corruption
The curious case of Equity Law and Equity Trust International
December 23, 2014 | 
Author 
There is a very big anomaly in New Zealand with regards to law firms , they are not readily identifiable and even the law society has trouble telling you what is a law firm and what is not a law firm.
Lets look at some entries on their register at a listing for Stewart and associates Equity law
You wont find it on the companies register and even the registration on the solicitors roll is deceptive as the address is in Auckland and the phone number is in Alexandra.
Also you have to wonder how an organization can operate from a Po Box. .. bit cramped we would have thought .
Try to physically locate it and you will never find it as the ” organisation ” doe not exist and it is indeed a fictional law firm .
This fictional law firm, fictional entity is however the instructing solicitors in court action agaisnt us . The law firm only has one lawyer a young lady named Julia Leenoh. Julia is not her real name and neither is Leenoh apparently as she does not appear to have obtained her degree in that name and appears to be Joo Yeon Lee
Now this fictional law firm came about apparently through the ” merger” with Equity law .
Now the objective of this blog post is to identify who or what Equity law is .. I warn you you are going to get dizzy .
It is of note that when the proceedings were commenced against us the fourth plaintiff was identified as Equity Chambers we then received a memorandum to say
“This document notifies you that the fourth Plaintiff was incorrectly named as Equity Law Chambers. It should instead be amended to Equity Law Barristers Limited, as incorporated company, having its registered offices at Level 4, Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland. ”
We had rather foolishly thought that equity law was equity law barristers as all the signage in the building indicate 
equity law as being inthe building and when our director had close relationships with the law firm it appeared to be a law firm .
let us look at the history of Equity law .. assuming that it is the company Equity law barristers Limited
the company was formed 19 Dec 2006 as Equity law 2007 Limited
Captures from the way back machine show the very first we presence that they captured on 17 August 2007
the web site was registered 20:19 27/3/2007 to equity law Limited we note that there is no such company as Equity law limited but even the registrar of domain names agrees that this must be the company which owns the web site becasue the other associated companies did not exist at that time
Equity trust International Limited was incorporated 26 may 2008
Equity trust International tax agents Limited was incorporated 15 November 2011
Going back to Equity Law 2007 Limited we note that it had two directors
These two persons are also involved in the legal action against us .
Action was originally taken agaisnt a member and when the plaintiffs agreed it was an error they eventually submitted proper documentation which shows the other plaintiffs signatures.
this is the signature of the second Plaintiff 
now look at the initial filing documents of the company for this same person and the signature is some what different the 
full document is on this link it is the fourth document from the bottom this and the share holder link is this the actual signature for the share holder is this
Our research shows that the actual signature is the very first one
to us it appears that a law firm has been set up using fraudulent signatures. But could it even have been a law firm ? seems like no one can tell us. Now The director of the firm claims that Equity law is a trading name he used. so the plot thickens. perhaps we will never know.
The dubious signatures are a bit ironic as a member of the chambers was Frank Deliu who defended Lu Zhang “
Lu Zhang, 28, is accused of 75 offences of making false statements in company registration forms after she declared her office address was her residence in 75 companies she registered.
She was charged after a plane loads of weapons, including rockets and grenades, from North Korea bound for Iran was seized in Bangkok last year.
another new item is also worthy of reading this is an extract
“Former fast-food worker Lu Zhang, 28, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at Bangkok airport last December flying 25 tonnes of arms from North Korea to an unknown destination, believed to be Iran.
Zhang pleaded guilty yesterday to 74 charges of giving false residential information to the Companies Office, which registered multiple companies with her as a director. She could have faced up to five years in jail and/or a fine of $200,000, but was convicted and discharged.
Her lawyer, Frank Deliu, revealed that the Chinese ambassador in Wellington, Xu Jianguo, had written to Zhang’s immigration consultant, former immigration minister Tuariki Delamere, who had briefed him on what was happening. Mr Xu’s letter was included in affidavits.“ see article
it is interesting to note that Tuariki Delamare operates a floor below that of Equity law see this
The entire building appears to be abuzz with inter connected activity just recently the bank Breder Suasso was found operating on the second floor with a fake reception see the news item here
The fourth Floor of 44 Khyber pass used to be just the law firm and the travel agent next door but now we have a raft of activity there including forex traders and Equity trust International which sets up new Zealand companies for foreigners .
The instructing solicitor in the action against us is Greg Stewart , although he works in Alexandra he is the director of this company and also supervised Julia Leenoh from his desk in Otago .
we have now got a most confusing situation where by the court papers filed Greg Stewart claims that Equity law barristers limited was not the law firm called equity law in one lot of proceedings and claims that it was in another lot of proceedings.
the Statement of Claim and the Bundle for defence part 1 and Bundle for defence part 2 AND Bundle for defence part 3 and the defamation defence COMBINED are at the links
they have been served on the lawyer who is appearing on the matter and who has been signing the submissions but refuses to file a representation . this is Michael Locke we believe he is the one and the same who appears on the insolvency web site having been recently released from bankruptcy 
.
The plaintiffs have been attempting to silence us because the truth is inconvenient
our revelations that the former lawyer did not have a proper law firm, and the fact that the associated trust firm passes itself off as a ;w firm is of concern. as are the mention of 10 million dollar bank accounts, solicitor escrow accounts and the offer of passports from the Dominican republic, St Kitts and Nevis as second passports to open up the world for would be investors.
Interesting holiday reading of what he world so called second least corrupt country facilitates.
We stand by our research the truth is the truth .
Posted in 
Transparency International New Zealand will you unmask the corrupt ?
Transparency International are running an excellent campaign called Unmask the corrupt .Ironically this is what we have been doing and have been sued for , that is because we have been doing it on our own.
There is a vast difference between Transparency International and their NZ branch , The New Zealand branch dedicates it web site to showing how well we are doing at being ” corruption Free” while the rest of the world actually fights corruption.
We often point out that if you ignore cancer you will succumb to it , the same is true of corruption.
We have New Zealand companies involved in international trade, not all of it legitimately see this news item.
Naked Capitalism a web site operated overseas by a number of top class journalists and connected to the international consortium of investigative journalists have published a number of articles with regards to the activity of Money laundering in New Zealand see this post entitled “New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia” and a more recent onesNew Zealand’s GT Group in Romania, Moldova and the UK,
While New Zealand’s Company Law Reform Stalls, GT Group Helps a Thieving Ukrainian Despot
New Zealand: Pseudo-Financial Companies, and GT Group, Both Still Going Strong.
What is significant is that the Government thinks that they have closed down the GT group but many of the companies once administered by a new zealand company .Just one such example is GT GLORIA TRADING
This company overseas companies and has a disproportionate Russian representation .
Even many of the people involved are what we call name shifters and so are the companies themselves , this is so that you never really know who you are dealing with .
Alex Bushe of equity law also appears to be one and the same as Alexander BUSHUEV, who is the director of a number of Equities companies SEDLEX LIMITED (5058320) – Director & Shareholder GLOBAL WEALTH GROUP LIMITED (5433544) – Director & Shareholder FIDELIS INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED (5318101) – Director & Shareholder BLACKLIST DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED (4361899) – Director & Shareholder STEIGEN MAKLER LIMITED (5170404) – Director & Shareholder DRAGON GROUP LIMITED (5433581) – Director & Shareholder
another such person is Gregory Shelton who also appears to be the one and the same as Grigori CHELOUDIAKOV who took over the shareholdings of several companies including IMEXO PRANA and CRESTPOINT TRADE
Both of these companies had former director latvian Inta bilder and are associate to the companies involved in this news item NZ shell company linked to alleged $150m fraud AND SEE the latvian proxys
So needless to say we whole heatedly support the initiative of Transparency International in the UNMASK THE CORRUPT CAMPAIGN .
Auckland Council Rates.. does the law apply to Council as it does to you ? part 2
Yesterday we discussed the ability for council to charge penalties on installments today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge penalties on GST which they are collecting for the government ? We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all below is how we come to that.
Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a GST content of $147
The rates notice states
Pay on time to avoid penalties
“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.
You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”
The operative words are any part of your rates. The Gst is the GST portion of your rates. The rates is what is set and what the GST is payable on .
The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10% therefore they can only charge a penalty of 10% on the rates being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980 being $98 .
By charging penalty of $112.70 they are charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case ) which is and $14.70 over charge per instalment and not made lawfully .
This is of course also subject to the ability for council to charge penalties on instalments as discussed previously
If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due being 30 June 2015 then by imposing penalties on rates which are inclusive of GST ,they will be collecting a further $58.80 per year ( presuming that you then pay just prior to the 30th June )*
Strangely enough this sum is more than the sum which they give you for early payment .
Where this really gets tricky is in compounding penalties on the Gst of previous payments/ years .
Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the penalty or is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?
We will put that to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this kind of thing does not happen ???
*based on instalments being 29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that even by instalments all rates due are paid a month early .
Auckland council rates – Are you being ripped off ? Part 1
On the one hand we have a sculpture of a hou
se now scaled down to cost a mere $1.5 million, a mere ornament which the council intends to buy
On the Other hand we have a real house , a home to at least three people and two cats worth less than $700,000.Which the council is going to forcibly sell .
Then there is a rates bill of some 13,000 which was not paid out of protest to a very one sided contract where by Council was not keeping up their end of the agreement where by they were to engage in open transparent and democratically accountable governance.
While the council are prepared to pay over the top for one they are willing to sell the other because a pittance is owed. Ironically this is exactly why Penny withheld her rates.
Penny Bright withheld her rates until the books were opened just as Auckland transport has managed to do see here
So the $13,000 in arrears rates have attracted over $20,000 in penalties. this prompted us to have a closer look at what is going on with our rates and it appears that Auckland rate payers are held accountable to rate penalties in a very strict manner , pay a day late on any instalment and you pay 10% more ,On the other hand Auckland council is manipulating the law and in other instances being totally non compliant.
In going through the law and the detail we have discovered a number of things which are worthy of question , especially when the houses which we once bought for tens of thousands are now worth hundreds of thousands and wages have remained static.
Let us you through it , this is the way we see it .
The applicable legislation is the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the ability to include penalties comes from a two step process by council .
- There needs to be a decision by council , this may be delegated but has to me made before the rates are set
- The decision made must comply with the law and
- Must not exceed 10% of the amount of unpaid rates on the date when the penalty is added
- may be of the types of penalties as set out in section 58 being
-
a) a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment (or after a later date if so specified):
-
(b) a further penalty on rates assessed in any financial year and that are unpaid on whichever day is the later of—
-
(i) the first day of the financial year for which the resolution is made; or
-
(ii) 5 working days after the date on which the resolution is made:
-
-
(c) a further penalty on rates to which a penalty has been added under paragraph (b), if the rates are unpaid 6 months after that penalty was added.
-
The way that we interpret this is that these options are available and are the only legal options available IF it is contained in the decision by council.
We went in search of the decision which Auckland council had made and found it in the 2014-15 annual Plan Volume 1 – Our Plan for 2014/2015 for ease we have isolated the pages concerned they are found here rates related policies
Penalties on rates not paid by the due date
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.
Spot the difference ?
Auckland council imposes penalties on each installment where as the act applies it to the rates assessed in the financial year and does not speak of penalties for parts of rates .
The rates are set for a financial year in this case being 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 in the rate assessment which we have before us is for $4510.81.
There is an ability to pay it by instalment , or pay the lump sum which gives a saving of a whole 1.1% . $4461.18. a saving of a whopping $46.63
Relevant here is Section 24 Due date or dates for payment, in the interpretation section due date, is defined as : in relation to a rate or part of a rate, means the last day for payment of the rate, or part of the rate, that is set out in the rates assessment
The question has to be : can “ a penalty on rates assessed in the financial year for which the resolution is made and that are unpaid after the due date for payment” be interpreted to mean a part rate ?
The assessment notice reads total rates payable 2014/2015 is $4510.81 to us this means that by 30 June 2015, $4510.81 needs to have been paid being the financial year as determined by 45 (1) (j). and most importantly 45 (1) (k) which states “the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year”
while Auckland council asks for the payments to be made by four equal installments , the overall obligation is to clear the rates due in that financial year .
The regime should be more in line with retail being
- the price which is due on the due date .. in this case $4510.81 by 30 June 2015
- the discounted price if paid in its entirety early, this is usually heavily discounted
- The price if paid by installments which should be equal to or as an incentive less than the demanded price
At all times the right to pay the full rates demand by the 30th June in one payment should remain an option as that way you are payign your entire rates in the year that it is due.
If you were to pay it in a lump sum under the Auckland council regime , and still be complying with legislation you would incur penalties of $338.10 ( being as stated on the notice $122.70 per installment ). Compare the extra penalties for being complaint with the law to the savings for paying early one gives you a penalty of $33.10 the other a saving of just $46.63 a difference of $291.47, so why is the money in Auckland councils pocket worth more than in yur pocket.. should it not be at least equal ?
more in part 2 the juiciest is yet to come.
Transparency International Finally uses the C word
Transparency International New Zealand has tried so hard to ignore the corruption in New Zealand but has finally conceded that we have it. In their latest news letter they mention no less than three items .
New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation
New Zealand shell companies may have played a part in the biggest money-laundering operation in Eastern Europe. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed an enormous US$20 billion ($24.4 billion) transfer of dirty Russian funds, dubbed ‘the Laundromat’. Read the story by Richard Meadows in stuff.co.nz.
Evidence of corruption a National scandal – Harre
Internet Party leader Laila Harre will take evidence of corruption to international forums if there is not a full Royal Commission to investigate the growing evidence of the systematic use and abuse of democratic institutions and processes for political gain
Money, politics and scandal in New Zealand’s election
Post election, Washington based Lisa Rosenburg of the Sunlight Foundation, and former legislative assistant to Senator John Kerry, suggested that New Zealand will need to address weaknesses in its political finance system to retain “its squeaky clean reputation and its first place as the least corrupt nation…” sunlightfoundation.com/money-politics-and-scandal-in-new-zealands-election
The article by Richard Meadow refers to web site Naked Capitalism. In a recent article on that site Richard Smith states
GT Group was linked to the biggest money-laundering operation in US history.
It does not take much searching to find that a variety of GT group companies which survived being struck off have found a new registered office at the EQUITY GROUP , others have been registered again using the names of the struck off companies as shown below.
Companies registered to the premises of Equity group frequently use the very same directors identified as proxy directors in international press . In this case we look at Leah Toureleo of B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu who is as is mentioned in the Richard meadows story NZ firm named in huge European scam
Leah Toureleo has the following active companies
PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934638) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company about to be struck off the address 24b Moorefield Road
Seems to be another busy little office it is a medical center see this interesting post http://www.blakjak.net/node/1312
GOLDAGE GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934658) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company about to be struck off reg office Room 4, 221a Dominion Road, Auckland, only two companies registered here and both about to be struck off
IRVINESTON LIMITED (3239028) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road, for more on this address see naked capitalism
DORNOCK LIMITED (3239007) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road,
the director of tropic alliance lives in Inga 9a-31 Zaubes, Riga, LV1013 , Latvia
Now these next four companies have something in common they all had the receptionist at this former law firm as their director , she resigned last year when she was warned her about the dangers of being a proxy director ( see news links below ) these companies continue to exist with Leah Toureleo as their director
WELKIN BUSINESS LIMITED (3665631) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
SELBY LIMITED (3665671) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
This is a phoenix company of SELBY LIMITED(2466848) (NZBN: 9429031562881) Struck off NZ Limited Company it was registered to 1504 B, 363 Queen Street, Auckland, New Zealand which was pat of the Taylor group. the new company was incorporated by EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED just a few months after the companies office struck the other off
4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (3589616) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Club property (xxxxx) this company is a phoenix company for
MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (2454570) (NZBN: 9429031578738) Struck off NZ Limited Company Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand, this company was originally set up by the Gt Group
The receptionist had one further company that she was director of this company now has the wife of the director of this this companies director who is also a lawyer this company is Eurostone Holdings Limited
- AVALON BUSINESS LIMITED (3053634) – about to be struck off also originally part of the GT group
- BISTRANS INVEST LIMITED (3340091) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- DIRECT SOLUTIONS LIMITED (3768614) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- DITEC UNION LIMITED (3265215) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- IMTRADE GROUP LIMITED (3221791) (Struck off) -originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- INVESTA AGRO LIMITED (3658591) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- KORPTECH SERVICES LIMITED (3682662) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- LANGTRANS LIMITED (2388545) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- MILL TRADE LIMITED (3213854) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- NASORO LIMITED (1601001) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- PRIMAX TRADING LIMITED (3155726) (Struck off) – originally part of the NZCI part of the GT group
- RENTON PROFIT LIMITED (3682635) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- THW GROUP LIMITED (3539594) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
for News items on Glenn Smith 69 Ridge Road, Lucas Heights, North Shore ( Company Net ) see
Web of intrigue – crime – national | Stuff.co.nz
New Zealand as a rogue financial state
NZ shell companies in Kyrgyz corruption | Stuff.co.nz
New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords …
Complaint – Securities and Exchange Commission
Traseks Ltd., is a corporation incorporated under the laws ofPanama on
February 9, 2009, with its principal place of business located at 69 Ridge Road, Albany,
Auckland, New Zealand. Traseks, Ltd. received $976,302, wired during April through
July 2009 from Rockford’s Bank ofAmerica and Banco Popular Bank Accountsto an
account in its name at JSC Multibanka in Riga, Latvia.
Reserve Bank warns public – money – business | Stuff.co.nz
RBNZ warns on dodgy ‘Bancorp’ pyramid scheme claiming …
Reserve Bank warns public – Stuff
1766 defunct New Zealand companies at 69, Ridge Road, Albany,
News items re proxy directors and activities of companies of Leah Toureleo see below and at this link click here
|
Sep 2, 2010 … Lu Zhang, 28, is accused of 75 offences of making false statements in company registration forms after she declared her office address was her …
www.stuff.co.nz/…/Company-director-with-alleged-arms-links-in-court
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2010 … Lu Zhang, 28, is charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms – by the seemingly minor act of declaring her …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/4090241/Mystery-arms-firm-director-revealed
|
|
|
May 29, 2011 … Lu Zhang, below, is its director. launder2 . launder3. Stella Port-Louis, of the Seychelles, is director of four Queen St companies linked to illegal …
www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/…/Web-of-intrigue
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 … The signature over it has no resemblance to the signature of Lu Zhang in the New Zealand incorporation documents. The cost of the charter is …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3218894/Papers-confirm-arms-going-to-Iran
|
|
Nov 5, 2010 … Former fast-food worker Lu Zhang, 28, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at …
www.stuff.co.nz/dominion…/Chinese-warning-on-court-case-angers-judge
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 … Police National Headquarters in Wellington said it was still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals, including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/business/3323439/Change-of-director-for-shell-company
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2010 … SP Trading former director Lu Zhang was later charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms, and appeared …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/…/NZ-a-target-for-arms-traders-Oxfam
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 … SP’s director is Lu Zhang whose registered residential address is 369 Queen … that on December 21 detectives here interviewed Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3231635/Police-given-details-of-arms-flight-client
|
|
Feb 12, 2010 … Police National Headquarters in Wellington said they were still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3318708/Thailand-drops-gun-running-charges
|
|
Jan 13, 2010 … SP Trading Ltd – formed last year with a woman, Lu Zhang, who cannot be located, as its director – is part of a web of hundreds of companies …
www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/…/Director-breach-punishable-by-jail
|
Lets put justice back in New Zealand
Open letter / OIA to Minister of Justice
This letter has been published on www.Transparency.net.nz and broadcasted via social media
I also refer to a previous open letter to you “What justice system “ and statement you made in this news article where you stated “it’s a court of law not a court of justice”.
I have become aware through being sued in our courts for speaking the truth and for exposing serious corruption that our courts are on a par with our casinos.Except that our casinos have more security issues in place to prevent abuse.
We apparently fare no better than the Wild West it appears to be a free for all in our courts with no ENFORCEABLE systems or processes to give those taken to court any protection .
When truth and evidence are not factors we cannot have justice. The justice sector by not providing prosecutions for perjury is failing the people
It appears to me, that the course of justice has been averted. Those in the middle income group who own their own houses are a very good target. Their houses are now worth going after and what better way than to bring a massive financial burden on to them, costs which no one can possibly budget for.
This means that those with means and those who are lawyers themselves can totally abuse the court system for their own advantage and write the costs off as a tax advantage while forcing the other party to hire a lawyer .
If you do not hire a lawyer and defend yourself you become prey to the dirty legal tricks which deny justice and which is apparently allowed in our Legal system .
Our Justice sector fails in its task to “to make society safer and provide accessible justice services.”
Court has become a tool of oppression , why use a baseball bat to steal some ones wallet when you can use a lawyer and get their house and anything done through a lawyer is apparently legal .
Truth, evidence and integrity have no place in our courts and it appears that you can bring civil claims based on nothing but hogwash . Once the papers are served it is for your opponent to spend funds on lawyers, money which they cannot recover due to the oppressor cleverly hiding all their assets before they start.
I have experienced instances where the civil jurisdiction is being used to pervert the course of justice.
Police simply won’t act if a matter is before the court and without evidence the civil jurisdiction supported by the total lack of rights to the Universal Declaration of Human rights
Some Lawyers appear to use the court to pervert the cause of justice by using the civil jurisdiction to conceal criminal offending.While it is a crime to beat someone up with a baseball bat it appears to be sanctioned if done with a lawyer and legal tactics.
The fact that immense stress and bullying has health repercussions is not even considered a factor and neither must the person being beaten up show any emotion because that is another black mark against them.
I am a former police prosecutor and through my involvement in the Civil court have found that our bill of rights in New Zealand does not afford the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court to those in the civil jurisdiction this is totally out of step with the Universal declaring of Human rights .
I have previously made an OIA request with this regard and your staff have responded .
I would By way of OIA request further Documentation and discussion papers which examine
1. Why criminal judgements confidential when all civil judgements are published, are both not equally accountable to the public records act.
2. Why convictions in the criminal jurisdiction are not a matter of public record and accessible to all yet civil matters gets full and permanent publicity
3. Criminals have advantage of the clean slate act yet those in the civil jurisdiction are accountable to the decisions for ever , this appears to be a disparity has this been considered and discussed if not why not
4. What the threshold for perjury is and to what degree that drifting from the truth is acceptable before any one is prosecuted, and who prosecutes when the police are under resourced and overburdened?
5. What consideration the minister of justice has given to the use of the civil jurisdiction to pervert the course of justice in the criminal jurisdiction? – To this end, those engaged in crime tend to have more funds than whistle-blowers. Any one coming across a crime has a choice of becoming an accessory by concealing it or speaking up. When they speak up they find themselves under attack from the “would be” criminal and legal tactics rather than truth and evidence are used to financially cripple them. Law is not affordable to the average person and the costs of being taken to court is crippling it is a tool by which the rich and the corrupt can beat up those who are trying to survive. An hour for a lawyer is a weeks wages for the average New Zealander . Law has got out of hand.
6. If the minister of Justice has no way of delivering justice has the minister considered ways to put justice in place or otherwise renaming the ministry.
Our courts need to give protection to the citizens of this country. To allow the courts to be used in appropriately is an abuse of process which I believe the Minister of Justice should seek to prevent.
I look forward to your response.
I am standing as an Independent for Epsom and will make this an election issue.
Update see response from Judith Collins re justice
New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is a load of hogwash
I recently did an official information act request to Judith Collins seeking her source of information for being consistently quoted as stating that New Zealand is the least corrupt .
In the response she states that this is the perception index yet far too often she makes the statement as though it is fact and not a mere illusion One such instance is in her address to parliament where she erroneously interprets this to mean ” Corruption free ”
“New Zealand’s reputation for being corruption-free is one of its biggest assets internationally. People who do business and invest in New Zealand know they can trust our laws and our Government to protect their rights and freedoms. New Zealand’s ranking by Forbes as the best country for doing business is in part due to the high trust in our public sector. Well done, New Zealand.”
If the ‘corruption free ” statement was made by a company it would be held accountable under the fair trading act.
National are slapping themselves on the back for the low levels of corruption by actively concealing corruption and preventing people from speaking about it as is evident in this question by MP Grant Robertson 29 May 2014:
I would ask why it is that I am unable to ask a question that is legitimately to the Minister of Justice about the question of corruption and bribery—and I quoted from a Ministry of Justice fact sheet, which describes that as abuse of one’s position of power—and I am not allowed to ask questions about Ministers who bullied somebody—
Ross Robertson will retire for Government this year without seeing his bill Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill [PDF 148k] being passed.
Current chair of GOPAC (Global organisation of parliamentarians agaisnt corruption ) is Andrew Little , he has a hard job a head of him when our minister of justice states that we are corruption free and also states ( at 1.05 )that in New Zealand there is no court of justice . To me this is a contradiction of terms .
My petition for a commission agaisnt corruption was presented this week . I have little doubt that it will be viewed seriously for as long as we do not label or define corruption we wont have any .
I have still to hear form John Key with regards to my request to him, I suspect that this has been filed in his drawer until one day he needs to pull it out in a tit for tat trade off against an opposition minister .
National appears to thrive on corruption and to act in the name of corruption would be to clip their own wings .
I have come to the conclusion that a government which will not let you question corruption must be corrupt . Time for a change me thinks.
National integrity System -TINZ
Last week I was in Brisbane at a conference and work shop co hosted by Griffith University and transparency International –Using Anti-Corruption to Protect Growth and Development in the G20 and Beyond.
Much of the focus of the work shop was to explore the national integrity system ( NIS ) and how various countries had interpreted the guidelines and come out with their reports.
While it was clear that Transparency International saw corruption as the key element it transpired that TINZ ( Transparency International New Zealand ) had not included this in their assessment .
Suzanne Snively made two presentations at one she pointed out that TINZ is not funded and they have trouble getting members, I guess this is evident when new members sign up and immediately become directors . She made no mention of the Members who were leaving because they were so overwhelmed out being outnumbered by the Government agencies which appear to control TINZ and hence the resulting finding that New Zealand has the least corrupt public sector in the world. see the NIS report here
We all do well if we blow our own trumpet , any way Suzanne’s presentations are
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – A national perspective
Suzanne Snively and Daniel King – Adapting the NIS to a ‘developed’ country: environment, business and the Treaty of Waitangi
When referring to the presentation of Finn Heinrich – Where does it come from? How does it work? What is needed for the future? you can see that he refers to two Crucial Ingredients to provide Momentum for Anti-Corruption Reform they are
- Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
- Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
Lets evaluate these criteria against the current New Zealand Climate
Strong Evidence on Integrity System & Practice
Currently we have a spat going on pre election between our two main parties. It is a Tit for tat and we are slinging mud to repel corruption allegations, this is basically our anti corruption system at work, name calling at school play ground level.
The latest spat has occurred after our minister of justice took time out on her ministerial trip to promote milk for a Chinese company of which her husband has been made director, I have reported on the matter in full at this link
The next blow came to National when Maurice Williamson was discovered to have been supporting the citizenship of Donghua Liu against official advice .
Last year the Mayor of Auckland was caught with his pants down and at the time Mr key had this to say “I’ve had plenty of people who’ve rung me up with information about Labour MPs,” he said.
“And I’ve done the same thing to every person that’s rung me. I’ve written it down, put it in my top drawer and kept it to myself. I’m just not interested in engaging in it.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/john-key-keeps-dirt-file-labour-mps-video-5655493
It is very obvious that the top drawer has now been opened and they have had to dig deep to find the dirt which they can throw back at labour.
The reality is that the Prime ministers act of keeping dirt in his top drawer is in itself a corrupt act as each and every incident reported to him should be passed on for independent investigation at the time the issue arises and not held on to until a blackmail-able opportunity arises
There simply is no integrity in stockpiling dirt on the opposition – this allows corruption to be traded off with corruption , each act should be independently evaluated and the perpetrators charged if evidence is sufficient.
Engagement with key stakeholders in a country
While Whistleblowers are seen as essential any where else in the world (Grzegorz Makowski – Cross-cutting problems in the NIS: corruption of anti-corruption policies; whistleblower protection; human rights protection) TINZ prefers to ignore us. this is like doing a report on the operations of a company and leaving out the shoppers .
There are two sides to any system, the one looking out and the one looking in. the systems my look in place but if they are not user friendly or are designed to be counter productive against corruption then the system has no integrity .
I would have thought that it would be a serious matter for some one to make an application for law enforcement powers using false information, after all people are taken to task for benefit fraud and the like every day , but it appears that the bigger it is the more people that are implicated and the more systems that are shown to be unsafe then more reasons exist to deny what has happened and simply carry on. look no issue .. too hard lets move on .
The key stake holders on the other hand who were engaged with were the members of TINZ, and the funders , these include Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
Moving on
TINZ appears to be too closely aligned with government so much so that those ministers who are engaging on corrupt practices rely on the NIS to refute any claims e.g.
Not bad since her ministry paid to get the report done .
I have again asked Suzanne Snively if I can join TINZ see my email here email application jun 2014 .. will keep you posted
Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?
Open letter to Prime Minister.
I refer to the cabinet manual 2.53
“In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.
Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”
In 2001 the then minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton gave approval for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act 1999.
Section 122 of the act requires that the minister must be satisfied “by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence” that the “organisation “complied with the criteria as set out in sections 122 (1) (a) – (e).
It has transpired that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no legal existence, It had no members, structure or existence beyond that of only one man. There was no Organisation, no body of persons had held a meeting or made a decision to make an application for the coercive law enforcement powers.
I have over the years made a number of OIA requests from the MPI and have conclusively established that.
1. The application for approved status for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was fraudulent
a. Mr Neil Wells made the application on behalf of an alleged trust knowing that no trust existed .
b. The statement with regards to the trust having been formed by way of trust deed was false and known to be false by Mr Wells a statement he was to attempt to retrospectively cover up in 2006.
c. The persons named as the alleged trustees had never formally met together as a trust, signed a trust deed, or discussed the application for approved status under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
d. Section 10 of the application, the institute’s compliance with section 122, sought to mislead and deceive the minister as an organisation which does not exist cannot comply with the criteria.
2. The minister relied on MAF advising him with regards to the trust deed, the reality was that there was no trust deed and no signed deed was ever considered or sighted. This ensured that the ministry staff evaluated the application on a worthless and meaningless document which had not been consented or agreed to by any persons.
3. Mr Neil Edward Wells who had appointed himself as Manager (10.4 of the application) was the former Head of the RNZSPCA, in 1996 he wrote a business plan for his own personal ambition to integrate council’s dog and stock control with Animal welfare which was a central government concern. He called the service Territorial animal welfare service .
4. Mr Wells was well connected with the MPI (MAF at the time) and through this and his party connections (Labour) came to write the No 1 Bill for the new animal welfare legislation this bill was written with his personal business aspirations in mind.
5. Mr Wells served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills but no record has ever been located of any declaration of his conflict of interest.
6. During 2000 Mr Wells and his associate Tom Didovich provided the minister and the ministry with information which appeared to be legitimate, however neither the minister not the ministry verified
a. The legal status or existence of AWINZ
b. The consent and knowledge of Waitakere council in providing funding, staff resources and infrastructure for the venture.
c. The knowledge and consent for the alleged trustees named on the fraudulent application
7. Records show that the policy advisors for the ministry of Agriculture were opposed to the granting of the application despite having previously assisted Mr Wells. MAF officials had voiced their concerns with regards to Mr Wells’s undeclared conflict of interest.
8. Consent was finally given after the application went to the labour caucus after Neil Wells was able to comment on and amend the caucus papers and allegedly briefed his former work colleague, Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the labour party and Mayor of Waitakere City Council.
9. In 2006 as a result of an enquiry from a Waitakere dog control officer I established conclusively that
a. There was no legal person by the name of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand
b. Neither MAF nor Waitakere council who both contracted to AWINZ held a signed trust deed.
c. The law enforcement authority AWINZ was not identifiable.
10. Despite AWINZ not existing the then Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not consider that AWINZ no longer complied with section 122 and did not revoke the approved status, he too was deceived as to the existence of AWINZ due to a group of persons posing as AWINZ and despite lacking evidence claiming to be the law enforcement authority . These persons were Tom Didovich, Neil Wells, Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley. Not one of these persons (other than Wells) had been a party to the application process or consented to it.
11. This deception continued through the next minister’s term off office and David Carter was similarly deceived.
12. In a series Official information act requests I have established that MPI do not know who the legal persons were who represented the law enforcement authority and it would appear from the latest response ,that they did nothing to investigate the consequences of having a fictional law enforcement authority .
I have recently discovered submissions by Mr Wells for the Animal Welfare Amendment Act , curiously he does not mention his involvement with AWINZ at all but in these he points out the seriousness of this situation by pointing out that New Zealand is only one of two countries to have a private law enforcement authority (the other is Australia).
Mr Wells in his submissions states “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.”
He goes on to state “There are (in NZ) three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations. “
And “MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.”
AWINZ was an approved organisation yet it did not exist, no one knew who comprised it, ran it, apart from Mr Wells who was not given law enforcement powers in his own name but obtained it fraudulently in a fictional name and then acted on behalf of that fictional body.
The act, section 122, requires that the Minister must be satisfied – by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence – before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act.
For the decision of several Ministers to have been lawful evidence must exist which shows
1. Who the legal persons were who applied for the law enforcement powers and
2. The legal basis upon which the ministers granted law enforcement powers to a trading name for person or persons unknown and had belief that there was accountability to the public.
If that evidence does not exist then there is another option and that is that successive ministers were deceived.
If this is the case the government has two options
1. To condone fraudulent applications to the crown for law enforcement authority or
2. Instigate a full ministerial enquiry into the matter and hold all those who played a part in the deception accountable to the full force of the law.
The current Minister, Nathan Guy appears to have distanced himself from this matter despite repeated requests for him to conduct a ministerial enquiry into this deception. Every request I write to him is routinely handed over to the MPI. The MPI do not hold the evidence and quite clearly under the act it is for the minister to be in possession of the suitable evidence which satisfies him, it is therefore clear that if there is any evidence as to the legitimacy of the application of AWINZ and the existence of AWINZ then it must be held by the minister.
If the minister does not hold that information then the minister cannot condone a fraudulent act of this magnitude. It is also not a responsible action just to ignore the issue. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse Crimes act 1961)
Fraud is a crime and obtaining law enforcement powers for one of only two approved organisations is serious, it is even more serious when the law was enforced through this fraud and I have evidence that it was.
I did not intend to be a Whistle blower, I simply raised issues which I believed were in the public interest to raise in what was reported to be the world’s least corrupt country. I asked
1. Why did the minister give law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation
2. Why was the manager of a council dog and stock control unit contracting to himself in a fictional name
Those two questions have devastated my life and that of my family, I have had a total cold shoulder from the government for 8 years now. I have been treated like the villain in a tactic which I now recognise as classic Darvo where the roles of villain and victim are reversed.
I have been persecuted thought the courts on defamation claims for which I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, skipped formal proof and went straight to sentencing.
My crime has been to speak the truth and speak up on a matter of serious public corruption, it has been 8 years I have had every bit of spin and every bit of avoidance, it is painfully obvious that no one knows who the law enforcement authority was and there was no accountability to the public.
I should not be the scape goat. If New Zealand wished to strive to be the least corrupt country in the world then it would instigate a full investigation into this matter and see that whistle blowers are compensated as intended by the United Nations convention against corruption.
While New Zealand is still covering up corruption it will never be able to ratify the convention. We cannot continue to pretend that there is no corruption the only way to deal with it is to meet it head on.
I therefore ask for you Mr Key to direct that the minister for MPI conduct a full investigation into this matter together with lawyers versed in criminal law and Trusts.
I am happy to assist I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant and am currently a licenced Private investigator, the matter is already well investigated and researched.
Additionally I request financial assistance to relieve the financial hardship which I am experiencing due to having blown the whistle. I would not be in the position that I find myself in today if the government had acted responsibly and relied on evidence rather than hearsay.
I will soon be attending an international anti-corruption conference and hope that I can report that NZ is taking corruption seriously. I will also send a copy of this to the United Nations for their reference and also publish this on www.transparency.net.nz
I see this as a true test of the ethics of our current government.
A government for businesses.
In the famous Gettysburg address Abraham Lincoln stated
“government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”
Well he was wrong , the year was 1863 and New Zealand was still in its infancy and no one would have thought that this would be the country where democracy would become a farce.
We vote for the members, in a competition where by money rules , those supported through secret trusts and large businesses have the biggest adverting budget and we all know how effective advertising is
Once into office the debt to the sponsors needs to be re paid . There are several ways of doing this so as to make it look like it is an open an transparent process
One way is through the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.
This is a charitable trust which was set up in 1991 by PATRICK LEDGER GOODMAN and DRYDEN THOMAS SPRING “To advance and encourage business understanding of Parliament and parliamentarians’ understanding of the business community of New Zealand’
( a quick look at their backgrounds shows that they are very well connected
GOODMAN one of the wealthiest families in New Zealand and Australia, with an estimated worth of $A770 million see also Goodman dynasty cooks up recipe for success
SPRING held a number of directorships including Nufarm Ltd., Maersk NZ Ltd., Affco Ltd., Fletcher Building Ltd., Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd., Northport Ltd., Deputy Chairman of Goodman Fielder Ltd., Chairman of Ericcson NZ Ltd. Chairman Of Tenon Ltd., Deputy Chairman Of Ports Of Auckland Ltd., Deputy Chairman of The Rural Banking and Finance Corp of New Zealand. He was formerly a member of The APEC Eminent Persons Group, which in 1993 drafted the APEC Vision of Free and Open Trade in the Asia Pacific, a member of APEC Business Advisory Council, Chairman of Asia New Zealand Foundation,
the members are listed here
Each business has an MP assigned to them ( called associate members ) they are listed here some companies e.g. Fonterra has several MPs .
So while we the mere mortals who believe we live in a democratic society have difficulty in accessing our MPS this is not so for big business.
There does not appear to be any legislation which supports MPs membership to this trust and I have done an OIA to clarify this .
I have also asked if we can set up an organization along the same lines which educates MPs with regards to corruption
until we get an independent commission agaisnt corruption we will have
Government of our businesses by those who have been sponsored by businesses to support businesses.
I also have to wonder why David Cunliffe was the only one to disclose his role in the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.