corruption

Vivienne Holm Responds But I have Important questions which have not been answered

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. 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  is no thigh on 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  and 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

 

 

Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption

Vivienne  You could have made a massive difference to  many lives by  asking questions in 2006 , instead you chose to bully     to conceal 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  it did not exist  you covered it up  and you 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 .

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 you have none, 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 .

Your  complaint in January   was totally  malicious and vexatious  yet I was  supposed  to travel to Wellington next week  so that you   could have a go at me in person  at a ” disciplinary ”  hearing. 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  has 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 show  what a nasty person I  am and why   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 spot  light on  rape  or sexual violation    you 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 .

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.” your ability to tell lies   reflects on your lack 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 lying about her   status as a law clerk.. smells rotten to me !

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 . It makes you a lying bitch  in my  honest opinion.

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

  1. there is a trust deed
  2. it has a clause 20 (a)  see the trust deed he produced   it only goes to 19   there is no 20  or 20 (a)
  3. there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
  4. 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, secondly I  like others find your  approach childish  Grow up it really is no different 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 .

As a policy analyst I am disappointed that you do not know the  law, you have been a lawyer for  how long ?and   it appears that  you don’t know about the harassment act or the defamation act .  You apparently cannot read the  Private security  act  and   have failed to  take into consideration the definition  of Private investigator or perhaps you do  but it suits your intimidation   , so I am giving it transparency

You claim that you are preparing a statement of claim for  more defamation proceedings  but you do not wish to make  me aware of  anything  which I am happy to correct if  you prove it to be wrong. Intimidation Intimidation Intimidation .. is that  your only methodology ?

You  may not have heard of DARVO   it is a concept  where by  those who are guilty    Deny   Attack  Reverse Victim and Offender .

You have obviously been communicating with the PSPLA  for a while  and I  have also isolated emails  involving  Malcolm North whose son has just been convicted for operating a phoenix company .Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company

I believe that you  are shit scared that you will be next  that is why you have to   discredit me , I have had enough

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

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

samuel north _ LinkedIn messages

samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators

samuel north _ LinkedIn 2

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

  1. The application is fraudulent  and resulted in   a fictional organisation  getting law enforcement  powers.
  2. 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
  3. 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 .
  4. 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
  5. 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

  1. 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.

  1. He rebrands the building  the Waitakere city council   dog control building  to appear to be his fictional organisation
  2. 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

  1. Did AWINZ exist  when it made the application … NO
  2. What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing  it was an unsigned  deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown 
  3. Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
  4. 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 
  5. When did that deed first come to  light.. 2006
  6. Were any of the alleged trustees  apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
  7.  Did Maf have consent from any one else  acting  on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
  8. 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;
  9. 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 
  10. 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.
  11. Why  did Maf not insist  on a  deed ..Because Neil  Wells misled them and they  did not check
  12. Why were the other alleged trustees not involved  ..MAF should have contacted these persons  and  ensured that   they were  actively involved  
  13. 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

  1. Did  tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his  staff for  animal welfare purposes … no
  2. Didovich signed a MOU   should this have been   brought to the councils attention..Yes
  3. Wells applied for  Didovich’s Job should he have declared the  Mou which he had signed .. yes
  4. Did Neil Wells work in a situation of  gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
  5. 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

  1.  You need a trust deed  .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it  or who signs it  as  long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
  2. you can have various copies of the deed  they can all conflict and no one cares see here  and here 
  3. no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust  complies with its deed
  4. If you want a new deed  you simply  write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed  , Ird  does not care  I  rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons  being involved in a trust .
  5. there is more information on the deed with regards to the  identity of the  witnesses than  with regards to the  the trustees.  you can use generic names  and who could ever identify  the trustees
  6. if a trust does not  meet  or hold any assets  or pass  any resolutions it is still considered a trust  and its identity can be used  to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
  7. the charities commission  are happy to grant charity status to anything  whihc meets their criteria , the fact that  there are no resolutions for the trust and  big gaping holes in   their existence is but a technicality

 

Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ  trust

As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time  made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ  he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed

trust formed

 

 

 

 

 

 

No  executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together  or passed  any resolution

Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells

in 2006  Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked  the existence of AWINZ

when I proved that AWINZ did not exist  ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000  whihc brings about the question how can  you make an application before a trust is  formed. ?

I was to get evidence that these people had never met   never held any assets , never passed a resolution.

By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist  three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was  reappointed.

reappointment

 

 

 

 

Wells sought charitable status in 2006  when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed   so he simply wrote a new one  and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust 2006 deed

 

 

 

this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and  MAF ( and later the government )

AWINZ was finally removed as  approved Organisation in 2010  .  the fictional  law enforcemnt organisation  operated  for  10 years  re branding council property  and using the  Council staff under Neil Wells control  as AWINZ officers  .

Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions  strange  that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ

this is how what I considered to be a fraud  worked

 

I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council  and again here , here , here, again here ,    here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here  and here  , here, here.

I have written to the lawyers involved and again here  and here, here, here , the law society by way of  regarding the lawyers  , the charities commission  and again here   and here

Maf and  now the ministry of primary Industries  repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was  working for crown law  so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore    concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence  complaints to Maf Here  , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here

The people posing as trustees  here, and here,here, here

attorney general  here

I had questions asked in parliament  Here  wrote to ministers  here  and here 

notable blogs of the past   touching on the  corruption which  exist in New Zealand

NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts

Disparity in crime.. who you know matters

Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand

Questioning corruption in New Zealand.

Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers

The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain

Liquidation as a tool of oppression

shooting the messenger

Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption

Conclusion  :  Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust  administration was .

more to come   Court is used to   silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts

 

The right to live and the right to die

suicide1Should 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

corruptionTransparency 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

  1. convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who  are whistle blowers  or  show any hint of exposing corruption .
  2.  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 anticorruptioninstrument.

read about the convention  here

Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption EnglishUNCAC English

STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
New York, 31 October 2003
Entry into force
:
14 December 2005, in accordance with article 68(1).
Registration :
14 December 2005, No. 42146
Status :
Signatories : 140. Parties : 178
Text :
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2349, p. 41; Doc. A/58/422.
Note :
The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 31 October 2003 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It shall be open to all States for signature from 9 to 11 December 2003 in Merida, Mexico, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 9 December 2005, in accordance with article 67 (1) of the Convention. The Convention shall also be open for signature by regional economic integration organizations provided that at least one member State of such organization has signed this Convention in accordance with its article 67 (2).
New Zealand 8 10 Dec 2003  1 Dec 2015
8.Upon ratification, the Government of New Zealand notified the Secretary-General of the following:
“… consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, [the ratification by New Zealand of this Convention] shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory…”

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.

Beehive

Law  society 

Transparency International 

United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications:
Rules of Procedure for the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption

Rules of Procedure

UNCAC Legislative Guides

Legislative Guide

UNCAC Technical Guides

Technical Guide

Travaux Préparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Corruption

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

john lawOur 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 Ltd

Hello 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 shae holder accounts 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 opeing accounts

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

group of 6group of 6 part 2Kiwi traveler 1Kiwi traveler

MUSE ON ALLEN we reveal the secret to Samuel North’s success.

Muse On Allen Restaurant – Food that inspires  and a secret that  does not  amuse

Restaurateur Samuel North has been in the news  many times , each time there is a common thread  and that is – he is identified as- the youngest chef  in Wellington to  have his own restaurant .

Transparency New Zealand will today   examine the truth behind that statement  and others  which we have located in the news.

For convenience we have prepared a file with the relevant documents  they can be found here  samuel north evidence  (  most of the originals of these documents are available on the companies register , the others have been filed in  the Wellington district court with the exception of the  car registration which comes from the on line register)

Page 1  this  is the sale and purchase agreement    the lawyer involved  for Muse on Allen   was  the North’s own lawyer  .The company was set up with two directors and two share holders   Jozsef Gabor SZEKELY     who owned 70 % of the company page 2    and Samuel Raymond NORTH  who owned 30%  of the company  .

Malcolm North  was involved from day one and took charge,  he drew up a  Partnership agreement     and as can be seen  Samuel’s total contributions  was to be $10,000  as opposed to  Jozsef who invested $65,000 .page 3

Jozsef understood  that  all would be equal partners  but that was not to be,   as it was later revealed that  every one except  Jozsef  introduced their money into the company  by way of loans . Jozsef on the other hand was    recognized in the accounts as a share holder .

Debbie North Samuel’s mother   requested to be an alternate director for her son   instead she  completed her own directors documents  and uploaded them on to the companies  site back dating  them to the date of the companies formation Pages 4 &5 

On 3 November 2012  the dominion post published a review of  the restaurant Muse on Allen: Food fit for the gods

On 19 December 2012 Samuel  without complying with the required legislation  and without any  share holder transfer   documents  reduced Jozsefs 70% share holding to  49%  Page 6.

Another great  review was published by Raymond Chan on  4 January   2013 acclaiming both chefs.

On 9 January 2013  without   following the required procedure for appointing a director Samuel prepares a directors consent for his father  Page 7  and up loads this to the companies register Page 8

Malcolm North, Debbie North and Samuel North  are  now all directors  and have  a meeting at their home on the 10 January  they resole to remove Jozsef as director   Page 9 

24 February Samuel North  transfers all of Jozsef’s shares to  himself .  page 10

Jozsef   who consulted Lawyers on the  10th of January  2012   has spent  two years in court  attempting  to  get justice.

It has been a stalling game one intent on  costing Jozsef big $  and now when the end is in sight Malcolm North advises that the company is in liquidation court.

Malcolm North has also  been passing himself off as counsel in court documents  see here 18 Amended Statement of Defence   In this document Malcolm  also states

 The Companies Office records stating otherwise are in error, and that the plaintiff remains a shareholder in the company,  and 

The amendment of the Company’s Office register on or around 24February 2013 was an error, and the plaintiff remains a minority shareholder of the Company.

despite  making this statement  the companies register has never been corrected.

On 19th June   2015   despite  Jozsef being denied any rights  of a share holder, Malcolm files documents in the District Court pages 11- 54.

In the statement of claim  he alleges that Jozsef  as a 63.2% share holder is responsible for the corresponding  % of losses in  Muse on Allen  for the 2013 & 2014 financial years shae holder accounts.

this would have to be  a first in New Zealand  where a company sues its only solvent  share holder for  the loses which the management  has incurred after denying the share holder any rights.

The accounts attached  speak volumes   especially the share holder accounts   they show  that Jozsef has paid up share capital of $64,118  and  Samuel North  has a deficit of $6420.

No other persons are shown as share holders   and no  other share capital has been introduced.

The accounts clearly show however that the   funds introduced  into the company by Samuel’s parents and  his girlfriend Anabel Torrejos  were introduced as LOANS. they have never been  recorded as share holders.

loans

 

We wish to make it clear that these documents came to us without any restriction  or confidentiality and as can be seen  they clearly identify Jozsef as the  majority share holder.

As a share holder and in this case the only paid up share holder he has every right to the accounts .

On a  % share holding basis    it is obvious  that the sole owner of Muse on Allen is Not Samuel North but Jozsef  .

We believe  that what has happened in  Muse on Allen   totally undermines the  confidence that   should be had in the integrity of  our companies.

Jozsefs battle to  be recognized as share holder continues  but in a bizarre twist Malcolm North advised   Jozsef on 8 June 2015   that the company is  currently in insolvency court  being  sued  by Kensington Swan , their former lawyer. The date for the hearing has been delayed allegedly in the hope that  they can repay the  debt which we believe is some $24,000.

In the mean time  Samuel North is driving about town  in  a Black BMW X3 2007 Reg HYE837 Page 55   .similar to the one pictured for which he has raised a loan through the company ( see corrections  on Samuel North  responds )BMW

Now that you have these facts   you  can look at the following articles in a different light , we particularly  like  the  concrete playground  article   it speaks volumes and is well  worth reading   and now that  you  know the truth you  will have more insight.

Other less colourful articles are below  they all    assert falsely that Samuel  is the sole owner of   Muse on Allen  Limited. 

11 august 2013 Muse on Allen takes Top Honours– Wellington has a new rising star on the food scene, with the 22-year-old head chef and owner of Muse on Allen taking out this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award……Muse on Allen’s 22-year-old head chef and owner, Samuel North

04/09/2013  Young upstart of the restaurant scene   Samuel North is not your typical restaurateur. At just 22, he’s thought to be the youngest chef running his own dining establishment in Wellington. In fact, he was 21 when he launched Muse on Allen in the former site of Satay Kampong restaurant at the top of Allen St…..In his most recent job at the White House as chef de partie, he read about Martin Bosley starting a restaurant at the age of 21, and says: “I was inspired by that. I thought I could do that. I started looking at places up for sale. We looked at 19 different places before we found this one.”  

MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award Winner Announced 22 year-old Samuel North, chef & owner of Muse on Allen, takes out the MiNDFOOD Wellington on a Plate Award….Wellington has a new rising star on the food scene, as the chef & owner of Muse on Allen takes out this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award…..Muse on Allen’s 22-year-old head chef and owner, Samuel North,

21 July 2014 Theatrical dish coasts into Dine award final Samuel North, 23, the head chef and owner of Muse on Allen in central Wellington, has had his restaurant nominated as one of five finalists in the Visa Wellington on a Plate Award.

06/08/2014 Fresh faces of food SAMUEL NORTH, OWNER AND HEAD CHEF AT MUSE ON ALLEN  Samuel North was just 21 when he opened his own restaurant, Muse on Allen in 2012. By that time he’d already chalked up six years behind the stoves of a whole bunch of kitchens from Wairarapa to Hunter Valley. “I think I may have been the youngest chef to open a restaurant in town. There was this big hype when I opened it because I was so young and a lot of people thought I’d fail, ” he says

Oct 13, 2014   NZ Herald -Your Business: Young Entrepreneurs

The founder and head chef of Wellington-based restaurant Muse on Allen worked and saved hard for six years, and got a loan from his parents and help from his partner to set up the restaurant, which last year took out a top culinary prize – the Visa Wellington on a Plate Award.”

Oct 13, 2014   NZ Herald -Your Business: Young Entrepreneurs   I have no credit cards, no bank loans – nothing,” he says. “The banks ran a mile when I put the idea to them. It’s pretty funny looking back at it now; there was no way they were taking the chance on me – and I can’t blame them.

March 2013 social cooking :Samuel North  Info:At just 21 years old, Sam was considered to be the youngest Chef to be running his own establishment in Wellington, when he opened Muse on Allen 2 years ag0

31 July 2014  Lettuce take a moment with… Samuel North  Samuel North is no stranger to success. At the age of twenty-one, Sam opened his very own Restaurant, Muse on Allen.”

48 hours in the capital: Where to eat in Wellington  Head chef and owner Samuel North is, amazingly, only 22, and made a name for his new restaurant

31 January 2015  Grab one  Owner and chef, Samuel North, won this year’s MiNDFOOD Wellington On a Plate Award, which recognises the top level of creativity and skill among Wellington’s chefs, along with their ability to showcase local ingredients through Dine Wellington’s festival programme.

18 April 2015  Muse and a little Singin’ in the rain   Muse is the establishment of Samuel North, a young chef in Wellington with a bucketful of talent.

08 July 2015  Producers “live and breathe” their craft….Muse on Allen chef and owner Samuel North 

Muse on Allen Restaurant and Bar -Wellington on a plate

facebook

More soon