corruption
Penny Bright .. why we need a lot more people like her
September 5, 2018 | 
Author 
It is exactly 12 years ago today when I met Penny , I remember the date well , because it was her birthday. We are the most unlikely mates, I am the ex cop and she the activist . In the spring bock tour we were on opposite sides of the fence , she had an opinion but my uniform prevented me from having one.
Since leaving the Police and Becoming a Private investigator I stumbled onto corruption. I thought it would be a simple task to bring the lack of existence of a Law enforcement body to the notice of the government, but I was wrong and encountered a cover up of gigantic and unbelievable proportion that has apparently called for a 12 year character assassination of me which continues to this day . Heaven forbid that some one should believe me or look at the evidence, then some very prominent people would be taking up beds in our prisons .
With Penny’s activism and union background and my police prosecution and investigative Background we formed a very close relationship of mutual support trust and respect.
Penny and I are on the same page with corruption, we do not always agree on everything but the good part is that when we talk about our different views we often find that there is yet another angle ,one neither of us anticipated.
I have learned heaps from Penny , having been in Government service you come out rather blinkered and Penny helped me see beyond the things that public service blind you to .
In return helped Penny with my prosecution skills ,I remember her coming to me because she had been thrown out of the town hall and arrested for trespass , I said whoa that is a public place you can’t be trespassed from a public place , there is specific legislation with regards to removal from council meetings and so Penny learned from me and won some 22 cases of trespass .
We took on projects individually and worked on others together one day we ended up in Rodney Hide’s office and together learned from him of the magic of the privacy act. So obvious once you know .
It is hard to believe that when we met in 2006 that the internet was still pretty much in its infancy , all sorts of things were being loaded on line , like the companies register and those who had been hiding their business connections in the files of the companies office suddenly found their business exposed . we unraveled the committee for auckland and saw how the tail was wagging the dog, this was he start of the super city and it was all about $$$$.
I started to blog and we soon found that transparency was not welcome . What it did however was to bring people together and we built a network of people who needed help on the way, a network of mutual support and information sharing .
Penny rang me one day about the Tamaki redevelopment company limited and together we worked through the quagmire of trading names, domain names and fake names which facilitate the transfer of a massive government housing stock to a company other than the one where it was intended to go . We cared bt apparently no one else did , but that is something that one day will become obvious .
We have made headway on corruption, the corruption we saw occurs through using fake identities , false names and fictional trusts. it is not on a person identity thing but using fake entities . the banks are now checking the validity of companies and the directors and shareholders, but you can still register a company and have a liquidation through a liquidator who is totally fictional and hopefully soon the questions will be asked about the tamaki redevelopment company Limited, Tamaki regeneration limited and the fictional tamaki regeneration company limited which , to add to the confusion is is referred to as TRC
see also Corruption Alert ..Tamaki Regeneration limited and Crown Entities , Fictional entities and making things up as they go
I knew that fictional organisations existed after questioning the existence of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand which was in reality nothing more than a trading name used by Neil Wells. Wells was the barrister who drafted and was adviser to the select committee on the animal welfare bill which, when passed facilitated the granting of coercive law enforcement powers . Wells made a fraudulent application to the minister and subsequently obtained this law enforcement power for his fictional organisation this was covered up by his associates in court action against me to re write history. despite many requests this has been covered up
Penny came to court with me and stood beside me more times than I can mention , no other friend has stood beside me like she has .
The state of corruption : New Zealand Questioning corruption is not for the faint hearted especially in New Zealand , because we are repeatedly told that there is no corruption , we must be delusional, ignoring corruption is liek ignoring cancer while penny was fighting corruption she did not notice the tumours in her own body .
Penny You are going to have to get better we still need you , I have had plenty of friends at deaths door and they are here today , You are a fighter your work is not done .
Get better girl and Onward and upward there is much more work to be done
Hugs
Grace
Vivienne Holm avoids important questions
Below is the email received from Vivienne Holm with regards to the post Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
I have published the message in full with my response I have also updated the earlier posts to reflect Holms views
the questions which I have and would like to see an answer to are
-
1. Why did Two Barristers approach a resource management Law clerk who was working for brookfields from home for legal advice ?
see Hoadley decision ” Mrs Hoadley on behalf of AWINZ instructed Brookfields as a source of independent legal advice.”
see Hoadley response ” AWINZ Trustees resolved to seek legal advice and assistance from Brookfields Barristers and Solicitors.”
Nick Wright in his response narrative of facts states ” Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”
Vivienne Holm Told the law society investigator that she was a law clerk see copy of ltr 11 May to Holm with file notes of conversation SAQ and Holm 18 May 2011
The law society in their decision on Holm 4192 completed decision Vivienne Holm state
6] In 2006 Vivienne Holm worked at Brookfields as a law clerk. She did not have a practising certificate until 15 August 2006 when she became an employed solicitor at that firm. At that time she was married to Mr Nick Wright, about whom Mrs Haden has also complained, and came into contact with Mrs Haden because she knew Neil Wells.
next question
2. In her complaint to the Private security Licencing authority Holm claims “First, I held a practising certificate throughout 2006 as confirmed in the email from the NZLS attached annexure H.
I enquired with the law society and was told that they did not have the records as the records in 2006 were held by a different society which folded when the new legislation came in .( 2008)
I stand by my Enquiries at the time and the findings that the law society came to, ie that you were a law clerk and did not hold a practicing certificate until august I cant see what the big deal is other than that you too can see that there is no logic in two barristers instructing a law clerk. the email copy which you sent is not evidence , it is hearsay and therefore rejected .
3. my contact with you was in 2006 when you phoned me and intimidated me and attempted to blackmail me by making threats against my private investigators licence if we did not change the name of out legally incorporated trust
Why do you consider this defamatory when the evidence speaks for itself .
see emails from vivienne parre
Note Vivienne has been married a number of times her names have been Parre Holm and Wright
4. in the emails mentioned above you say ” I simply wish to alert you to the fact that in my view your registration of the name “AWINZ” and your website are illegal.” what is the basis for this ? we proved through registration and our website clearly proved that we had incorporated to prove that the AWINZ with law enforcement authority did not exist , this was of major public interest.
evidence was sent to you from the registrar of companies see here
So how is it illegal to prove that something which plays such a pivotal role in society is a fraud and why did you go all out and sustain an attack on me for a further 12 years to keep this fraud concealed
5. you contacted me via netsafe to support a complaint under the harmful digital communications act with regards to a post on transparency in 2011 which predates the act . If there was anything incorrect with this why not simply communicate with us and seek a correction .Why did it take till 2016 for you to contact me again
Next contact almost exactly a year later
6. in december 2017 you again contacted me again you made threats against my PI licence , why make threats when if something had been lost in interpretation with net safe and myself it could have been resolved with simple non threatening communications, each time you come at me in the most aggressive manner . Every contact contains a threat of one sort or another .
Despite a most civil response and the promise to provide clarification you made a complaint to the private security licencing authority alleging very serious wrong doing for which you did not provide any evidence .
You even tried to imply something sinister in my arrival at your house in 2006 when I attempted to seek resolution as a result of your threats
7. you state “I note that I gave you a letter from the New Zealand Law Society rebutting your claims about me weeks ago. ” I do not recall getting such a letter are you referring to annexure H ? if not please send me the letter you are referring to happy to look at it and publish it
Now you are threatening defamation again , and no, I don’t know that you are suing me , I do not assume such things . I have repeatedly asked you to point out what you think is defamatory and you will not tell me. Resolution apparently not high o n your list as you know you will have to eat humble pie . as I have said its never too late to apologize
May I remind you that defamation is a two edged sword and at this stage it appears that I have the evidence that you have been defaming and blackmailing me To tell someone to change the name of a legally formed trust or risk losing their professional licence is black mail I have the evidence that I have been speaking the truth .
The fact which matters is that AWINZ the approved organization was not the same as the trust which you claim you were instructed by.
Please Vivienne You are a policy analyst it defies belief that you don’t know about identity 101
- an unincorporated trust which does not have a trust deed, trustees or assets cannot make an application for law enforcement powers
- Neil Wells did not have a trust deed in March 2000 to give the minister a copy, this was two weeks after two copies had allegedly been signed
- Why was Wells claiming that AWINZ existed in 1998 , if it existed it could have incorporated 10 times over , but he was using his position as advisor to the select committee to feel every one so that he could make a fraudulent application to the minister.
- It is this fraud that you have strived so hard to cover up , I can prove it and I welcome your defamation action to prove the truth. the reality is that due diligence would have prevented 12 years of hell for me.
- Last time you initiated definition proceedings with your then husband Nick never proved the content of the statement of claim, it is full of lies and seriously misleads the court , you had my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out so that you could win.
- I call that dirty law it is against the rule of law and only unethical lawyers act in that way, the law society investigated but because this transition over the implementation of new legislation you got out of it this is the decision for nick wright decision
- It is of note that Nick Wright wright response narrative of facts wrote on a letter head for a fictional company a undefined trading name something which cannot enter into a contract and after he had been a committed patient which appeared to escape the law societies notice as to his suitability to hold a practicing certificate.. it gets better all the time see] WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NEW ZEALAND POLICE) [2017] NZHC 2865 [22 November 2017]
as a subtle reminder as the lawyer you are obliged to comply with section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
Any way your email in response to the post is below and my response back to you to which you replied “Thanks for the response Grace, that’s fine.”
From: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 5:09 p.m.
To: ‘Vivienne Holm’ <karen161970@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
Thank you Vivienne
No I will not accept service email
I am happy to make any corrections and will update the posts using your emails as reference.
I am happy to resolve anything but I suspect you are looking for a fight .
The reality is that I checked with the law society and I have been told by them that they do not have the records for 2006 as this was a different society
You escaped the wrath of the law society because the act changed in 2008
I am happy to put an Asterix and a foot note to the posts to clarify your view and the evidence which I obtained at the time and the findings of the law society
I cannot understand why you think that a simple letter can over turn the findings of the law society committee , and you call me unhinged !!!!
I will welcome your defamation proceedings it will once and for all blow the lid on AWINZ .
It is simply beyond me that a policy analyst cannot discern what a trust is or what a lie to the minister is
You have concealed corruption you know that you have to attack me because you are so scared of your own neck
This is nothing more than vexatious you have built up to this over the years probably because you see this way of getting some money due to all your pro bono mindless work.
Sit down Vivienne and have a very good hard think about the reality of AWINZ the law enforcement authority which the trust deed 1.3.2000 which had not been seen prior to 2006 concealed
Also check out the lies that Neil wells told the minister and ask yourself why you never questioned how wyn Hoadley became a trustee of a trust which was missing a deed had no assets and had never met prior to 10 may 2010
Why would two barristers instruct a law clerk working from home and why did you tell Sally Quigley that you were a law clerk.
Open some of the evidence on the site Vivienne look at it do your job you have been covering up for a fictional organisation by consistently attacking me .
Your credibility would be enhanced if you looked at the things which simply do not stack up and say .. oops sorry
I will have no reason to blog about you and AWINZ once the attacks on me stop.
I have the evidence , I will be asking for security for costs and I will get a top lawyer so be prepared .
Will put this up on transparency tomorrow. In the interest of transparency
Its never too late to apologise , this can be resolved amicably you just need to stop attacking me
happy to sit down with a mediator if you pay
Regards
Grace Haden
Copy of letter to Vivienne Holm -Policy analyst – land information NZ –
Vivienne You could have made a massive difference to many lives by asking questions in 2006 , instead I felt bullied by you when you concealed the corruption that was AWINZ.
AWINZ was not just any old organisation there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them ( RNZSPCA the other ) AWINZ did not exist you covered it up and 12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough.
The purpose of this open letter is to get some issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the government directly as a contractor and apparently as an employee For LINZ.
You are reportedly a lobbyist and as such I see the connection between you and Wells .
see Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
As such it is in the public interest that you act with integrity and that your actions are exposed .
As to integrity it is my professional opinion is that your does not reach the threshold for a public servant It is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to damage some ones reputation so that corruption could be concealed.
I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by giving up my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years in an attempt to discredit me . You say so yourself in the complaint to the pspla COMPLAINT DATED 23 JANUARY 2018
Your complaint in January was in my opinion totally malicious and vexatious yet I was supposed to travel to Wellington the following week so that you could have a go at me in person at a ” disciplinary ” hearing. presumably for the defamation claim you were setting me up for.
You have also alleged that you are preparing a defamation prosecution but refuse to say how I have defamed you or given an opportunity to make a correction .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .
In short your actions with the PSPLA appears to me to have been for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .
I have never met you Vivienne but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link with Neil Wells was that you both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be kept , Like protecting corruption rather than exposing it .
Last year I suspected that Neil Wells was the corrupt barrister who is mentioned in this decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the money he took , perhaps that unsettled you because you had gone all out to defend him and spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth but by denying me the right to a fair trial and a defence you influenced the court and a most defamatory judgement of me emerged when the judge believed the spin the lies and misinformation Nick Wright put to the court.
The resulting Judgement has served you well and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to create a false impression that I am a nasty person, and you are the one who complains of defamation ! You have done everything you can they should not believe my allegations of corruption. It has worked so far but then you thought I would have given up by now , No I have not . with the spotlight currently on rape through the me too movement , corruption will be next this is like being abused for 12 years .
I suspect that in fearing that the tide was turning, you made a complaint against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious and as a result I have given up my licence as it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing attacks by those I suspect that you have encouraged to make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA I have eliminated that avenue for harassment .
You first approached me at 9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june 2006 you rang my home number and told me to change the name of the legal trust which I was a trustee of or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence , you followed this up with an email at 11 pm making similar threats .
You were working from your home as a law clerk at the time for Brookfields which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner of .
You now falsely claim that you had a practicing certificate but the law society investigations Here and the decision here prove otherwise .
there is evidence that you lied to the PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” this reflects on your level of integrity
One has to wonder why Neil Wells a Barrister and Wyn Hoadley a barrister would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter and why she is now rewriting the past about her status as a law clerk. !
The trust which I was a trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand now called the ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively that no other legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that the Approved Organisation by the same name was a fraud. see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging that we were competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive Wells of donations . You had the ability to twist facts then that skill you apparently have retained .
This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time, the writer now believes that Vivienne Holm is helping to expose this corruption by giving her an opportunity to call all witnesses to court to address the defamation claim brought By Holm . We are grateful for this opportunity and apologize for the harsh words we used when we were pushed into a situation of having defamation threats made against us while having to go to Wellington to be cross examined by the person making litigation threats. Documents in support as attached .submissions in response and emails coa
Vivienne Holm claims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do” Really! at 9.45 pm at night when this is what the law society reported in their finding 
So why not simply hang up when I answered or say sorry wrong number but you went on to intimidate and followed it up with threatening emails at 11 pm on Friday night! You used the names Vivienne Parre and Vivienne Wight at the time you now use Vivienne Holm and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is your middle name and date of birth ( not very clever )
You never took any notice of the letter which the registrar sent you in reply to your complaint see here
You may not be aware of the significance of this but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan
AWINZ did not exist despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since at least 1998 , Tom Didovich was working on this fraud with him and paid for the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees see also this file
In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ Neil Wells wrote on 22 november 1999
Now apparently, according to you , I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what you think a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?
I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ? well it might surprise you that when Neil Wells made this application it was three months before the date of the trust deed he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until june 2006 when miraculously there were two ( but they were not the same )
Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a group of people applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which does not exist and does not have a deed,
How did the trustees pass a resolution to apply for law enforcement powers ?
how does the law of contracts apply in this instance what liability would there be for the individuals in running such an organisation .. NONE cause they were not involved
why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200 what being an approved organisation meant, surely they would have known they allegedly ran one for 6 years .. or did they ?
In correspondence to the minister Neil Wells wrote in 2000.
A person such as myself who according to your slanderous comment has ” limited intellectual capabilities” this means that
- there is a trust deed
- it has a clause 20 (a) see the trust deed he produced it only goes to 19 there is no 20 or 20 (a)
- there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
- It is not available because the original has been sent for registration .( he knowe that only copies were sent he lied )
The reality is that Neil Wells deliberately lied to the minister not one of those statements is true .
Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by become a body corporate ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person in its own right and has existence apart from the trustees ) Wells had incorporated two just months earlier ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
He knew that only copies of the deed were sent and in 2006 we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were different version 1 and version 2
Version 2 was sent to MAF , the front page and the signature pages are original and the middle pages have been switched out.. Do policy analysts care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone that ? are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?
All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the years but you and him continued your vexatious attacks on me.
Have you not read section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the rule of law you were an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate you are cunning .
You prepared the statement of claim and Nick Wright your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work I wont be bullied
In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006 when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here Holm Decision
It obviously became too much for Nick when he became a committed patient but despite this he continued to practice law until june 2011 when he was still acting past that date despite not having a practicing certificate 
Nick has now left law , I was particularly taken with the poem he read on his face book page about the wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true
Getting back to you and your complaint I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority , But no matter what I said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before you had served papers on me MY response is here
When ever you submit more information you introduce more misinformation and childish action as can be seen in your Vivienne Holm submissions in reply
On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate, for the first time since 2011 you allege that there is an issue, then when I correct it for you, you scream to the PSPLA .. “she has changed it she is disobeying the pspla.”
For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, In reality there is no difference to the situation with Wyn Hoadley see the decision re her Hoadley decision and her response Hoadley response
I have no legal obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions for companies which were not under my PI licence .
You are right not to respond to my submissions, to do so would cause you to put your foot in it further .
If you think I am defaming you tell me how and where , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA are too similar you have been there all along ensuring that I am never out of court. How childish can you get for the allegations about me speaking to your kids They came to the door in 2006 I asked for their mother.. you even managed to make that sound like the crime of the century .
Not long after I had an anonymous complaint to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson who coincidentally claimed I had used those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia
I will not give up until You are convicted as a lawyer your obligation was to the rule of law you have been a lawyer off an on since since 1996 you cannot plead ignorance and I have every reason to believe that you have coordinated the attacks on me to discredit me
It all started with the Statement of claim which you and your then husband Nick Wright filed for the fictional AWINZ
The very first paragraph to the court is a lie and the lies just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this Nick just stood there and lied i was denied a defence and that is called JUSTICE !
You did not check to see if AWINZ existed You had evidence that we had legitimate trust had body corporate status but you gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption you take the cake
Neil Wells conspired with MAF to ensure that information was withheld until after the court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released this vital evidence included the audit report which proved that AWNZ was a sham .
This was later confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society with this letter 
What is missing is that the application for approved status under the legislation which Wells had written and advised on , was made by AWINZ on 22 November 1999. so how could trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application ?
Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees only Wells signature was on the application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity in its own right . as you can see the signatory of this crown law opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI Peter Mc Carthy
the trust deed which first saw daylight in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting on 10 May states that the trustees required to be reappointed after three years
the alleged trustees of this 2000 trust did not hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005 and no meeting had occured since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?
Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.” this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 
So this woman who is supposedly a Barrister seeks legal advice from a resource management law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation your specialty
Wyn Hoadley also falsely claims that AWINZ resolved to seek professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution it is not in the minutes!
Wyn was also not appointed by any legal method she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she binding herself into ???? would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ???? it simply defies belief. These people are lawyers !!!!!! or should I say Liars
By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to address the malicious attack on me which you state in paragraphs 22 and 23 of your complaint , ie to take away any credibility my PI licence could give.
The good news is that a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take Translegal and its director Gary Swan for example they have a PI licence yet swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something which is apparently condoned .see this and these Translegal document server jailed . Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.
Nor does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail and ability to find information is a skill I have, a skill which apparently you lack despite you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion in being a corrupt former lawyer specialising in intimidation and discrediting people to win at any cost.
I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make By not replying within 5 days you are confirming to the accuracy of this post
Historical references https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016
Additional information added 2019 .
a decision from the Ontario Supreme court has been forwarded to us ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS it highlights the issues of private law enforcement agencies having equivalent powers of the police with regards to search and seizure.
AWINZ was such an organisation except it went one step better, it was totally unidentifiable, there was no legal person openly associated with it so that it could not be sued. As such there was no accountability to the public , read the news items
Court strikes down policing powers of Ontario animal-protection officers
Ontario judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge finds OSPCA enforcement powers to be unconstitutional
OSPCA police powers ruled unconstitutional
Province given a year to revamp OSPCA powers
Ontario SPCA’s Police Powers Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
Posted in accountability, AWINZ, corruption, identity, law society, scams, suzie dawson, trusts and societies | 
No Comments »
Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation
Just three weeks after Samuel North closed the doors to Muse eatery the company catering Limited which operated the business muse eatery has gone into liquidation .
It would appear that the share holder
HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand
has placed the company into liquidation and appointed their own liquidators .
Samuel North was the share holder of the company but moved the share holding into a trust in april 2016 . It has all been very predictable and North continued to sell Grab one and groupon deals even after he knew he was closing, we believe that this is fraudulent.
Our suggestion is that if you are owed money that you attend the liquidators watershed meeting when it is announced and ensure that independent liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one appointed by North ) .
When a company appoints its own liquidators the liquidation is likely not to be as transparent or fair as it would be if the liquidator is working for a creditor .
It is our honest opinion that the Liquidators will sell on the Chattels, at a nominal price and the phoenix will fly again when North purchases them .
Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and it is believed that many of its assets actually belonged to muse.
We have been contacted by many persons who are owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are former staff members who have unresolved grievances .
Samuel north has removed the face book page, the linked in page and the web site .
samuel north _ LinkedIn messages
samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators
Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn
the old web site is still viewable here
Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.
Any one knowing where North is please send an email to us through our comment section and we will share the information but will keep your details confidential
We will happily collate information to ensure that Justice is done
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation
Update
Samuel North has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz> and is bleating defamation
We Hope the barrister gets paid .
Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand
Dear David
I am delighted to see your latest news release in my in box Download Media Release Document
I have been a persecuted whistleblower for the past 11 years . I was heartened by the presentation given by the Transparency international president and I certainly hope that Transparency International New Zealand accepts the importance of whistleblowers .
I was not an employee of the organisation I blew the whistle on but in My line of work as a Private Investigator I discovered that our government had given coercive law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation . I thought it would be simple to bring it to their attention and was not prepared for the onslaught that followed .
For the past 11 years , my family and myself have paid a very high price , I even tried to join transparency International but was rejected by your organisation because ” As noted in previous applications, the TINZ Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases”
In desperation I setup my own organisation which now has a massive following I called it transparency New Zealand LTD
The matter which I blew the whistle on was not rocket science. Its basic fraud using a fictional identity
While the country is jumping up and down about an address in Mt Eden used for election purposes and some extra flat mates we are rather ignoring this massive public fraud , how can we make fish of one and fowl of the other.
The origins are with labour and it continued under national . Kennedy Graham once met me and we talked about y issue at length .. he did nothing yet he is miffed with the relatively minor indiscretions of his leader .
The fact that this Fraud has gone on for so long without any one looking at it shows that the fraud situation in NZ is far worse than any one can imagine. This case proves how in reality those in power condone fraud .
I hope that transparency International looks at the issues that whistleblowers face , We don’t expect you to do anything more for us than to look at our cases and see how they impact on the reality of the integrity of the public service.
A public service that ignores and thereby conceals corruption has no integrity
Neil Edward Wells had close ties to MAF ( now MPI ) he met with them regularly and as a member of one of the advisory boards saw an opportunity to write the legislation to update the Animals Protection Act 1960
In writing the bill he saw an opportunity Not only did he write the bill to update legislation he also used it to facilitate his own business plan see here the document drawn up in 1996 clearly shows his intention to make money from this.
He goes on to write the no 1 bill for the new legislation without declaring his conflict of interest.
A second bill is introduced by National .
Both bills go before the select committee and again without declaring his conflict of interest Neil Wells becomes ” independent” adviser to the select committee .
Simultaneously he was paving the way for his business to line up with the legislation which was being passed . Use of confidential information for private use
He set up courses at UNITEC for training the inspectors for the new legislative requirements, a role he was to take on personally for $$$ .
He spoke of an organisation which would have the same powers as the RNZSPCA and he called this AWINZ ( Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .This organisation existed only in his mind.
When the act passed into law he made a fraudulent application in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand see the application here
AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form, there were no trustees , there was no trust deed yet he called himself a trustee and made out through the application that AWINZ existed.
In 2006 I did a Pro bono job for an employee at Waitakere city council , Lyn Macdonald ( the bird lady ) questioned why the buildings and vehicles had been rebranded see here 
and why she had to ” volunteer” her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over her council duty;-dog control
Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a copy of the alleged trust deed and it was only then that Neil Wells produced one and I suspect that the ink was still drying . He gave me a copy see here and sent a different copy to Maf see here . Note that both are different to the one attached to the application. To me this proves that the man had absolutely no hesitation in forging documents .
I have truckloads of documents and have taken this matter to the Ombudsman, ministers court and have found that I have been under attack because of it.
I have simplified the whole matter and ordinary people get it they understand but those in MPI and in so called positions of accountability don’t look at the facts they look at the reputation of the persons, some I fear are acting in self interest as some where at a previous time they had a finger in the pie and covering up also saves their own necks .
I have been at the receiving end of an 11 years smear campaign while Neil Wells promoted himself as being holier than though . That was until he was proved to be corrupt but he then had the advantage of having his name suppressed.
The fraud in a nutshell
Over the years I have learned to simplify it , I also have more documents available now than I had in the early years but ordinary people get it so why do the ombudsmen lawyers etc not understand that
- The application is fraudulent and resulted in a fictional organisation getting law enforcement powers.
- The applicant AWINZ did not exist … no trust deed had been signed , no persons had ever met to approve this trust deed or had agreed to be trustees to this deed
- The persons who were allegedly trustees had never met never passed a resolution never consented to being a law enforcement authority , never took part in the operations or decision making or application for “ awinz “ to become an approved organisation .
- Neil Wells concocted a trust in 2006 and backdated the trust deeds and signed them claiming that they had gone missing. But the date was out by three months so how could a trust which allegedly formed 1.3.2000 make an application 22.11.1999. as can be seen the deeds are different
- Then he supplied a copy of the deed to Maf except he had to change the details of the deed again and another deed was concocted and sent to them.
With regards to the Waitakere city council
- He made an application for the position of dog and stock control manager see here and effectively contracted to himself for the services of AWINZ See the document MOU Waitakere where Wells signs this On behalf of the fictional Animal welfare institute of New Zealand with Tom Didovich the person whose job he was to take over .
Note: that there is no mention of the conflict of interest in the application for the job , he treats AWINZ as though it is a legal person separate from himself when in reality he is the only person associated with AWINZ and this is in reality a trading name for himself.
- He rebrands the building the Waitakere city council dog control building to appear to be his fictional organisation
- there is of course much more but his will do this relates to the public and public wrong doing
this could have been easily dealt with .
In the first place MAF did not check they assumed and gave law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation .
secondly like the Joanne Harrison matter Maf relied on Neil wells to provide them with information and directions to ward me off .. I have the emails to prove it
Our internal systems for dealing with this type of offence do not exist and every one was quite happy to stand by while I was beaten up from all angles.
No one knew how to investigate the simple questions which should have been asked are
- Did AWINZ exist when it made the application … NO
- What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing it was an unsigned deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown
- Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
- But we now have a trust deed dates 1.3.200 .. but that is three months after the application how can a trust make an application before it is formed
- When did that deed first come to light.. 2006
- Were any of the alleged trustees apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
- Did Maf have consent from any one else acting on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
- Should MAF have ensured that AWINZ existed legally ..
yes there was a Statutory need for accountability how can there be accountability if the organisation does not exist
122Criteria
(1)The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—
(a)one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal; and
(b)the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
- How could they do this .. they had no idea about identities even the lawyers did not check .. they took Wells word as a barrister for it
- was the trust deed attached to the application in 1999 and the one provided to Maf in 2006 the same.. no therefore consideration of the unsigned deed by Maf was irrelevant.
- Why did Maf not insist on a deed ..Because Neil Wells misled them and they did not check
- Why were the other alleged trustees not involved ..MAF should have contacted these persons and ensured that they were actively involved
- Why were legal names avoided ? If legal names had been used we would all have known who we were dealing with
With respect to Waitakere city council
- Did tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his staff for animal welfare purposes … no
- Didovich signed a MOU should this have been brought to the councils attention..Yes
- Wells applied for Didovich’s Job should he have declared the Mou which he had signed .. yes
- Did Neil Wells work in a situation of gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
- Wells rebranded the building was the logo animal welfare on the building confusingly similar to the logo of the fictional trust ? definitely
New Zealand , how we facilitate sham trusts
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust 
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
I have written to the lawyers involved and again here and here, here, here , the law society by way of regarding the lawyers , the charities commission and again here and here
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
The people posing as trustees here, and here,here, here
attorney general here
I had questions asked in parliament Here wrote to ministers here and here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts
Disparity in crime.. who you know matters
Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand
Questioning corruption in New Zealand.
Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers
The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain
Liquidation as a tool of oppression
shooting the messenger
Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
The right to live and the right to die
Should suicide be discouraged or enabled?
Our view is yes to both depending on who you are
Please click on the link above or here to make a submission prior to Monday 1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others
Submission of Grace Haden
I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator. I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.
Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.
Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but the years erode your strength and you are repeatedly portrayed as a sinister being when in reality you are the opposite.
I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those who drown we have bucket loads of research and we actively strive to reduce the road toll and enforce all sorts of measure and throw tons of money at prevention.
The annual road toll and he drownings are far smaller than the annual suicide rate. And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings will be suicides .
On the one hand our society is reckless with regards to suicide and encourages those who are healthy but stressed commit suicide because of the apparent lack of justice while those who have no hope of ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied this right due to lack of physical capacity.
In our current civil litigation system there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing and is aimed to ensure their entire life collapse around their ears and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will eventually feel that they are just a very bad person .. these are mind games
For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical methods which seek to bully and undermine good people involved in the judicial system part of this is giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be sinister and when the court supports the opposition few will believe that this person is a victim of a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of evidence.
If we were to interview the relatives and friends of a suicide victim I believe that a disproportionate number of incidents would show some kind of legal issue in the background.
Our primitive justice system does not consider emotions and the civil jurisdiction does not have to comply with the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.
On the other hand those who live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life but have the mental capacity to know that future life is futile and will not improve must sit and wait till nature takes over.
If you have a pet and allow it to continue to live in those circumstances you would be prosecuted under the animal welfare act
If you have a pet and bully and torment it so that it shys away from others and finds itself unworthy you could also face prosecution but these tactics are totally acceptable if the victim is a human.
The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us
Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those facing litigation should not be pushed into it
We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the reducing drownings and road toll and if the government will not fund lifesaving medication for those suffering illness or if no remedy is available they should not be forced to die a slow agonising death
Amazingly such an approach will actually reduce our suicide rate by keeping healthy people alive and allowing those terminally ill the right to die .
I wish to be heard on my submissions
New Zealand corruption reality check
Transparency International has just published the corruption index for 2016 and it would appear that NZ is on the downward slide
The herald reported in an article headlined
Stonewalling and strange deals: Has NZ become more corrupt? that New Zealand’s public sector is the most corrupt it has been in almost 20 years
On the other hand we believe that the public sector is very corrupt but we are now getting more exposure on that which has previously been carefully concealed.
Transparency Intentional New Zealand published a Media Release Document in which Susan Snively states
“Our government must act immediately to reestablish New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector”. says Transparency International New Zealand Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its corruption free reputation.”
Snively’s comment proves the short sighted focus of Transparency International New Zealand inc of keeping the corruption free appearance alive.
We can only hope that Transparency International NZ is encouraging our government to take a hard line and enforce the law against those who are corrupt rather than pretend it is not happening.
We support Transparency internationals statement that ” Not one single country anywhere in the world is corruption free ” so why does Susan Snively wish to give New Zealand the apparition of being corruption free? As an economist she apparently sees this as a good move for the economy. We see her efforts as encouraging the concealment of corruption there by making the country a very dangerous place to trade in .
There are two ways to improve the corruption perception index
- convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who are whistle blowers or show any hint of exposing corruption .
- prosecute those who engage in corrupt practices so as to discourage others.
From and economist point of view it is much cheaper to conceal corruption and in New Zealand transparency International NZ incorporated in our opinion appears to play a vital role in the concealment of corruption as its members include the very Public sector agencies whose performance is being rated.
We encourage the truth and transparency when it comes to corruption but Transparency International NZ ‘s Susan Snively appears to have a severe conflict of interst see www.kiwisfirst.com
What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?
NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption
At Last NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption but is this an empty gesture or will corruption be dealt with seriously and not just concealed like it has been in the past ? Time will tell .
We fear that it will be business as usual in the Axminster system operated in NZ where corruption is habitually swept under the carpet.
News of the ratification received virtually no publicity at all instead we had a video and an article of a South Auckland man finding a live caterpillar in supermarket salad bag. Those of us who have grown up with fresh vegetables know that this a possibility if you don’t like bugs in your food go for GE .
So what are we going to do now that the necessary law changes have been made are we going to ignore them and continue to allow the courts to silence those who have asked lawyers to act according to law ? ( more on that later ) .
We are still asking questions with regards to the former crown law lawyer who is now acting in a situation of conflict of interest by turning a blind eye to the corruption of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a fictional organisation which was given wide law enforcement powers because no one checked.
And transparent International New Zealand what are you going to do? provide more statistics to show how well we do while ignoring the elephant in the room ? we must keep the perception alive imagine if people were to embrace reality ? Disaster !
More to come in the mean time here are some links so that you can investigate what the ratification of the UN convention against corruption should mean .
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a multilateral convention negotiated by members of the United Nations. It is the first global legally binding international anti–corruptioninstrument.
read about the convention here
Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption English
|
STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
| New Zealand 8 | 10 Dec 2003 | 1 Dec 2015 |
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (from this link)
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (external link) requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.
New Zealand signed the convention in 2003. It creates:
- arrangements to strengthen international co-operation
- arrangements to prevent the transfer of funds obtained through corruption
- ways of monitoring a country’s compliance with the convention.
The convention requires countries to criminalise corrupt behaviour such as:
- bribery and embezzlement of public funds
- trading in influence
- concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption.
When dealing with the proceeds of corruption, a country must be able to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate those proceeds.
New Zealand is compliant with most of the convention’s provisions. The Ministry of Justice is working on the final necessary steps to bring New Zealand into full compliance.
| United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications: |
Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity
Self-assessment of the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption |
Malcolm North responds and Lawyer gets his facts wrong
Our post MUSE ON ALLEN we reveal the secret to Samuel North’s success. Has met with total acceptance of Malcolm and Samuel North but no so of the lawyer for Muse on Allen XXXXXXXXXXof Johnston Lawrence limited
XXXX immediately filed documents in which he again made very serious and incorrect allegations . see Third Urgent Memorandum of Counsel – 090715 and Affidavit of Judith Louella Jane Burge sworn 9 July 2015
this response was sent to court people have the right to defend themselves against false accusations.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:04 p.m.
To: xxxxxxxx’; ‘Stack, Michaela’
Cc: ‘Jozsef Szekely’; ‘malcolm north’; ‘Samuel North (samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz)’; ‘The Norths’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
Good Morning Michaela
I refer you to the latest post on Transparency New Zealand . Open letter to the minister of small business
I also advise the court that Mr xxxxxxxxx is willfully misdirecting the court as per His honour Justice Collins minute the documents which were provided under rule 8.30 (4) are held in the offices of Duncan Cotterill . They have not been made available to me .
The documents on Transparency were provided by me and as shown in the attachment that Mr xxxxxxxx attached to his legal secretaries affidavit the documents came from the following sources
Page 1. Direct from the plaintiff he had this document in his possessing from the time he purchased the assets.
Page 2 this is available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 3 this is a copy of a document which Jozsef has had in his possession from a date prior to the court proceedings .
Page 4 -10 these are available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 11-54 . these are the documents for the district court proceedings in Which Muse on Allen , whichis currently in liquidating court took against Jozsef for the losses which were incurred in the company based on the 63.4% share holding which the SOC alleged he has , being the majority shares in Muse On Allen the very shares which were unlawfully transferred by Samuel north from Jozsef to himself.
Page 55 a document available through the land transport register
I have repeatedly made Mr xxxxxxxxx aware that the documents did not come from discovery in the high court and indeed it is self evident that they were served free of confidentiality By Malcolm North in the district court .
I appreciate that this may not be convenient for Mr Abricrossow but he should not be using his office to conceal fraud and the evidence is obvious that a fraud has occurred in that Jozsefs shares have been deceitfully removed and withheld using the court.
I remind Mr xxxxxxxxxx that he should be acting in accordance with Section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act.
We have not breached the discovery in the high court and it is an abuse of process form Mr xxxxxxxxxx that allege that .
Regards
Grace Haden
From: malcolm north [mailto:malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 6:10 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen LtdHello Grace
Thanks for the update you haven’t taken any notice of me at all about your grammar ,punctuation and spelling.
Response :Thank you Malcolm did I mention that English is my second language .
On 9 Jul 2015 9:19 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:
Thanks for that .Probably why you can’t understand Szekely walked out of the Restaurant after eleven weeks .Funny how you haven’t told anyone this.
Response :Did he walk or was he pushed. I suspect he walked just like pirate’s made their victims walk the plank. Yes its all Jozsef’s fault because he wouldn’t put up with the bullying. Bullies always blame their victims.
On 9 Jul 2015 11:01 pm, “malcolm north” <malcolm@muserestaurant.co.nz> wrote:
He walked.
Response : Yes he walked….. Straight to his lawyers see letter here letter from lawyer 16Jan
Note: Samuel did an interview in Concrete Playground these are extracts show how he started Muse on Allen the reality is reflected in the fact that he transferred the share holding of 
another chef into his own name and then denied Jozsef any rights . The accounts in 2014 show that there were two share holders in the accounts although Samuel was listed as the 100% share holder on the companies office site .
Jozsef had $64,118 equity in the company while Samuel owed the company $6420 yet Samuel went out a bought a 207 BMW SUV loaned against the company BMW
Remembering this read the article below and remember that Samuel is being acclaimed as begin the youngest Chef in Wellington to OWN a restaurant .. He actually OWNS NOTHING and OWES it all to Jozsef
The opening accounts speak volumes prizes fro those who spot the contributions by Samuel click to enlarge 
This is the real secret to opening your very own restaurant. its called other peoples money .
In our professional opinion it is fraud when you get a person to invest in a company they are the majority share holder and then you move all their shares into the name of a person who makes a living off the company . At the same time the majority share holder is excluded and is sued for the losses incurred by the company.
to put the icing on the cake the losses include the purchase of a 2007 BMW which the person who has no share capital in the company but who has claimed all the shares as his own, uses as his own .
Any way back to Concrete playground
Yup okay that was impressively disastrous. You’ve certainly picked up from there though, you established this place at 21, which is ridiculously young, what gave you the confidence to do that?
SN: My parents gave me really good support, they’ve supported me the whole way through it. Especially my dad, he’s been in business before and really wanted me to do this I think. Probably not so young though. I could have waited a few more years but I was just too keen, too eager to own my own place, even if it was going to be something else. This place actually wasn’t even supposed to be a restaurant – I just wanted to have a bar but it turned out completely differently.
What was behind that huge need to have your own place?
SN: I just really hated working for people to be honest. I hated getting told what to do all the time. It was driving me crazy. I was just like fuck, what am I doing? I just wanted to do my own thing.
Starting a business so young, was it kind of hard to get people to take you seriously?
SN: Yeah it was really hard, especially in the first year. I’d hired all these young people who were like fuck it, he’s 21 what the fuck does he know? It made me realise that I needed to be hiring the right people who were going to support me and who wanted to listen to me. I find that actually hiring older and more mature is better. I’ve got a lot of older staff now. They’re still in their like, thirties and twenties and stuff but they are passionate about the restaurant, the food and the service.
We also include the some real feed back with Samuel’s responses which we captured before it was removed .. they
speak for themselves..click to enlarge they originate from Trip advisor
