe that only copies were sent he lied )
The reality is that Neil Wells deliberately lied to the minister not one of those statements is true .
Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by become a body corporate ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person in its own right and has existence apart from the trustees ) Wells had incorporated two just months earlier ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
He knew that only copies of the deed were sent and in 2006 we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were different version 1 and version 2
Version 2 was sent to MAF , the front page and the signature pages are original and the middle pages have been switched out.. Do policy analysts care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone that ? are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?
All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the years but you and him continued your vexatious attacks on me.
Have you not read section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the rule of law you were an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate you are cunning .
You prepared the statement of claim and Nick Wright your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work I wont be bullied
In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006 when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here Vivienne Holm Decision
It obviously became too much for Nick when he became a committed patient but despite this he continued to practice law until june 2011 when he was still acting past that date despite not having a practicing certificate 
Nick has now left law , I was particularly taken with the poem he read on his face book page about the wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true
Getting back to you and your complaint I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority , But no matter what I said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before you had served papers on me MY response is here
When ever you submit more information you introduce more misinformation and childish action as can be seen in your Vivienne Holm submissions in reply
On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate, for the first time since 2011 you allege that there is an issue, then when I correct it for you, you scream to the PSPLA .. “she has changed it she is disobeying the pspla.”
For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, In reality there is no difference to the situation with Wyn Hoadley see the decision re her Hoadley decision and her response Hoadley response
I have no legal obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions for companies which were not under my PI licence .
You are right not to respond to my submissions, to do so would cause you to put your foot in it further .
If you think I am defaming you tell me how and where , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA are too similar you have been there all along ensuring that I am never out of court. How childish can you get for the allegations about me speaking to your kids They came to the door in 2006 I asked for their mother.. you even managed to make that sound like the crime of the century .
Not long after I had an anonymous complaint to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson who coincidentally claimed I had used those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia
I will not give up until You are convicted as a lawyer your obligation was to the rule of law you have been a lawyer off an on since since 1996 you cannot plead ignorance and I have every reason to believe that you have coordinated the attacks on me to discredit me
It all started with the Statement of claim which you and your then husband Nick Wright filed for the fictional AWINZ
The very first paragraph to the court is a lie and the lies just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this Nick just stood there and lied i was denied a defence and that is called JUSTICE !
You did not check to see if AWINZ existed You had evidence that we had legitimate trust had body corporate status but you gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption you take the cake
Neil Wells conspired with MAF to ensure that information was withheld until after the court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released this vital evidence included the audit report which proved that AWNZ was a sham .
This was later confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society with this letter 
What is missing is that the application for approved status under the legislation which Wells had written and advised on , was made by AWINZ on 22 November 1999. so how could trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application ?
Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees only Wells signature was on the application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity in its own right . as you can see the signatory of this crown law opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI Peter Mc Carthy
the trust deed which first saw daylight in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting on 10 May states that the trustees required to be reappointed after three years
the alleged trustees of this 2000 trust did not hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005 and no meeting had occured since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?
Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.” this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 
So this woman who is supposedly a Barrister seeks legal advice from a resource management law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation your specialty
Wyn Hoadley also falsely claims that AWINZ resolved to seek professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution it is not in the minutes!
Wyn was also not appointed by any legal method she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she binding herself into ???? would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ???? it simply defies belief. These people are lawyers !!!!!! or should I say Liars
By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to address the malicious attack on me which you state in paragraphs 22 and 23 of your complaint , ie to take away any credibility my PI licence could give.
The good news is that a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take Translegal and its director Gary Swan for example they have a PI licence yet swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something which is apparently condoned .see this and these Translegal document server jailed . Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.
Nor does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail and ability to find information is a skill I have, a skill which apparently you lack despite you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion in being a corrupt former lawyer specialising in intimidation and discrediting people to win at any cost.
I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make By not replying within 5 days you are confirming to the accuracy of this post
Historical references https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016
Additional information added 2019 .
a decision from the Ontario Supreme court has been forwarded to us ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS it highlights the issues of private law enforcement agencies having equivalent powers of the police with regards to search and seizure.
AWINZ was such an organisation except it went one step better, it was totally unidentifiable, there was no legal person openly associated with it so that it could not be sued. As such there was no accountability to the public , read the news items
Court strikes down policing powers of Ontario animal-protection officers
Ontario judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge finds OSPCA enforcement powers to be unconstitutional
OSPCA police powers ruled unconstitutional
Province given a year to revamp OSPCA powers
Ontario SPCA’s Police Powers Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
Posted in accountability, AWINZ, corruption, identity, law society, scams, suzie dawson, trusts and societies | 
No Comments »
Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand
Dear David
I am delighted to see your latest news release in my in box Download Media Release Document
I have been a persecuted whistleblower for the past 11 years . I was heartened by the presentation given by the Transparency international president and I certainly hope that Transparency International New Zealand accepts the importance of whistleblowers .
I was not an employee of the organisation I blew the whistle on but in My line of work as a Private Investigator I discovered that our government had given coercive law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation . I thought it would be simple to bring it to their attention and was not prepared for the onslaught that followed .
For the past 11 years , my family and myself have paid a very high price , I even tried to join transparency International but was rejected by your organisation because ” As noted in previous applications, the TINZ Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases”
In desperation I setup my own organisation which now has a massive following I called it transparency New Zealand LTD
The matter which I blew the whistle on was not rocket science. Its basic fraud using a fictional identity
While the country is jumping up and down about an address in Mt Eden used for election purposes and some extra flat mates we are rather ignoring this massive public fraud , how can we make fish of one and fowl of the other.
The origins are with labour and it continued under national . Kennedy Graham once met me and we talked about y issue at length .. he did nothing yet he is miffed with the relatively minor indiscretions of his leader .
The fact that this Fraud has gone on for so long without any one looking at it shows that the fraud situation in NZ is far worse than any one can imagine. This case proves how in reality those in power condone fraud .
I hope that transparency International looks at the issues that whistleblowers face , We don’t expect you to do anything more for us than to look at our cases and see how they impact on the reality of the integrity of the public service.
A public service that ignores and thereby conceals corruption has no integrity
Neil Edward Wells had close ties to MAF ( now MPI ) he met with them regularly and as a member of one of the advisory boards saw an opportunity to write the legislation to update the Animals Protection Act 1960
In writing the bill he saw an opportunity Not only did he write the bill to update legislation he also used it to facilitate his own business plan see here the document drawn up in 1996 clearly shows his intention to make money from this.
He goes on to write the no 1 bill for the new legislation without declaring his conflict of interest.
A second bill is introduced by National .
Both bills go before the select committee and again without declaring his conflict of interest Neil Wells becomes ” independent” adviser to the select committee .
Simultaneously he was paving the way for his business to line up with the legislation which was being passed . Use of confidential information for private use
He set up courses at UNITEC for training the inspectors for the new legislative requirements, a role he was to take on personally for $$$ .
He spoke of an organisation which would have the same powers as the RNZSPCA and he called this AWINZ ( Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .This organisation existed only in his mind.
When the act passed into law he made a fraudulent application in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand see the application here
AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form, there were no trustees , there was no trust deed yet he called himself a trustee and made out through the application that AWINZ existed.
In 2006 I did a Pro bono job for an employee at Waitakere city council , Lyn Macdonald ( the bird lady ) questioned why the buildings and vehicles had been rebranded see here 
and why she had to ” volunteer” her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over her council duty;-dog control
Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a copy of the alleged trust deed and it was only then that Neil Wells produced one and I suspect that the ink was still drying . He gave me a copy see here and sent a different copy to Maf see here . Note that both are different to the one attached to the application. To me this proves that the man had absolutely no hesitation in forging documents .
I have truckloads of documents and have taken this matter to the Ombudsman, ministers court and have found that I have been under attack because of it.
I have simplified the whole matter and ordinary people get it they understand but those in MPI and in so called positions of accountability don’t look at the facts they look at the reputation of the persons, some I fear are acting in self interest as some where at a previous time they had a finger in the pie and covering up also saves their own necks .
I have been at the receiving end of an 11 years smear campaign while Neil Wells promoted himself as being holier than though . That was until he was proved to be corrupt but he then had the advantage of having his name suppressed.
The fraud in a nutshell
Over the years I have learned to simplify it , I also have more documents available now than I had in the early years but ordinary people get it so why do the ombudsmen lawyers etc not understand that
- The application is fraudulent and resulted in a fictional organisation getting law enforcement powers.
- The applicant AWINZ did not exist … no trust deed had been signed , no persons had ever met to approve this trust deed or had agreed to be trustees to this deed
- The persons who were allegedly trustees had never met never passed a resolution never consented to being a law enforcement authority , never took part in the operations or decision making or application for “ awinz “ to become an approved organisation .
- Neil Wells concocted a trust in 2006 and backdated the trust deeds and signed them claiming that they had gone missing. But the date was out by three months so how could a trust which allegedly formed 1.3.2000 make an application 22.11.1999. as can be seen the deeds are different
- Then he supplied a copy of the deed to Maf except he had to change the details of the deed again and another deed was concocted and sent to them.
With regards to the Waitakere city council
- He made an application for the position of dog and stock control manager see here and effectively contracted to himself for the services of AWINZ See the document MOU Waitakere where Wells signs this On behalf of the fictional Animal welfare institute of New Zealand with Tom Didovich the person whose job he was to take over .
Note: that there is no mention of the conflict of interest in the application for the job , he treats AWINZ as though it is a legal person separate from himself when in reality he is the only person associated with AWINZ and this is in reality a trading name for himself.
- He rebrands the building the Waitakere city council dog control building to appear to be his fictional organisation
- there is of course much more but his will do this relates to the public and public wrong doing
this could have been easily dealt with .
In the first place MAF did not check they assumed and gave law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation .
secondly like the Joanne Harrison matter Maf relied on Neil wells to provide them with information and directions to ward me off .. I have the emails to prove it
Our internal systems for dealing with this type of offence do not exist and every one was quite happy to stand by while I was beaten up from all angles.
No one knew how to investigate the simple questions which should have been asked are
- Did AWINZ exist when it made the application … NO
- What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing it was an unsigned deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown
- Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
- But we now have a trust deed dates 1.3.200 .. but that is three months after the application how can a trust make an application before it is formed
- When did that deed first come to light.. 2006
- Were any of the alleged trustees apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
- Did Maf have consent from any one else acting on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
- Should MAF have ensured that AWINZ existed legally ..
yes there was a Statutory need for accountability how can there be accountability if the organisation does not exist
122Criteria
(1)The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—
(a)one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal; and
(b)the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
- How could they do this .. they had no idea about identities even the lawyers did not check .. they took Wells word as a barrister for it
- was the trust deed attached to the application in 1999 and the one provided to Maf in 2006 the same.. no therefore consideration of the unsigned deed by Maf was irrelevant.
- Why did Maf not insist on a deed ..Because Neil Wells misled them and they did not check
- Why were the other alleged trustees not involved ..MAF should have contacted these persons and ensured that they were actively involved
- Why were legal names avoided ? If legal names had been used we would all have known who we were dealing with
With respect to Waitakere city council
- Did tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his staff for animal welfare purposes … no
- Didovich signed a MOU should this have been brought to the councils attention..Yes
- Wells applied for Didovich’s Job should he have declared the Mou which he had signed .. yes
- Did Neil Wells work in a situation of gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
- Wells rebranded the building was the logo animal welfare on the building confusingly similar to the logo of the fictional trust ? definitely
Waitakere council Fraud Public office for private pecuniary gain
The evidence will follow there is a ton of it the buildings above are council buildings which Neil Wells re branded to appear like his fake animal welfare trust
the logo at the top right is the logo he used on his fake trusts letter heads . It made every one think that it was a real organisation and owned the property it was in fact the council pound. Where Neil wells was manager he got the job without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest see his job application here and the documents he had signed in his capacity for the fake trust MOU waitakere
MAF in a an audit had trouble differentiating the approved organisation from the council see the audit report
Lawyer seeks help from Netsafe
Yesterday I was approached by Net safe , who on behalf of Vivienne Holm sought changes to former blog posts, We are happy to make corrections but there is nothing to correct . We are interested however in addressing injustices and if she feels that the comment is an injustice then she can assist in correcting a far greater injustice before we look at the perception she has of tiny little one .
Background facts
About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand see also my affidavit
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC
Did David Neutze check the facts before he acted?
Is Wyn Hoadley fit to be a Lawyer, A trustee or a councillor?
How to get your litigation funded through the public purse
The following is my response to Net safe , The fact that Vivienne Holm and Malcolm North who has been harassing me, both worked at the ministry of social development is a fact that is not lost on me .
….Thank you net safe
The animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) had law enforcement powers which it obtained after an application was made to the then minister of agriculture on 22 November 1999 .
A blank trust deed had been attached to the application made by Neil Edward wells a barrister .
In reality ,No trust existed and no entity existed but the government gave AWINZ wide sweeping law enforcement powers akin to those held by the RNZSPCA, which includes search and seizure and ability to fine people .
Neil Wells who applied on behalf of AWINZ had written the no 1 bill for the new Animal welfare act and had inserted the sections to facilitate the application he subsequently made and he also advised on the act as “independent advisor” to the select committee without declaring his obvious conflict of interest of writing an act to facilitate his own business plan
In March 2006 an employee of Waitakere city council Lynne McDonald ( the bird lady ) approached me with the concern that she, a dog control officer, was required to “ volunteer “ her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over dog control . The building at the council had been rebranded and Neil wells her council manager from 2005 was the only person operating AWINZ for which he used a logo which was identical to the new branding of the council building .
Maf at the time of an audit acknowledged that the two entities appeared to merge and it was difficult to see where one began and the other finished. The council on the other hand denied that AWINZ operated from their premises . This was in reality a massive public fraud using public office for private pecuniary gain.
To prove that AWINZ did not exist several of us incorporated the name Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand .It is impossible to incorporate the identical name of an entity, we were successful there by conclusively proving that AWINZ the law enforcement authority did not exist .
Vivienne Holm Phoned me late at night and made threats against my Private investigators licence and there by my income and livelihood. She demanded that we had to give up the name AWINZ when intimidation did not work Her then husband Nick wright then took over the matter as Vivienne Holm at the time was working as a law clerk .
I called at her address to discuss a resolution and was promptly served with a trespass notice.
Now it has always puzzled me why a Law clerk was instructed , surely that is not usual and why was her first port of call be an intimidating phone call late on a Friday night .. I thought that a legitimately instructed person would use more transparent means rather than acting like a thug.
After her husband , a resource management lawyer , became involved Threats of legal action were made and out of the blue a trust deed materialised.
I was to find that the trust deed dated 1.3.2000 had been signed when the then dog control manager at Waitakere city council, Tom Didovich visited the various people who thought they were trustees.
However they never met never passed a resolution and certainly were not involved in the application for the “ approved organisation’ under section 121 of the animal welfare act ( which Neil wells had had such a massive part in ), the trust they were allegedly involved in held no assets and after three years the trustees who still had not met were not reappointed, hence this was a totally sham trust
Nick Wright took me to court for defamation , for saying that AWINZ was a sham trust, which it was and has proved to be . The defamation was allegedly of Neil Wells , I was denied the right to a statutory defence of truth and honest opinion and no finding has ever been made that I defamed Neil wells but I had to pay some $100,000 to him and his lawyer all for being a whistle-blower on serious corruption .
This went on for some 10 years the object was to bankrupt me . Neil wells in an email to MAF in 2007 said that this was his objective , he certainly tried hard enough
Nick wright who is reputedly the “Auckland lawyer who had “fallen on hard times”( http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77079681/auckland-lawyer-awarded-14000-from-police-over-false-arrest-imprisonment) has ceased practicing and Brookfields continued their attack on me, I can only guess that if they had done the decent thing they would have seen some notable lawyers struck off for not checking the facts before filing matters in court and using their office contrary to the provisions of the Lawyers and conveyancers rules .
In the process of suing me they used dirty tactics because facts and evidence would not have won it for them . I have reason to believe that that also worked covertly on my marriage and ensured that my 23 years marriage and my family was destroyed. The lawyer who represented me was later found to be incompetent and I very much suspect he was working for the other side . So I lost , no way of winning when you have a lawyer who the law society acknowledged as being incompetent and for whom judges had no respect .
All in all this created a massive miscarriage of justice and one which I physically paid out well over $300,000 for and find it impossible to quantify the lost hours of work, health stress etc.
I believe that my post is totally accurate and that the fact of the date of her application for a practicing certificate is just a teensy weensy bit trivial compared to the years of suffering which I and my family have had to endure.
The good news is that I am happy to work with any one who helps put things right . When the AWINZ matter has been addressed and is history I can take down all the posts but while the injustice exists it requires exposure of the fact and the facts will remain in the public realm
I cannot understand why she claims that she cannot get a practicing certificate on this occasion , the email you sent is dated 19 September 2016 and states that she has held a practicing certificate from April 2015 to the present .
Practicing certificates renew at the end of June , The law society have just informed me that she does not currently hold a practicing certificate, her last one expired 25 November 2016, it appears that that is the date when she left the MSD
She may wish to help address the AWINZ injustice , once that has been sorted I can look at removing / altering blogs .
I do find it amusing perhaps coincidental perhaps not , that she was employed by MSD until 25 November where Malcolm North who has been harassing me, by email also works.
But getting back to xxxx I am happy to remove anything minor when a greater injustice has been resolved, she only needs to contact me and help me right the wrongs of the past that she was instrumental in in kicking off . A person with integrity would see that an as officer of the court xxx would have an overriding obligation to justice and if she cannot how integrity in putting the past right then she should not be asking me to change factual information .
In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on Transparency.net.nz
this blog was updated in 2018 when xxxx made a malicious complaint to the Private security licensing authority about me.
she went back 12 years and made all sorts of scurrilous accusations against me. It would appear however that the lady from Net safe got he facts twisted and so what I wrote about xxxx trying to get a new practicing certificate in 2016 was inaccurate. what brought her out of the wood work in 2016 is a mystery she was having a go at me about a 2011 post .
the truth has to come out .
Update March 2013 Vivienne Holm is claiming defamation but is not revealing how the truth is lacking
the point of contention appears to be the statement that she was not working at brookfield and did not hold a current practicing certificate.
It appears that she was working from home , her husband at the time resource management partner of Brookfields took on the matter
The law society at the time told me that she did not have a practicing certificate and confirmed this in this document and this one
Vivienne Holm Has tried to retrospectively correct the law society but we do not accept that as evidence , we think that 12 years later is too late to re write history
New Zealand , how we facilitate sham trusts
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust 
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
I have written to the lawyers involved and again here and here, here, here , the law society by way of regarding the lawyers , the charities commission and again here and here
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
The people posing as trustees here, and here,here, here
attorney general here
I had questions asked in parliament Here wrote to ministers here and here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts
Disparity in crime.. who you know matters
Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand
Questioning corruption in New Zealand.
Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers
The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain
Liquidation as a tool of oppression
shooting the messenger
Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
National integrity System -TINZ
Last week I was in Brisbane at a conference and work shop co hosted by Griffith University and transparency International –Using Anti-Corruption to Protect Growth and Development in the G20 and Beyond.
Much of the focus of the work shop was to explore the national integrity system ( NIS ) and how various countries had interpreted the guidelines and come out with their reports.
While it was clear that Transparency International saw corruption as the key element it transpired that TINZ ( Transparency International New Zealand ) had not included this in their assessment .
Suzanne Snively made two presentations at one she pointed out that TINZ is not funded and they have trouble getting members, I guess this is evident when new members sign up and immediately become directors . She made no mention of the Members who were leaving because they were so overwhelmed out being outnumbered by the Government agencies which appear to control TINZ and hence the resulting finding that New Zealand has the least corrupt public sector in the world. see the NIS report here
We all do well if we blow our own trumpet , any way Suzanne’s presentations are
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – A national perspective
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – Adapting the NIS to a ‘developed’ country: environment, business and the Treaty of Waitangi
When referring to the presentation of Finn Heinrich – Where does it come from? How does it work? What is needed for the future? you can see that he refers to two Crucial Ingredients to provide Momentum for Anti-Corruption Reform they are
- Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
- Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
Lets evaluate these criteria against the current New Zealand Climate
Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
Currently we have a spat going on pre election between our two main parties. It is a Tit for tat and we are slinging mud to repel corruption allegations, this is basically our anti corruption system at work, name calling at school play ground level.
The latest spat has occurred after our minister of justice took time out on her ministerial trip to promote milk for a Chinese company of which her husband has been made director, I have reported on the matter in full at this link
The next blow came to National when Maurice Williamson was discovered to have been supporting the citizenship of Donghua Liu against official advice .
Last year the Mayor of Auckland was caught with his pants down and at the time Mr key had this to say “I’ve had plenty of people who’ve rung me up with information about Labour MPs,” he said.
“And I’ve done the same thing to every person that’s rung me. I’ve written it down, put it in my top drawer and kept it to myself. I’m just not interested in engaging in it.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/john-key-keeps-dirt-file-labour-mps-video-5655493
It is very obvious that the top drawer has now been opened and they have had to dig deep to find the dirt which they can throw back at labour.
The reality is that the Prime ministers act of keeping dirt in his top drawer is in itself a corrupt act as each and every incident reported to him should be passed on for independent investigation at the time the issue arises and not held on to until a blackmail-able opportunity arises
There simply is no integrity in stockpiling dirt on the opposition – this allows corruption to be traded off with corruption , each act should be independently evaluated and the perpetrators charged if evidence is sufficient.
Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
While Whistleblowers are seen as essential any where else in the world (Grzegorz Makowski – Cross-cutting problems in the NIS: corruption of anti-corruption policies; whistleblower protection; human rights protection) TINZ prefers to ignore us. this is like doing a report on the operations of a company and leaving out the shoppers .
There are two sides to any system, the one looking out and the one looking in. the systems my look in place but if they are not user friendly or are designed to be counter productive against corruption then the system has no integrity .
I would have thought that it would be a serious matter for some one to make an application for law enforcement powers using false information, after all people are taken to task for benefit fraud and the like every day , but it appears that the bigger it is the more people that are implicated and the more systems that are shown to be unsafe then more reasons exist to deny what has happened and simply carry on. look no issue .. too hard lets move on .
The key stake holders on the other hand who were engaged with were the members of TINZ, and the funders , these include Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
Moving on
TINZ appears to be too closely aligned with government so much so that those ministers who are engaging on corrupt practices rely on the NIS to refute any claims e.g.
Not bad since her ministry paid to get the report done .
I have again asked Suzanne Snively if I can join TINZ see my email here email application jun 2014 .. will keep you posted
Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?
Open letter to Prime Minister.
I refer to the cabinet manual 2.53
“In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.
Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”
In 2001 the then minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton gave approval for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act 1999.
Section 122 of the act requires that the minister must be satisfied “by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence” that the “organisation “complied with the criteria as set out in sections 122 (1) (a) – (e).
It has transpired that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no legal existence, It had no members, structure or existence beyond that of only one man. There was no Organisation, no body of persons had held a meeting or made a decision to make an application for the coercive law enforcement powers.
I have over the years made a number of OIA requests from the MPI and have conclusively established that.
1. The application for approved status for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was fraudulent
a. Mr Neil Wells made the application on behalf of an alleged trust knowing that no trust existed .
b. The statement with regards to the trust having been formed by way of trust deed was false and known to be false by Mr Wells a statement he was to attempt to retrospectively cover up in 2006.
c. The persons named as the alleged trustees had never formally met together as a trust, signed a trust deed, or discussed the application for approved status under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
d. Section 10 of the application, the institute’s compliance with section 122, sought to mislead and deceive the minister as an organisation which does not exist cannot comply with the criteria.
2. The minister relied on MAF advising him with regards to the trust deed, the reality was that there was no trust deed and no signed deed was ever considered or sighted. This ensured that the ministry staff evaluated the application on a worthless and meaningless document which had not been consented or agreed to by any persons.
3. Mr Neil Edward Wells who had appointed himself as Manager (10.4 of the application) was the former Head of the RNZSPCA, in 1996 he wrote a business plan for his own personal ambition to integrate council’s dog and stock control with Animal welfare which was a central government concern. He called the service Territorial animal welfare service .
4. Mr Wells was well connected with the MPI (MAF at the time) and through this and his party connections (Labour) came to write the No 1 Bill for the new animal welfare legislation this bill was written with his personal business aspirations in mind.
5. Mr Wells served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills but no record has ever been located of any declaration of his conflict of interest.
6. During 2000 Mr Wells and his associate Tom Didovich provided the minister and the ministry with information which appeared to be legitimate, however neither the minister not the ministry verified
a. The legal status or existence of AWINZ
b. The consent and knowledge of Waitakere council in providing funding, staff resources and infrastructure for the venture.
c. The knowledge and consent for the alleged trustees named on the fraudulent application
7. Records show that the policy advisors for the ministry of Agriculture were opposed to the granting of the application despite having previously assisted Mr Wells. MAF officials had voiced their concerns with regards to Mr Wells’s undeclared conflict of interest.
8. Consent was finally given after the application went to the labour caucus after Neil Wells was able to comment on and amend the caucus papers and allegedly briefed his former work colleague, Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the labour party and Mayor of Waitakere City Council.
9. In 2006 as a result of an enquiry from a Waitakere dog control officer I established conclusively that
a. There was no legal person by the name of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand
b. Neither MAF nor Waitakere council who both contracted to AWINZ held a signed trust deed.
c. The law enforcement authority AWINZ was not identifiable.
10. Despite AWINZ not existing the then Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not consider that AWINZ no longer complied with section 122 and did not revoke the approved status, he too was deceived as to the existence of AWINZ due to a group of persons posing as AWINZ and despite lacking evidence claiming to be the law enforcement authority . These persons were Tom Didovich, Neil Wells, Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley. Not one of these persons (other than Wells) had been a party to the application process or consented to it.
11. This deception continued through the next minister’s term off office and David Carter was similarly deceived.
12. In a series Official information act requests I have established that MPI do not know who the legal persons were who represented the law enforcement authority and it would appear from the latest response ,that they did nothing to investigate the consequences of having a fictional law enforcement authority .
I have recently discovered submissions by Mr Wells for the Animal Welfare Amendment Act , curiously he does not mention his involvement with AWINZ at all but in these he points out the seriousness of this situation by pointing out that New Zealand is only one of two countries to have a private law enforcement authority (the other is Australia).
Mr Wells in his submissions states “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.”
He goes on to state “There are (in NZ) three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations. “
And “MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.”
AWINZ was an approved organisation yet it did not exist, no one knew who comprised it, ran it, apart from Mr Wells who was not given law enforcement powers in his own name but obtained it fraudulently in a fictional name and then acted on behalf of that fictional body.
The act, section 122, requires that the Minister must be satisfied – by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence – before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act.
For the decision of several Ministers to have been lawful evidence must exist which shows
1. Who the legal persons were who applied for the law enforcement powers and
2. The legal basis upon which the ministers granted law enforcement powers to a trading name for person or persons unknown and had belief that there was accountability to the public.
If that evidence does not exist then there is another option and that is that successive ministers were deceived.
If this is the case the government has two options
1. To condone fraudulent applications to the crown for law enforcement authority or
2. Instigate a full ministerial enquiry into the matter and hold all those who played a part in the deception accountable to the full force of the law.
The current Minister, Nathan Guy appears to have distanced himself from this matter despite repeated requests for him to conduct a ministerial enquiry into this deception. Every request I write to him is routinely handed over to the MPI. The MPI do not hold the evidence and quite clearly under the act it is for the minister to be in possession of the suitable evidence which satisfies him, it is therefore clear that if there is any evidence as to the legitimacy of the application of AWINZ and the existence of AWINZ then it must be held by the minister.
If the minister does not hold that information then the minister cannot condone a fraudulent act of this magnitude. It is also not a responsible action just to ignore the issue. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse Crimes act 1961)
Fraud is a crime and obtaining law enforcement powers for one of only two approved organisations is serious, it is even more serious when the law was enforced through this fraud and I have evidence that it was.
I did not intend to be a Whistle blower, I simply raised issues which I believed were in the public interest to raise in what was reported to be the world’s least corrupt country. I asked
1. Why did the minister give law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation
2. Why was the manager of a council dog and stock control unit contracting to himself in a fictional name
Those two questions have devastated my life and that of my family, I have had a total cold shoulder from the government for 8 years now. I have been treated like the villain in a tactic which I now recognise as classic Darvo where the roles of villain and victim are reversed.
I have been persecuted thought the courts on defamation claims for which I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, skipped formal proof and went straight to sentencing.
My crime has been to speak the truth and speak up on a matter of serious public corruption, it has been 8 years I have had every bit of spin and every bit of avoidance, it is painfully obvious that no one knows who the law enforcement authority was and there was no accountability to the public.
I should not be the scape goat. If New Zealand wished to strive to be the least corrupt country in the world then it would instigate a full investigation into this matter and see that whistle blowers are compensated as intended by the United Nations convention against corruption.
While New Zealand is still covering up corruption it will never be able to ratify the convention. We cannot continue to pretend that there is no corruption the only way to deal with it is to meet it head on.
I therefore ask for you Mr Key to direct that the minister for MPI conduct a full investigation into this matter together with lawyers versed in criminal law and Trusts.
I am happy to assist I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant and am currently a licenced Private investigator, the matter is already well investigated and researched.
Additionally I request financial assistance to relieve the financial hardship which I am experiencing due to having blown the whistle. I would not be in the position that I find myself in today if the government had acted responsibly and relied on evidence rather than hearsay.
I will soon be attending an international anti-corruption conference and hope that I can report that NZ is taking corruption seriously. I will also send a copy of this to the United Nations for their reference and also publish this on www.transparency.net.nz
I see this as a true test of the ethics of our current government.
Is the AWINZ Charity complicit in fraud on the courts ?
To the trustees of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand – Tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil Wells. And to the party to litigation Hoadley Coutts and Wells
23 December 2013
Ben Atkins of Brookfields has told me to pay the $19,000 cost demand payable to AWINZfor the legal action for obtaining a judgement by fraud into a bank account number National Bank of New Zealand 060 968 0067 4 77 00, this is the bank account used by the charity animal welfare institute of New Zealand, it is not the account for Hoadley wells and Coutts parties to the litigation .
Before I pay this money into the account I wish to inform all those associated with the charity, the person running the account and those party to the legal action ,of the implications of receiving these funds which have been directed to be paid for deceiving the court.
For 8 years there has been much obfuscation about who AWINZ is. I have evidence to prove that the charity the law enforcement authority or the former trust. The charity does not run its own bank accounts Neil Wells does and the trustees are not running the charity in any proper manner. They are not even meeting.
In 2007 there was no trust deed associated with the national bank account I am certain that the banking ombudsmen will help sort that one out.
The account was in the name of a person who does not exist- animal welfare institute of New Zealand . Neil Wells was the only person running the account and the account was not a trading as account.
I will not pay into a bank account of a non-party without some assurances and without the full knowledge and consent of those whose account it is being passed off as being. I will not hand over that sum of money and then find that those who have a judgement against me demand the money again in their personal capacity.
I am therefore looking for a letter in which Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as the defendants agree that the money is paid into a designated account of a non-party being the trust which they are trustees of together with Tom Didovich . ( the charity )
As the account is that used by a registered charity, I request that all of the trustees of the charity AWINZ consent to the money being paid into that account and that they accept full responsibility as trustees for receiving the money which has been obtained through deception on the court and perverting the course of justice.
I note that the lawyers have gone on leave and so will deal with the parties involved direct as the lawyers appear to be totally confused as to who is who. The lawyers in any case were not instructed by the charity but by Hoadley and Wells at a time when no trust existed. I will show there is no continuity to a previously formed trust.
In 2009 Hoadley Wells Didovich and Coutts all signed a document namely a financial return on the charities commission which read
“On 30 July 2008 Judge Rod Joyce QC made an order in the matter A WINZ and Wells v Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd that Grace Haden and Verisure Investigations Ltd pay the following:
Damages — $57,500, costs $40,500
On 20 November 2009 Justice Hansen dismissed an appeal by Haden in the High Court.
As at 16 December 2009 damages, costs and interest due stood at $117,903
The Trustees have entered a charging order of $100,000 on properties jointly owned by Haden.
Resolved 20 December 2009 “
Now my issue is that I have paid some $200,000 to Neil Wells alone, not in his capacity as trustee and I have paid $16,000 to Wyn Hoadley in her private capacity and according to these “true and correct” accounts you have a charging order over my property.
I would like to know which property you have a charging order over and I would like proof that it has been removed, I also want all references of any debt to the trust removed as I have never had a debt to the charity .
I also dispute that there is any money owing to the charity and I do not wish to put money into the charities account thereby giving reality to their fiction. I will put the money in that account if I get acknowledgment from all the parties as to why I am placing into that account.
The whole thing has been Identity fraud 101 and all those who go along with this are complicit in obtaining a pecuniary advantage through fraud and perverting the course of justice. Facilitating something is enough.. each one of you is a party to this fraud.
I will expect a response from each of you by 4 pm 31 December .
Before you sign your life away I wish you to be aware of the evidence I have which I will use next year ( in private criminal prosecutions if necessary ) that will prove that you do not have a leg to stand on for claiming to be the law enforcement authority or the 2000 trust
In 2006 I was approached by an animal welfare officer employed by Waitakere city council she wanted to know who she was volunteering her council paid time to as she was uncertain as to who AWINZ was. I found that AWINZ did not exist and no one had a trust deed. AWINZ was a law enforcement authority under the animal welfare act,
We registered a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand on 27 April 2006 and through this registration proved that no other legal entity existed by that name. Neil Wells wanted our trust gone and was informed of the process by the registrar of society’s , he chose litigation in the district court and coercive means.
AWINZ operated from Waitakere city council premises using the council staff to run its business and prosecuted those who fell fowl of the animal welfare law.( this money went into the same account which your lawyer now wants me to put nearly $20,000 in to- this account was operated By Neil Wells alone).
The vehicles, signage and buildings at council had been re branded by the Neil Wells to look very much like the Logo which AWINZ the law enforcement authority used. There was talk of the council assets to be transferred to AWINZ as is recorded in the audit report page 4.
Neil Wells had been Manager since 2005 when he took over from Tom Didovich the previous manager who had corresponded with the Minister of primary Industries and had given consents and approvals on behalf of council for matters which council had not been properly consulted on.
As a result MAF and the minister were of the belief that it was the councils desire to take on animal welfare functions in reality it was Mr Wells personal desire one that he had recorded in a business plan.
I asked questions as to AWINZ role and contracts with Waitakere Council and the existence of the law enforcement powers which were obtained after Mr Wells had written the animal welfare bill and consulted on it as independent advisor to the select committee.
In July 2006 Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts commenced legal action, using clever ploys such as false standing and striking out my defence of trust and honest opinion in defamation proceedings they have managed to re write history and confuse facts .
I now don’t know who I am dealing with I believe that there are various parties all called AWINZ and various ones have used the bank account which the lawyer has given me a number for .
The groups are
1. The people who came together paid for by Waitakere council to form a trust with Waitakere council in 1998
2. 1999.The AWINZ which Neil Wells and Tom Didovich told the SPCA existed in 1999, the one that they claimed funds from the community well being fund for or the one which gave a notice of intent and a made an application to the minister
3. 2000 The trust deed for which there are two versions One given to me in 2006, the other sent to MAF in 2006 trust deed MAF version
4. The AWINZ which monitored the Lord of the rings and gave the false and title
5. The AWINZ which received law enforcement powers and the Awinz which Wells represented when he signed the MOU Waitakere and MAF
6. The Awinz which met June 2004 which only Mr Wells knows about.
7. The AWINZ which opened the bank account and obtained the IRD number and obtained the $100,000 beauty with compassion.
8. The people who posed as AWINZ as litigants June 2006( no trust deed existed no evidence of being appointed )
9. You . the people who signed a deed 5.12.2006 the trust which became a charity and although you were not connected to the bank account let Neil wells and Christine wells operate the bank account which you were supposedly trustees of.
Not all AWINZ’s are the same they share a common name but there has to be real verifiable evidence to connect them.
In 2012 I took action against Hoadley ,Wells and Coutts for obtaining a judgement by fraud but because their lawyers obfuscation and reputation had more impact on the court than the 700 odd government documents which I had collated , my claim was struck out at a cost of some $35,000 this and the preceding matters won by deceit has resulted in payments of $200,000 which has mainly been collected by Wells himself in his own capacity.
Wells has been hell bent on bankrupting me and liquidating my company we have had three attempts at liquidation and in the courts own words it has been done in a very aggressive manner.. so much for animal welfare .. can’t be nice to humans.
The latest round the invoices were made out to AWINZ, for them to be made out to AWINZ that is the charity then the charity must be itself involved in the perverting the course of justice , and I would very much like to establish if all of you that is the December 2006 trustees consider all the AWINZ entities 1-9 to be you .
According to the charities web site you are the trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand a charity registered 28/09/2007 after you all signed a trust deed on 5 December 2006.
First of all you need to grasp that AWINZ is not a body corporate it is nothing more than a name adopted by various people, in this case you and only from 5 december 2006 . The trust therefore provides no protection for you for any act done before that date or for actions outside the scope of the trust deed.
AWINZ cannot sue or be sued only the people who comprise AWINZ can sue and each does so based on legal documents which support their claim of being legitimate trustees.
I cannot see how you can be a continuation of a trust allegedly formed 1.3.2000 as those trustees never met Let’s look at the audit report and associated document in detail to establish some facts which you yourself ( through the lawyers ) have promoted.
The Affidavit of Tom Didovich which sets out the fact that he ( while holding he position of manager Dog and stock control of Waitakere city ) drove to each trustee and obtained their respective signatures , this proves they never got together at the start and could not have ratified the deed.
the 2009 an audit report released by MAF- the audit was conducted on AWINZ the law enforcement authority looking at section 4.1.2
“we found that despite being set up in 2000 AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004 . Since its inception (and at the time of the audit) AWINZ has held 4 Trust
Board meetings – we found that four Trust Board meetings held since 2000,three of.
the meetings minutes were not signed by the chair and the one minute that was signed was for a meeting which did not have a quorum of trustees “
Neil Wells kindly supplied the minutes to the law society they can be located at the following links
The minutes which we don’t have is the June 2004
We know that the 2000 trustees did not meet when they signed the deed( see Didovich ’s affidavit ) , we know that there were only ever 4 meetings the earliest was 2004.
The 2000 trust deed calls for the trustees to be reappointed by 1.3.2000. This trust never met, did not have minutes, passed no resolutions held no assets and by its own terms ceased to exist 1.3.2003
Therefore the meeting in 2004 was by an unknown group of persons or person.
Now let’s look at the Application for approved status 22 November 1999 how could this application have been made by those whose only act was to sign a trust deed 1.3.2000 , it is customary for people to sign such applications to show that they consent to it being made in their names.. This is not for a Sunday school picnic this is for law enforcement powers.
How could your deed 5 December 2006 revoke that deed when it was defunct from 1.3.2003, there was nothing to revoke
In correspondence with the AWINZ lawyer Ben ATKINS it has become clear that your lawyers think that AWINZ became the law enforcement authority as set out in paragraphs 50-52 of their submissions which read
“In paras 57-59, Ms Haden alleges that Mr Wells deceived the Court in “many ways” and in particular, she alleges that Mr Wells misrepresented that an application to the Minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999, was not the final application made. We assume that Ms Haden is referring to Mr Wells’ evidence given in Court when he said that MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until 1 January 2000, when the Animal Welfare Act 1999 was passed. Mr Wells went on to stay that a formal application could not be lodged before that time and that when the Act was passed, a formal application was made, and the trust deed was signed (refer CB p 340, L8-23). Note how your lawyers cleverly still put the application before the signing of the deed , things just don’t happen in that order.
Ms Haden’s claims of perjury in this regard are simply without any foundation. Mr Wells was entirely open with the Court about the formation with the trust and the application to be registered as an approved organisation. He noted that the November 1999 application was made, and this was attached to Mr Wells’ affidavit sworn 10 December 2007 (refer CB p 324, para 31 ). Further, the application was subsequently formalised, after discussions with government officials and further correspondence. In particular, Mr Wells sent a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture on 25 March 2000 to address various issues that had been raised, and to formalise the application (refer CB p 138- 144).
You will note that in the letter dated 25 March 2000 om page 7 Wells stated “Having provided all the additional information requested over the past 3 months we trust you are now in a position to provide approval in our original application of November 1999.”
So how can the persons involved in AWINZ the law enforcement authority become involved without putting their names to the application? The assurances were at all times that AWINZ was a body corporate a legal person in its own right… It never was… This has a major impact on the administration of justice it is creating a false person and by consenting to being part of this you are implicated and for the actions for keeping that illusion alive . The audit report quite categorically states bottom of page 5 AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . Neil Wells deliberately deceived the Minister in his letter 25 March 2000
“A signed copy of the Deed of Trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed.”
You will note that your deed or the deed of the defunct trust which you claim to have followed on from , does not contain a section 20 a
Your trust and the 2000 trust were never incorporated so it was not your deed that was sent in to the Minister for registration and clearly was not the deed which Mr Wells was referring to. So how could this be YOU !!!!!!
Conclusion: It is therefore a different AWINZ which became the law enforcement authority
In the audit report Wells contradicts his own evidence to the court Neil is quoted as saying on Page 4 “Neil Wells (AWINZ Trustee) explained in his original application for AWINZ to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (dated 22 November 1999) that in 1996 AWS(animal welfare services made a strategic decision that “a not-for-profit body to act as the interface between community and service delivery” be formed. This strategy led to the formation of the animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), whose objective was “to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ the AWINZ trust was established in March 2000.”
Wells also claims that the objectives of AWINZ “was ” to achieve a seamless transition for those officers of Waitakere City Animal Welfare Services who were currently warranted to be appointed as from 01 January 2000 or as soon thereafter as is practicable “ You will note that there is no mention of this objective in the trust deed 1.3.2000 which you claim to have as your origins that this objective is expressed.
Neil Wells further stated that the principal purpose of AWINZ was to promote the welfare of.
Animals, and its aims were “to provide a national body to which Inspectors will be properly answerable”. How can that happen through a trust which did not meet at all!!!!!! Look at yourselves you don’t meet you all know that Neil wells is the only person who deals with AWINZ the rest of you are there to cover up .
On that point You did not meet to change the terms of the trust deed which you signed, there are no minutes which show a resolution to change the objectives, there are no meetings after 5 Dec 2006 which resolved that you should become a charity . I will get a full investigation into this you have been most fraudulent. Trustees have legal obligations including the requirement of a meeting to decide to take legal action.
I believe that the only explanation is that the trust 1.3.2000 was not the law enforcement authority and Neil wells was it all by himself and all the rest is a cover up to pervert the course of justice something you have all conspired in.
There are many other points I could raise which have come to light due to the audit report but I won’t go into that now after all it is Christmas.
Those who want to save their necks can do so now. I will hand over the $19,000 + subject to being told by all parties to the proceedings that they consent to it being put into the charities account and acknowledging that the charity is receiving the money and know that it is money obtained by crime in light of this detailed letter.
I will not be responsible for any accrual of interest due to your delay
I will release the money as soon as I have the assurances and also an explanation as to why the charity is claiming the funds as theirs in the annual report when they are not a party to the proceedings and how they came to put the caveat over my property , or if they did not put a caveat over my property why they filed false accounts.
If I don’t hear by 31 december 4 pm I will assume that You will not be responding and won’t be making any demands on me due to the fact that you are collecting the proceeds of a crime.
Since its Christmas. Anyone who does not wish to be prosecuted criminally next year can come clean, I am sure the police can deal with the issue. Having the matter before the court has held it back but all that is finished now . You have cost me well over $300,000, my family and my marriage I am not about to walk away from the crime you have perpetrated, You have won the battle but not the war .
You will be made accountable for your action and the part you played. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Those who facilitate corruption are art of it.
You can’t put your name to something and then say you are not involved.
Grace Haden
Copy on transparency.net.nz as usual.
Request for councillors to Investigate Fraud concealment in Auckland council
Sent: Monday, 14 October 2013 6:51 p.m.
To: Councillor Cathy Casey; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Subject: Congratulations and request for meeting
First of all congratulations to all of you.
I hope that you have got a better Idea of what I have been up against these past 7 ½ years. The corruption I questioned is pretty much the same as what the prosecution has been for on the north shore and the investigation is about in Auckland Transport .
The manager whose actions I questioned contracted council services to himself using a pseudonym
He also rebranded the council premises as per attached and if you look at the flow chart you will see how the fraud worked.
I have been told this is historic but it was operating in 2010 and so were these other frauds which have been actioned.
No whistle-blower should have to endure what I have been exposed to . I request an urgent meeting so that we can start dealing with this matter before I have to sell my house because of councils neglect to investigate.
I look forward to hearing from you all
Regards
Grace Haden
To: Grace Haden; Councillor Christine Fletcher; Mayor Len Brown
Cc: Jazz Singh; Doug McKay
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Hi Grace,
The last time you asked to meet with us, the advice that Councillor Fletcher and I received from legal counsel is that all of your allegations have been exhaustively investigated and there is no action that we as councillors can take.
If you have any new evidence, please provide that to our legal department.
I am copying in CEO Doug McKay and Acting General Counsel Jazz Singh.
Kind regards,
Dr Cathy Casey
Councillor, Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward
Governing Body, Auckland Council
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:23 a.m.
To: ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Christine Fletcher’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’
Cc: ‘Jazz Singh’; ‘Doug McKay’
Subject: RE: Congratulations and request for meeting
Thank you Cathy
I have been somewhat unfortunate to have had Bias directed at me by your counsel Wendy Brandon . I have sent her evidence which any competent lawyer would recognise as being a conflict of interest in a mangers role however she responded that she refuses to investigate .
I have supplied tons of evidence , I can conclusively prove that there was no trust in existence and the manager was using council resources and infrastructure for self-enrichment. He was contracting to himself using a pseudonym. I think the vital ingredient all along has been is that Mr Wells is a colleague of Bob Harvey and there is also involvement of former mayor Wyn Hoadley . This is serious corruption and the councils lack of action has had major repercussions on me and my family.
I should have been able to ask the simple question Why is a manager contracting to himself without fear of losing my home. Council appear to have learnt nothing from this as I am dismissed as some freak.
Just in the past week globally there have been a number of fraud incidents where mayors and councillors have been involved in fraud , it won’t happen in Auckland as we have great control measures within which ensure cover ups. I have I believe conclusively proved that
Ruling-party mayor arrested in Venezuela crackdown
28 years in prison for corrupt ex-Detroit mayor
Greek ex-minister jailed for 20 years for graft
Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial
Just because former mayors are associated with the fraud does not mean that there is no fraud. I can appreciate that there is a huge amount of influence within council which has stopped this from being investigated. I am sure that Waitakere council fully knew what was going on but in the words of mission impossible they would have said “ if you are exposed we will disavow any knowledge of your action. “ The on going proof of this is the fact that I could not even get a straight response to my LGOIMA requesting why the branding at the concourse changed from Animal welfare to animal management. When council knowingly conceals corruption it condones it .
I have spent nearly 8 years hitting my head against a brick wall. The very people who should investigate have not done so . I am a Fraud professional I have the evidence – it is conclusive , real and verifiable . I have given it to your lawyers and your CEO multiple times and I am discredited in return.. A good policy is to attack the person when you cannot attack the issue , I am sick of being discredited and I am sick of being bled dry by your former employee who is using the charitable funds of a retrospectively set up trust to do as much damage to me as possible. A proper council investigation would have prevented that- Most of the evidence is on your files! That is why I am again approaching the councillors.
Cathy it was good to learn that you have a degree in criminology as such you may appreciate this perfect fraud .. it was a perfect fraud until I came along – few people would have picked up what I discovered, my mistake was to ask the question of accountability from council. I was taken to court for defamation and denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, NO EVIDENCE was ever produced and the court simply skipped the formal proof hearing, its like being sentenced without being found guilty ! .
I have never done anything but speak the truth, the price I have paid is excessive that is why I stood and I am sure with the number of hits on my site that I have drawn attention to the issue .
Wendy Brandon falsely claims that there is an injunction, there is no injunction against AWINZ. AWINZ (Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) does not exist, it had an appearance of existing and it was your staff, buildings and vehicles which gave it that appearance.. very clever really.
The only injunction is against me saying nasty things about Mr wells, so I say nothing bad about him and only confine myself to producing documents which show what he has done, I frequently ask him if there is anything I have published which he wasn’t correcting and not once in the past 7 years has he objected to anything or taken me back to court.
Cathy I Made another Request for Auckland council to investigate corruption last year and the end result was that Wendy Brandon had my emails diverted to exclude councillors . You have all the evidence- what is the point of giving you more when you won’t look at what you have .
I even made a complaint with regards to the conduct of counsel to council but it appears to be a diverted email which only Ms Brandon received see Urgent call for the suspension of Wendy Brandon there was supposed to be an investigation into her blocking my emails and that disappeared into thin air. In return I was harassed by council and a person claiming to be W is posting the obscene things directed at me on web sites belonging to my associates .
I can go blue in the face sending evidence to Ms Brandon she simply will not look at it that is why I am addressing this to councillors because you employ the CEO and he employs the counsel. If counsel does not take corruption seriously then that is an issue for the governing body.
If you allow this fraud to be concealed then I can only ask what else is going on., I am making a determined effort to expose the corruption in Auckland council and have already started with my latest LGOIMA where I have addressed the issue of some 55 million of undefined “ other “ employee benefits in excess of last years 8 million “ other benefits “ which are shown in your annual report Council Employee Benefits v Mowing verges
Cathy so here we go another three years of me being fobbed off. What do I need to do to get some one to look at the evidence. I am very happy to sit down with them and take them through it but in 7 years that has never occurred.
In my normal transparent manner I will be publishing this on Transparency .net.nz
I won’t hold my breath I know I will be ignored again. After all electioneering is over and were back as usual.
You will be hearing a lot from me I would love to meet with you and Christine as this is a governance issue it is very serious.
Regards
Grace Haden