Transparency New Zealand

IN 2006  a law clerk was working at home as  for  Brookfields , she was  allegedly approached by Two Barristers   Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley  who  were pretending to be trustees of a trust which had never existed .

They had a dilemma you see in 1999 Neil Wells   had written legislation for the animal welfare act   and  had been an advisor to the select committee . He then made a fraudulent application to the  minister claiming that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed , it was in reality  just a fancy name  that he had thrown about the  offices of  MPI  for a while so that those who did not check  got used to  the sound of the name .

In the application  Wells claimed that AWINZ was  formed by trust deed , but then in letters to the minister he avoided sending  a copy of  the deed .  he said that the one deed had been sent off to be registered.

The  lawyers for the MPI believed him  and never checked  and then  in 2006   some one had  registered a trust with the same name   which  embarrassingly showed that Neil wells had told a lie .

But rather than deal with the lie   and  hold Wells accountable to the law   it was far easier to instruct a law clerk to put some pressure on the woman involved.. One Grace Haden

Grace Haden is the villain in this piece , she questioned corruption , this threatened not only the  fraud that  was AWINZ but also  the ability of the  government to verify its facts  and uphold the  law.

So the heroine of the story   enters .  “I will fix this” she said   and  takes it upon her self to  ring the wicked witch of the west  late one friday night and threatens her PI licence if she does not change the name  of the trust which she and others had legally incorporated . ( blackmail in most peoples books )  The witch is not a push over   so our heroine sends some   emails to  drive her threats home .

The  witch   using her magic powers locates our heroines  home  and on arriving there on her japanese power driven  broom stick  is confronted by   two  children  who say ” mummy is not home’   and calls daddy.   Daddy  sees  to it that the police serve a trespass notice  on the witch , last thing you want is to   intimidate some one and them have them call at your house to see if they can resolve the problem.

Next step is a lawyers letter .. Lawyers letters don’t need to be factual , they  just have to threaten in a nice way  , leaving no options and the best thing is to get a lawyer who  does not check what he is signing so  the letter is put in front of Davis Neutze of Brookfields .

The  letter is  sent  by the lawyers  who claim to represent  the fictional organisation which cannot legally    contract to a lawyer , they effectively  claim that the trust formed in march 2000  made  the application for law enforcement powers  in 1999 . they   go   totally  off on  a tangent  about  AWINZ being a charity , the reality  is that  it was not a charity , it was not a trust  it was  a name  that Neil Wells used when he    took on the law enforcement role using the staff of waitakere city council .  He establishing a bogus Trust for personal profit.  As the UN call it   public office for private gain

But who cares  this Is NZ the land of opportunity and   the magic of being a barrister means that one can do what ever they like as they are trusted and believed  and no one must never say anything   bad  let alone the truth  .If you do  then you will be crucified in court..  yes that  is what happened to the  the witch and  years  later they are still trying to tie her to a dunking chair.. hard to  believe that this is  2018

The fact that Wyn Hoadley and Neil Wells   did not have a trust deed , nor any other documents which could show that they  were  trustees  was beside the point.. the fact that they were barristers   made it all leggit . A law degree makes people honest    Yeh!!!!!

So the  humble law clerk  dashes out and in August 2006  becomes a barrister too (She got a practicing certificate to be a barrister )    and prepares the statement of claim  which will force the  witch of the west to  give up the name so that  the two barristers  can  perform their magic and   make the problem  and the lies  Vanish

David Neutze signs the letter  he doesn’t even notice that the trust deed he refers to is not there  , had he seen the trust deed he may have asked questions  like why is Wyn Hoadleys name not on it  and how and when did she  become a   trustee (   Not by any legal process we can assure you .. pure magic .. poof one minute she is not on the trust the next   she is the chair woman )

This was not the only magic    the trust deed which was missing in 2000 see page 6 bottom , has miraculously  reappeared , been renumbered  to eliminate the clause referred to   and now has two versions   one  sent to the witch the other  to MPI .  MPI didn’t even notice that there were lots of pages on their one not signed.. but why should that matter  .. don’t want to look too close do we  its just a bit of paper that ticks the box  after all .

The real magic had been concealed as the people who  allegedly signed the  deed  had never met , never passed a resolution   and never held funds. AWINZ was a total fiction .

We were told that our heroine prepared the  statement of claim  which  was a wonderful piece of fiction

• The first plaintiffs are the current trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand,
  (‘AWINZ 2000), an unincorporated charitable trust which was formed pursuant to a trust
  deed executed on 1 March 2000.

the reality of the trust is recorded by Maf   by 2008 the trust had met three times   2004  2006  twice.  By its own terms the trust  ceased to exist in 2003  when no  trustees were reappointed .  Hoadley had become  a “ trustee on  10 may  when the deed was missing , by a clause that does not exist in the copy of the deed  and by no visible legal means , the  audit report records AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . The lies in the application  Have been totally  condoned by MPI .

• In November 1999, the second plaintiff wrote to the Minister of Agriculture advising that he
  was seeking approval for AWINZ 2000, which was at that time not yet formally constituted
  by way of trust deed,

this from the application audit report

Question  which  statement is false  the SOC, the  application  or perhaps BOTH

• The third defendant is a trust formed pursuant to a trust deed executed in 2006 and
  incorporated pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act 1 957 on 27 April 2006.

Note that this was formed before Wyn Hoadley  came on board with Neil Wells, they also had this letter from the registrar of trusts  lawyer 

• Everything was twisted and contorted   we had set up a website   to  advertise the fact that AWINZ  was not  legitimate. It was using  waitakere city council dog control officers to collect revenue for its Boss Neil Wells .
• He had re branded the building to be  confusingly similar to   the fictional AWINZ 

Now  12 years  later  and  with Neil Wells dead  , our herone  is still at it  she decided to go after the witches  PI licence, because  she thought it gave the  witch powers of magic  like being able to find people .  She   ensured that  there was no point in the witch appealing the decision of the person  posing as the pspla( he was not a lawyer as required ) and his misguided belief   that the witch was a conspiracy theorist and  therefore should not be   an investigator .

the complaint to the  Pspla  show that her aim was to discredit the  witch   the  new PSPLA  decided to have a hearing in Wellington before  she even considering  all the submissions  submissions   this is my response response to complaint_and the witches  submissions in response 

It is of note that  every time   our heroine contacted the witch  she  has made a threat   against the  witches professional licence, now that she has  have given up my licence she is  taking the witch  to court . for defamation . what does this woman want !!!! she doesn’t want to settle she doesn’t want to say  what  has been said that is wrong .But you guessed it she wants $$$$$$ about $30,0000   worth  $20,000  as compensation   ..  for what ?    because the  truth hurts .

She has proved  that you do need defamation papers to put in front of Google to have your name removed  from the web https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16567636

Is this how the court is  going to  be  used in New Zealand ? is this  going to be condoned  by our judges..      I will keep you posted

So there you have it folked if the truth hurts and you want to remove it from  Google  you need to take defamation  action   and you can continue to ensure that  the bad spot light   fixes on  others  while you  conceal the truth about yourself .

mean  while we  continue to  live in the perception

don’t be fooled   The reality is no fairy  tale

The evidence  will follow   there is a ton of it    the buildings above  are council buildings which Neil Wells re branded to appear like his  fake animal welfare trust

the logo at the top right is the logo he used on his  fake trusts letter heads . It made every one think that it was a real organisation   and owned the property  it was in fact the council pound. Where Neil wells  was manager  he got the job without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest  see his job application  here  and the  documents he had signed in his capacity  for the fake trust MOU waitakere 

MAF in a an audit had trouble differentiating  the  approved organisation from the council  see  the audit report

 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.