AWINZ

Vivienne Holm seeks a new practicing certificate

vivienne-holmYesterday I was approached by Net safe , who on behalf of Vivienne Holm sought changes to  former  blog posts  because Vivienne after holding a practicing certificate for  the past 10 years suddenly cant get one because of  something that was written   many years ago . Vivienne   is seeking  changes to the blog.   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 assit in correcting a far greater injustice  before we  look at the perception she has of tiny little one .

Summary  of Blogs which mention Vivienne

About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  see also my affidavit

Intimidation by Vivienne HOLM ( Vivienne Parre ) ( Vivienne Wright )

Talking Works Tom Didovich!

How could A non existent private law enforcement authority survive for so long? Why condone corruption in Waitakere City?

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

More submissions

The following is my response to Net safe  ,  The fact that Vivienne  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 @ Vivienne Parr @ Vivienne Wright   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 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 legitmaley 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.

Brookfields, on  behalf of whom Vivienne Wright at the time,(previously Vivienne  Parr   now Vivienne Holm)  , took instructions from the fictional AWINZ  tried to liquidate my company and succeeded    until I found out that they  had  filed a false affidavit of service  and the whole thing was reversed.

So now 10 years  down the track and after having held  many  practicing certificates Vivienne  wants a different type of practicing certificate   because she is going to work  for Paul Cavanagh  who   retired exactly a year ago  .

Vivienne “ believes “   that she   already had her application in .  I am sure that she did not.( this is based on my concurrent records  )

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

My internet search reveals that  Paul Cavanagh QC  retired a year ago .

It would appear that Vivienne Holm  now wants to work in public practice again , as such she will  become an officer of the high court   and according to section 4 of the  Lawyers and conveyancers act will  have an  obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

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 Vivienne    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  Vivienne  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

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

  1.  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.
  2. you can have various copies of the deed  they can all conflict and no one cares see here  and here 
  3. no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust  complies with its deed
  4. 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 .
  5. 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
  6. 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 )
  7. 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

trust 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.

reappointment

 

 

 

 

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 2006 deed

 

 

 

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

  1. Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
  2. 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.

“Ms Collins says the Government values its close working relationship with Transparency International New Zealand and she looks forward to working through the report’s recommendations.”

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?

corruptionOpen 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  

  1. minutes  10/5/2006
  2. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting  
  3.  Minutes 14/8/2006

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

wells flow chart_Page_2Sent: 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                wells flow chart_Page_1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             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

 7

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

 

open letter to Len Brown

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/brown.jpgGood morning   Len

I  put a question to you last night with regards to  the corruption which I exposed at Waitakere city council.

At the council meeting earlier this year you said you  knew nothing about it but would not investigate due to it being historic

Last night at the meeting you stated  that  there were two sides to the story, thereby indicating  that you knew of  another side   which somehow implied  that  it exonerated the corruption

Your statement  indicated to  me that you know a version which I am not familiar with  which makes me a villain and Mr Wells   an employee acting legitimately   and I therefore  by way of privacy act request all information which   you hold or have been   told of  which  concerns the corruption in  the dog and stock control division of Waitakere  city council where  Mr Wells was contracting to himself  via the attached  MOU

To  spell it out  Mr Wells signed the attached  MOU with the previous  dog  control manager Tom Didovich.

Didovich plays a vital role in this corruption  he  had written to  the minister consenting  for   Waitakere and  North shore cities   to become a linked organisations  when in reality   MAF expected  this to be a council supported matter not something done in house in dog control   this is reflected in the cabinet papers as attached  and in the  audit report

Not only  did AWINZ not exist   ( basically that is proved by the fact that the audit papers shows that it only had four meetings  since 2004).  The trust was established  in 2000    by its own terms   it ceased to exist  1.3 .2003  see page 4 .

The audit report proves it never held  bank accounts  so we now have a trust which never  met and  did not hold assets.

It also did not make the application for approved status   on 22.11.1999    and it was not an oral trust as claimed by Neil Wells as the   trustees that Tom Didovich paid  him  to recruit were recruited under a different deed

It was Tom Didovich the manager of dog control  who witnessed the signatures of the trustees   on the deed  established  in 2000 and Paid Wells to train the dog control officers. He  acted without authority for and  on behalf of council  went on to become a trustee of  a  trust designed to  conceal the corruption in 2006 .

I hope that you do not condone  such actions

Under the privacy act I have the  right to  make corrections   and  quite obviously  you have the story  wrong.

I am extremely concerned that you  should think that there are two sides  as there is only one side portrayed in the documents I recovered from  council and MAF  and that is  that  Council has failed to investigate this  properly preferring to see me the whistle-blower as the villain

I will be putting this  email and my letter to you up on Transparency    and will be directing  everyone to it at each and every  candidate meeting.

I felt that you  got close to defaming me  last night   by suggesting that I knew of the other side.

I  was denied a defence for the defamation claim .Wells never  produced one bit of evidence.  It is being appealed at this very  moment   for  obtaining a judgment  by fraud.  .. the alleged  defamation  does not change the facts revealed in the documents held by council . if you can’t find them I will be happy to supply them to you  . Your own documents will reveal corruption . Look at the  audit report they  expected AWINZ to be incorporated,  and to be  acting with  the councils consent .  council denied  any involvement.  The audit report  does not look for corruption   it only dealt with the  obligations of  AWINZ  as far as MAF was concerned.. no one went back to the   fact that AWINZ did not exist.. it was  quickly re created in 2006   to cover up

For ease here is the video The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

It’s  complex  but I can  simply take you through it   if I was to be given the chance.

No one should have to pay the price I have had to pay for questioning corruption in council , the questions I asked were legitimate and had foundation .

Regards

Grace Haden

 

VeriSure

     Because truth matters

 

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at 
www.verisure.co.nz

The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

It has taken me a week and a steep learning curve  but I am happy to announce that I am embarking on  a new chapter.. Video..  This is my first attempt   or should I say the result of many attempts  its not perfect but  it sets out the story. I welcome feed back

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley Graeme Coutts & Tom Didovich

Wyn Graeme  and Tom                             Open letter to  Wyn Hoadley ,Graeme Coutts and  Tom Didovich  

affidavit

 I am addressing this to you  as you are all members of the  charity which is financing  the  legal action   and  supporting Neil Wells.

 And  to  Wyn and Graeme   as you are both individually and in your own capacity   litigants represented by David Neutze independent of any involvement of any trust .

 I am concerned that when I send an email  to  your lawyers and l CC you in , your lawyers  do not respond back to you  and only to Wells.

 This to me is odd for a lawyer  who is instructed by you and is corresponding  on matters which pertain to you ,  this  makes it obvious that you  are distancing yourselves from  the litigation .

 This  really makes me   wonder if you understand what  the trust is and what the trust is not.  Basically that is what this litigation is all about.

I am concerned that  each of you  have  been told not to speak to me. The story you have been fed  has duped you  to the extent that you have never questioned what is going on, had you  questioned it  it would have been painfully obvious that I have been made out to be the  villain  when in reality  it is Mr Wells who is using you to  re write history to  turn his  illegal actions into  something more palatable.

 The heart of the issue is  the existence of AWINZ the law enforcement authority .   Neil wells made an application in November 1999 , when no  trust existed. 

 He gave false documents to the minister and caused him to  act upon them as though they were true.

 Neil Wells  derived a benefit from this action .. this makes it fraud.

 So by shifting the time frames and bringing other  people into it  he has  sanitised the transaction to make it a legitimate action.

    We have  chronologies every where   e.g  if I  was  gay  I could not get married this month    it would not be legal   and to claim legitimacy of a marriage  this moth   and getting a pecuniary  benefit from it wold be fraud.

 However  when the law comes into  force   gay marriage is legitimate and the actions  are sanctioned by law.    The same time frames apply to parking   driving from a certain age  etc..

 AWINZ   the law enforcement authority did not exist.. Wells needed to cover up     You have knowingly or through total neglect assisted in this .

 Proof of  Wells perjury to the court is   below .. this is from the transcript in court .. He has lied to the court by shifting the time of the application  from November 1999 to some other  time  when  the application was supposedly made  in a legitimate manner. 

 The only issue is  that MAF do not have any record or   knowledge of any other application   and  the minister in his letter to Wells 21 December  makes it  very clear that  the application is based on the November 1999  application  , this was  three months before any  trust deed was dated . the application was supported by a unsigned trust deed .

 For more see the affidavit  it has the evidence attached

 The transcript reads  these are three separate statements  which   totally influence the court .

 The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

 

When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until  then

What is particularly serious  for  WYN and  Graeme  is that  your lawyers  are not representing you  they are only representing Wells  and by protecting his perjury they are exposing you to criminal  charges. Have they spoken to you  with regards to the email below and   the affidavit attached to   this  email?  May I suggest that your lawyers have a conflict of interest when it comes to   representing you  …unless of course you consent to their action of concealing Mr Wells perjury, in which  case you  become a party to   this. ( see section 66 crimes act  Parties are guilty of the offence )

 I do not wish to file criminal charges  against  each and every one of you   for being  party to the  various offences and for aiding and abetting the various  actions  of Neil Wells  which I  view as criminal offending  but  if you  continue to support Wells  and his actions then you leave me no choice

 It is time  that we bring this to an end  7 years , a marriage and $300,000    give me a lot to fight for  and none of this would have happened had it  not been for the support you gave both financially and  through your silence.   

 I welcome the opportunity   for  any of you to speak to me   so that we can resolve this matter, I can assure you  that  whoever assist will not  be  the  subject of  any  litigation from me   either  civilly ,criminally or in your professional capacity.

 I will also  in return remove   anything  which I have posted  and which pertains to you .

 I invite you to speak to your own independent counsel    and have them present  but the deal is  that you have to  be truthful and help me  bring a swift end to this mess.

 Ellis J  was  extremely  interested in my matter  and  reported that she found me credible , we  have reached the turning point.

 This is the  last offer that I am extending to each and every one of  you .   You  either  stick with  Wells  or  you look after your own neck .

 I will   deliver a copy of this to each and every one of you    minus the attachments  which you will have to  get from this email .

 I will also be publishing this on the  Transparency web site  so that there is  permanent and public  record of this offer.

 This offer will expire  4pm Friday 26th July   2013 or  as soon as  liquidation proceedings are commenced by your lawyers  .

 Regards

Grace Haden

 VeriSure

     Because truth matters

 

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at 
www.verisure.co.nz

 

From: Grace Haden [mailto:graceverisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 8 July 2013 5:11 p.m.
To: ‘David Neutze’; atkins@brookfields.co.nz
Cc: ‘dickey@brookfields.co.nz’; green@brookfields.co.nz; ‘johnston@brookfields.co.nz’
Subject: Hoadley wells Coutts

 Please find here with the documents which I have filed for tomorrow  affidavit

 I draw your  attention to the  frauds   in very simplistic terms as set out in the affidavit

 1.        Your clients had no standing.. You supplied a trust deed   dated1.3.2000  for Coutts, wells  ,Giltrap and Groves   and   used this  to show that  Wells  Coutts and Hoadley had standing  when in reality  Hoadley had never been appointed as trustee .

 2.       There is also the fact that  there was one lost   trust deed   now there  are two originals

 3.       This affects the strike out    Your clients had no standing  and could not have brought the claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. This in turn would have ensured that I won the interlocutories not them  and my defence would not have been struck out

 4.        Neil Wells  had to re write history   the application  could not possibly have been made by the trust  which formed on 1.3.2000   so Neil Wells said to the court

 The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”

 When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”

“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until  then

Do you not think that this is perjury   in light of  the  fact that MAF and the minister in official documents specifically mention that they rely on the application 22 November 1999!  Have a look the evidence is  there 

 Despite  what must be an obvious miscarriage of justice to everyone except Brookfields  you continue to   wish to put me  out of business   and take the last of my funds  while denying me a right   to seek justice .

 You are totally in breach of the  rules    and your continued action in this  litigation despite  rule 13.5.3   this   suggests to me  that  you are not   willing to uphold the rule of  law.

 Please also   explain how Hoadley   wells and Coutts became the law enforcement authority  .. there certainly does not appear to be any legal   basis  for their claims   .. how did it happen ????

 If  you had integrity and  were honest lawyers you would be acting as officers of the court  and be  setting this injustice straight

 Please note : I am not re litigating – just because my defence was struck out  does not mean that  your client  can deceive the court  perjury is perjury  even if a defence is struck out

 I am not being   vexatious  I have a right   to have been judged on  facts not  fiction

Regards

Grace Haden

 

VeriSure

     Because truth matters

 

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at 
www.verisure.co.nz

The world as seen By Brookfileds Lawyers -Turning fiction into fact

funnypictures96 Need some one to do the impossible  ? turn fiction into Fact     well look no further than  David Neutze of Brookfields lawyers .

Problem : client Neil Wells  had  had  written legislation for his own  business plan   and then made an application to the minister  in a false name   and falsely claimed that a trust was making  the application  when quite clearly no trust existed   and no one had signed the application 

So time rolls  by  and   in 2006  Mr Wells is caught out by  some questions which potentially  exposed this as corruption   so something had to be done fast , before he was fitted up for an orange jump suit.

So David Neutze to the rescue. Despite the fact that lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law (section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act) David saw a way of contorting  facts  figures  and   chronologies

The rule of law is defined by LexisNexis as “The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.”

 It turns out that  LexisNexis and  David Neutze  disagree on that  interpretation.

David  must be right because he has  managed  to get the support of the court  at  each  court event  and has successfully prevented me from placing evidence  before the court while he has  used  nothing  but procedures and  manipulations of the law  to  secure victory for his clients  Lawyers  Neil Wells and  Wyn Hoadley  and JP Graeme Coutts.

Contortion  of Facts

It is always easy if  you can put your side of the story and you   stop the other side from putting  evidence and facts before the court.  so  David    filed a claim  but  did not  file any supporting evidence.

He then got the court to act on this claim as though it was the truth  , He manipulates proceedings  so that  high costs are awarded agaisnt the other party  , then demands them at  2 weeks notice.

How many people   could possibly come up with $18,000   in two weeks ????   could you ????

With my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out for   being unable to find $18,000  in two weeks  for a claim which was essentially agaisnt a trust  and not  me , the   coast was clear for Neil Wells to tell the court what ever  he wanted  so that history could be re written. As a result  no  investigation has ever been  conducted into  AWINZ  by any authority ..    Get a  court judgement  and  you  can get off any crime.

the Fiction which  Neutze changed into fact  were

The application     made by Neil Wells  was suddenly made by an ” oral trust ”   and  because   Neil Wells told  the Judge that this application wasn’t the   real application  he said ” Any correspondence
with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .”  page 7  line 15

He went on to say  ” When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application , that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.

On page 10  he says ” In the formation of any Body Corporate or non Body Corporate there is a series of processes which ultimately create the existence of an organisation, and in the case of the Animal Welfare Institute, the various drafts of the Deed of Trust which were formulated in 1999 led up to the final Deed, but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then. “

Now this is what the Judge relied upon  as being true. You must admit  it sounds pretty convincing.. but what if it was  not true  ?

I have spent years   trying to extract  the  actual application  MAF have clearly indicated to me that the one and only application was the  22 November 1999 document   and this is confirmed in the letter from the minister  dated  18 December 2000  which clearly states that  it was The application     of 22  november which was relied upon.

what difference does this make.. Heaps

  1. Wells Lied to the minister
  2. there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
  3. Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority  which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
  4. Maf Never checked to  see if  an organization existed  and did not  check to see if those named actually knew what was going on.

Its like saying you have a degree when you fully intend to get one in the future, So if it was bad  for  John Davies and Mary-Anne Thompson to have false credentials  How is it Ok for a law enforcement authority to  be a fictional organization?  And why have I  been persecuted   for asking the  question .. “Why doesn’t the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  AWINZ exist ???? “

So  David Neutze  secures the  judgment  which    by law becomes a new version of fact , so  I  find the  evidence  that Wells has told Porkies in court _ David Neutze to the rescue and  stops me from  telling the court that it has been lied to  .

Are officers of the court supposed  to do that ???  at least  Neutze was honest when I  got them all by the short and curlies when they liquidated my company on a false affidavit.  he knew  that that game was up then  and  did the decent thing.. but  he cannot  read his documents and say  OMG   my client has lied to the court  and since  I am  an honest and respectable officer of the court I must right this injustice… No  Neutze keeps on covering up and stops  evidence from being presented.

I then find new evidence to prove that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were never   the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, their relationship was born from the need to create a trust when   Maf  was alerted to the lack of existence of their law enforcement authority .  Now Wyn Hoadley is a former Mayor  we could not possibly  imply that she had done something improper.. so  its much easier to Crucify  me.

so the  quick easy  formula  for  re writing   history is

  1. Hike up the costs on false  claims
  2. Make a demand for payment and seek to have  the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
  3. withdraw the false claims
  4. Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say  the statement of claim is true
  5. then   tell the court what ever you like and stop the other side from placing anything  before the court which could alert the court  to the fact that  they have been lied to.
  6. No problem with police  they don’t do  perjury any  way

   this is called justice.

NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED   AT ALL  ! History re written !

 

Contorting  facts   # 2

This is not “ Pulling the Wool over  the ministers eyes “

I have learned from Davis Neutze that  you are not pulling the wool over the minister eyes when you:-

1.       Make an application for law enforcement powers  to the minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999 and state that “  A  charitable trust has been formed by  Deed of trust as the “ animal Welfare institute of New Zealand’ AWINZ   when no such  deed exists.

2.       Claim that a trust whose deed was allegedly  signed on 1.3.2000  were the applicants  for the  application  three months earlier despite the fact that none of the alleged trustees ever signed their name  on the application .

3.       Tell the minister that “ A copy of the signed deed of trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with section 20(a) of the Deed.  .

a.       No trust deed is ever forwarded

b.      Ministry of commerce does not register  deeds  the ministry of  economic development does   and they  accept  certified copies.

c.       Section 20a does not exist in the trust deed  which materialises in 2006

NB: the Neil Wells who wrote the letter  had  recently successfully registered two trusts with the ministry of economic developments. ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD.

One of the claims of defamation was that I had said that Neil wells Pulled the wool over   the ministers eyes.   .. well that statement certainly was worth the $57,500  and 41,00 cost .Susan Couch gets $300,000  for being crippled for  life ,

Neil wells gets nearly 1/3 that for some one   telling the truth about him. What is more  he has used  well over $100,000  of charitable  fund s to get this money for him personally !

 

I was  also mistaken to believe that to become trustees a person had to sign a trust deed or some document but according to David Neutze it is perfectly acceptable for a trust

1.       not to meet  at all –(  not even to sign  the trust deed )  despite claiming to be a law enforcement authority with  coercive statutory powers

2.       Ignore the requirement of its trust deed to meet no less than 4 time per year  and record meeting instead once every two years .

3.       Have no  evidence of re appointment of trustees.

4.       Have a meeting  on 10 May 2006   and produce the  minutes 20/5/2011 after having told MAF in 2008 that  the  governance documents are missing due to hard drive failure

5.       Appoint a trustee through invisible means at a time when the trust deeds are missing. meeting  on 10 May 2006

To supply a different copy of the alleged trust deed to MAF   and claim it to be one and the same as this one

 

Manipulation of  Chronologies

The chronologies of these events were a stumbling block     so the process above was used  to

 

turn this  into this 
application for law enforcement powers   create trust 
approval process  application for law enforcement powers 
law enforcement powers granted  approval process 
contract with MAF law enforcement powers granted 
exposed  contract with Maf
draw up 2000 trust  deed  become charity 
 take legal action 
draw up new trust deed 
become  charity 

The difference is    simple   trusts need to exist  before   they can make an application  .

In summary Wells  who had written  the bill for and advised on the  legislation as  an independent adviser to the select committee ,   made an application for law enforcement powers  on  22 November 1999 and  allegedly set up the trust  which makes the application  three months later on 1.3.2000, there is no evidence  of this trust  ever having met or functioned . Tom Didovich  (Wells’s  associate) went to each of the persons to get their signatures  at their   respective work  or home addresses.   It is note worthy that in 2006 the  trust deed was missing,  as it was  in march 2006  right after it was signed  and Neil Wells  lied to the minister about  having  sent the deed off for registration

The second great manipulation of chronologies was with regards to the plaintiffs in the claim 

Get three people together for the first time on 10 May 2006  and without any formal documentation  adopted a trading name  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  and have them file legal proceedings  against a legally incorporated  charitable trust ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST  then  registered as  The animal welfare institute of New Zealand    and make claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. this trust was  a legal person in its own right registers from 27-APR-2006  three weeks before   the first meeting of Hoadley Wells and Coutts.

Rather stupidly  I presumed that   their legal name ( if they had had a deed ) would be  Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  or otherwise Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts  trading as  the  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.  While the incorporated legal entity  would be called by its legal name  which Is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand . perhaps we  shoudl not let Neutze  advise clients on contracts..   they woudl not be worth the paper they are written on if he cant identify who the real persons are and who  are trustees.

  1. I also mistakenly believed  that  the group which  existed  first  and legally  had  more rights to the  name than the   second informal  group  and that if they wished to contest the  rights to the name they should have followed the advice of the  ministry of economic developments
  2. and  at least had some evidence  that they were  a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???

And

  1.   By  claiming to be   a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley  wells and Coutts  suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
  2. they also sign a trust deed in December 2006 which is different in purpose to the original  trust deed   allegedly  signed on 1.3.2000  and claim continuity of trust when the first trust has never met or acted together.   AH!  the magic of bits of paper with words on them.
  1. The trustees of the  December 2006 trust become  a charity  and use charitable funds to   pay for  the legal proceedings   classic identity fraud….. Tom is a butcher        my brother is Tom he   must  therefore  also be a butcher.

Confused..   yes  you should be   it makes no sense  but the court has been led to believe its all  kosher  its what officers of the  court  do .. bet  he even goes to church on Sunday.

 

Neutze Takes Maths and accounts to a new level .. a low level that is

In April 2012 I took a  new claim   agaisnt Hoadley Wells and Coutts   for obtaining a judgment by fraud.

Not only did Neutze manage to get the claim struck out   Judgment of Gibson 10.05.13  he also managed to get the Judge to call me Vexatious  for attempting to  seek justice , al the judge needed was for   Neutze to place his victories before him. the mere fact that all the judges have rejected  proceedings  and   all but one    appeal was actually  heard is beside the point.

That appeal was  taken by my solicitor at the time Paddy Finnegan   who  I had to dismiss due to my marriage failing  s due to the stress  , My bank accounts wer  frozen and justice   was denied…  in the stress of it all I  battled on  and I have found lay litigants don’t  get a look n.  lawyers can  tell lies  but lay litigants  don’t get heard.

the cost order Neutze put in was the worst  accounting I have seen for a long time   see  here  costs application Brookfields

I have summarized what the issues are here

  1. CIV 2012-004-696   was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   each in their own capacity as individuals .
    1. The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on  accounts made out to AWINZ
    2. AWINZ is the acronym used by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a charitable trust formed on 5 December 2006.  This trust was not and never has been a party to these proceedings.
    3. No other definition for AWINZ is provided and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were ever AWINZ together.
  2. The accounts submitted , see costs application are for a number of   proceedings in both the High and District Courts, the accounts are intermingled to such an extent that matters pertaining to one litigation has been billed against another.
    1. As pointed out to his honour Peter McCutcheon (18/5/2012) and Translegal (22/8/2012) for whom items appear on this set of accounts were never involved in the District Court proceedings.
  3. The items under the heading 31/7/12  refer to a set of accounts  where not one of  the  items is Quantified as to value , it is  therefore impossible to  quantify cost claimed and the only conclusion is that  and the  sum of  $369  is ‘made up” .
  4.     The item  29 august which  is claimed as $390   states “Attendance on file regarding strike out application;” whereas on the accounts on which this entry is based  shows that  this billing was  for other matters  as well yet the entire sum has been charged  the  indemnity cost application .
  5.     The accounts dated 28/9/12 cannot be made to add up to $6232.50 this sum is in excess of $1035 of the total.
  6.     There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
  7.      Further the affidavit  in  support of  the strike out  which consisted of nothing  but  judgments which were readily available  was charged out  at $1805.
  8.  The calculations for  costs on the basis of the figures given in the attached accounts  made out to AWINZ do not add up  to  the sum claimed . The total  which  can be established is $12,434 and this sum includes items which  did not
  9. The lawyers for the defendants were aware of the fact that matters were charged out incorrectly as this was drawn to their attention through the submissions on costs, they did not choose to seek a correction and are therefore guilty of negligence.

In short  If you can understand Maths better than law    then you can deduce that  their Maths and  Law are on a Par.  its best seen in this document Cost itemised 

as can be seen there is a mere difference of  some $4,000  and a lot of unquantifiable items thrown in at that..  would IRD accept such accounting..  don’t think so !!!!!

I must congratulate Mr Neutze  he has proved that in New Zealand   it is possible  To win a court proceedings 

1.       with people who have no right to make a claim

  1. without producing any evidence at all

He has proved that you can take defamation proceedings and

1.       not need to produce one statement  allegedly made by the  other party

2.       Not show  who  these statements were made to

3.       Not show any alleged words in context

4.       Not allow the other party to prove the truth of the statements

5.       Deny  the   accused   any type of hearing  including a formal proof

6.       Strike out any action which the  accused takes  in an attempt to  get justice

7.       Produce false accounts to the court  for indemnity costs and gets them ( $16,000)   even though he falsehood is pointed out to the court

  1. Mislead the court and succeed.

The actions of  Mr Neutze have been such  that  I have to question   the integrity of the officers of the court  and  their responsibility to the law society   I will once again  make a complaint  stand by and watch the law society condone  this actions.

It should not  cost a whistle blower  on serious corruption the obscene  sum that it has cost me

We don’t  play Monopoly with people who cheat  so why should we let lawyers cheat in court !n

 

This must surely be case law  on how  to  win any case in New Zealand    a  country with proud sporting traditions  clean and green but where “justice”  keeps  it all under wraps.