identity concealment

Who is behind the attack on Paula Bennett ?

I was sent an email a few days ago , it drew my attention to the  filthy letter which had been posted by someone  and attacking Paula Bennett, the letter was allegedly  written by one Ashley Farrell and   was nothing more than a verbal attack and provided no evidence of  any alleged wrong doing other than the writers say so .

It appears that  no attempt has been made to deal with these historic  allegations through any  accepted  means  and  to me they  appear to be nothing more than  what I expect to be one of many attacks on   National  .

The web site behind this  appears to be  http://mediawhores.co.nz, this site was originally set up in 2012 as part of the occupy auckland  movement .  the address  of the registrant  shown at that time was   aotea square.

At about that time I was being  defamed by a Suzie Dawson who also ran a website registered to aotea square , I asked her to remove the content and  she responded  by making false allegations to  the private security   authority   alleging that I was stalking her and her daughter.

The last I heard she was   in Russia  and now from the safety of russia , has taken over  as the  so called leader  of the  Internet party and thus far its only candidate   .

The internet party currently appears to have Sarah Illingworth (Internet Party Communications Director and Party Secretary) promoting the party from the safe distance of the UK   For detail , please see her CV. She states that she physically  resides in the UK  but falsely gives an address in wellington  on the web site  this address  belongs to none other than the web registrant Jo Booth

the company the  web site is registered to is  IP Phase 1 Ltd  which according to the  companies register was struck off 17 May 2017.   as an  Activist working for “TRUTH and JUSTICE ” Suzie  you have bombed out  rather badly here .Suzie Dawson on her Face book page posted this .

Her old web site media savvy  in my opinion  very much resembled the  mediawhores web site   and with the type of thing being posted I am not surprised that she  is domiciled in Russia

The person allegedly behind the  mediawhores web site is Cohen GLASS 

He had a company WIRELESS MEDIA LIMITED this site is still live and is registered to Vocus Communications   which is he same company as mediawhores is registerd to . The address for  wireless media is 17B Farnham Street which appears to be a postal  depot .

The new director for the company ethos media   which  Glass  set up  on 30 march 2016  has now been handed over to  a new director

Sarah Edmonds  who resides in a hotel in  Hamilton and used the same post office box company as her registered office .

Cohen  resigned as director and share holder  and  six share holders replaced him I wonder if the shareholders know that the director is  elusive, ethosmedia.co.nz is registered to  Julian Glass  who uses the same address  and  phone number as Cohen Glass

Knowing what I know about  Suzie Dawson   and her associates I would not be at all surprised if the current attack on Paula is  being carried out   through anonymity and stool pigeons    by the internet party .  It’s just my honest opinion, I can feel it in my bones and its something that I know Suzie would  do   after all she did it to me .

 

Update

we have received this  email

—–Original Message—–
From: Wireless Media [mailto:info@wirelessmedia.net.nz]
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 11:20 a.m.
Subject: Formal notificuation of defamation

Hello

Somebody has sent me this link this morning to your website

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2017/07/04/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-paula-bennett/

It contains defamatory, misleading and false information.

Cohen Glass is not the “man behind” the Media Whores website

Cohen Glass works for Wireless Media.

Wireless Media is the domain holder of around 350 NZ domain names, including mediawhores.co.nz

They are a client of ours and nothing more, just like the others.

What they choose do with that domain name is none of our business.

You have also tried to associate the company Ethos Media Ltd which is a separate legal entity altogether and nothing to do with media whores or wireless media. Thus you have completely made up that association. We have notified Ethos Media Ltd of this today also.

And we certainly had nothing to do with the political take down of Paula Bennett.

Please be formally notified of this defamation.

You have 1 week to correct the information, or our next letter will be couriered to you and will be a demand/ claim for damages in thw vicinity of $100,000 (yet to finalized/ calculated).

Jim

Administrator

Wireless Media

Wireless Media

Ph 09-889-3615

We have responded

Dear Jim of   Wireless media

I have no  Idea who you are and how  The transparency web site has defamed you

Please provide me  with full particulars of  the alleged defamatory statements and provide evidence as to  how we were wrong and knew our publication to be wrong

Could you also provide your full name and your association with the  alleged defamed person / entity, we will  be happy to receive your input and adjust the site appropriately .

It would appear that wireless media is a trading name  could  you please advise  the entity which uses this name , it is of concern to   transparency that  a fictional “ person”  appears to  be the holder of so many   domain names , it may be  something which we will have to take up  with the domain  commissioner.

Our comments 

Sarah EDMONDS  resigned her position as  director  on 28 september  and the  director of  ethos media is again Cohen James Glass

4 Sunderland Street, Westport, 7891 , New Zealand…

 

Wireless media  directed  and owned by Cohen JAMES  Glass   was liquidated   and left substantial debts   see liquidators report here 

Interesting that    wireless media has continued to hold  so may clients   despite leaving its creditors out of pocket

 

now I wonder who  JIM could be .  could that be  Cohen James  Glass????

 

Was Mike Sabin’s disposal of the petition for a commission against corruption lawful ?

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 2:20 p.m.
To: ‘select.committees@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘jonathan.young@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘ian.mckelvie@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘david.clendon@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Mahesh.bindra@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘KanwaljitSingh.Bakshi@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Andrew Little’
Subject: Petition for a commission against corruption

Good afternoon

Last year Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption

I am a former police officer and now a private Investigator who has found herself at the fore front of corruption In New Zealand because I believed the spin that NZ was corruption free.

I thought it was the proper thing to do, to draw attention to the fact that a man had written legislation for his own business plan, advised on it at select committee level and then using a false name  applied for the coercive law enforcement powers which he had helped create.

The powers were under the animal welfare act and he claimed that he made an application on behalf of a trust called the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ ) . The trust was fictional, the minister was misled and no one checked that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed.

In 2006 a lady working at the Waitakere city council dog control unit asked me if I could find out who or what AWINZ was. The council vehicles and the buildings had been rebranded to have the appearance of belonging to AWINZ, the council officers were required to Volunteer their council paid time to AWINZ and prioritize animal welfare over dog control . The prosecutions were performed by the council dog control manager who was one and the same as the person who had written the bill which ultimately became foundation for the law. This was a classic case of public office for private pecuniary gain – which is deemed to be corruption by international standards.

Through my journey with corruption many people have come to me and have told me of the brick walls which they , like me have encountered. The police say they had no time , the SFO say not serious or complex, the ombudsmen took 2 ½ years to get a document then went quite ,the office of the auditor general total ignored it .. IT HAS NEVER BEEN INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATED except by the society for promotion of community standards , who confirmed what I had alleged.

In having my petition rejected, I have struck yet another brick wall and again things are done with an appearance of legitimacy but without any real legal foundation and ability.

Mike Sabin rejected the evidence of my petition on the basis of standing order 236 b . this quite clearly states that the evidence is considered to be an irrelevant or unjustified allegation can be expunged. It does not state that all of the evidence can be thrown out and indeed there are various issues raised in my evidence not just that of AWINZ .

236 Irrelevant or unjustified allegations
When a witness gives evidence that contains an allegation that may seriously damage the reputation of a person and the select committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to its proceedings or is satisfied that the evidence creates a risk of harm to that person, which risk exceeds the benefit of the evidence, the committee will give consideration—
(a) to returning any written evidence and requesting that it be resubmitted without the offending material:
(b) to expunging that evidence from any transcript of evidence:
(c) to seeking an order of the House preventing the disclosure of that evidence.

It concerns me that Mike SABIN was so actively involved in the removal of this petition and in light of the events of the last week it is entirely possible that a conflict of interest existed.

Mr SABIN does not state that the allegations are irrelevant or unjustified , and 236 b clearly states “to expunge that evidence from any transcript of evidence “ this does not give open licence to dispose of all of the evidence.

Additionally my evidence does not make it clear that the matter has been” thoroughly investigated” my evidence is that it has never been investigated by the proper authorities .

As a former Police officer Mr Sabin is well versed at writing complaints off but this is a matter before parliament , it needs to be dealt with according to the rules and I do not see that 236(b) can have all the evidence expunged.

Additionally standing Orders have ways of dealing with evidence which could have impact on persons reputation . I have deliberately not named any one however the evidence in support which were obtained from government and council files show who the players are in the game. The Animal welfare institute of New Zealand does not have legal existence hence does not have any legal rights and therefore cannot have a reputation .

It is precisely the use of such fictional personas which makes fraud prevalent in new Zealand , this practice is being condoned and this is exactly why we need a commission against corruption . It is a huge elephant which is being ignored.

I request that the committee review the manner in which this petition has been disposed of and ensure that it was done lawfully if they up hold the decision. I am happy to resubmit eh evidence with names removed if that assists .

Additionally under the OIA I request the names of those who sat on the committee with Mr SABIN and voted on dumping the petition and writing the letter attached above and the minutes pertaining to this .

I will be publishing this letter on www.transparency.net.nz as the public have a right to know .

Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

Its time to sort out the confusion with regards to law firms.

The law society have a statutory duty to deal with two groups of persons – lawyers and incorporated law firms .

The  first one  is seemingly straight forward a lawyer  gets a practicing certificate and is for that year a lawyer and is  placed on the law societies register .

The law society  also provides a page called “Find a Lawyer or Organisation” and by entering a name onto that   search field and selecting “organisation”    names come up.

Basic logic would have  you think that the “organisations’ would be incorporated law firms   but that is not  so.  The reality is that the  organisation search is grossly deceptive,  to such an extent that even  the staff administering the  register cannot tell you if  these ” organisations “are  incorporated law firms or not.

An incorporated law firm  is defined as

incorporated law firm means, subject to sections 15 and 16, a company that—(a) provides to the public services that are, in relation to a lawyer, regulated services; and(b) has as its directors no persons other than lawyers who are actively involved in the provision by the body corporate of regulated services; and(c) has as its shareholders, in respect of shares that confer voting rights, no persons other than—(i) lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); or(ii) persons who are administrators of the estates of persons who, at the time of their death, were lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); and(d) has as its shareholders, in respect of shares that do not confer voting rights, no persons other than—(i) lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b) (any 1 or more or each of whom may, but none of whom is required to, hold those shares as a trustee of a qualifying trust); or(ii) persons who are relatives of lawyers of the kind described in paragraph (b); or(iii) persons who are administrators of the estates of persons who, at the time of their death, were shareholders of the kind described in subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii)

the act then  goes on to relies on  section 21 Provision of legal services  for the protection of legal services  and states

 (1) A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—(a) provides legal services in New Zealand; and(b) describes himself, herself, or itself as—(i) a lawyer; or(ii) a law practitioner; or(iii) a legal practitioner; or(iv) a barrister; or(v) a solicitor; or(vi) a barrister and solicitor; or(vii) an attorney-at-law; or(viii) counsel.

So does this mean that a  firm  which is not a law firm  does not commit an offence if it provides legal services and

  1. cannot be identified as a person
  2.  does not call itself  lawyer, barrister  etc  as above.

section 22   Misleading descriptions

It is clear that this section  is there for non lawyers  who hold themselves out to be lawyers   but  what if a  lawyer is holding a  fictional company out to be a law firm. –    section  23 does not   give much support, it appears to exonerate actions as long as  there is a lawyer  involved somewhere in the process.

But  Lawyers have rules too  , they are enforced  more or less through the law society . However the law society is frequently  conflicted in their  roles of  membership organisation and a disciplinary body.

It is  after all lawyers controlling their own  and   this   too of deception  has been  part of a lawyers artillery for  centuries  so why should they   give away a tool of deception  ? It suits lawyers and the law society to be vague about law firms  as this way  they preserve their  fidelity fund  as no one  can bring a claim against a fictional law firm.

The rules of conduct are  found here You may be wondering why  we have brought this issue up   .. well it is for very good reason   it   is one of those  twisty  nasty tings which makes lawyers always right and you always wrong..    In our opinion it is  Identity  deception/fraud.

Our director  engages a lawyer  .. she met  him in what she  believed to be the offices of his law firm  Equity law Barristers Limited  , he sends away a staff member to complete the contract and a contract emerges in the name of Equity law Chambers .

The law practice is  referred to as Equity law regularly in  correspondence and the current  web page at the time  shows  the  People involved with what is referred to as Equity law.

Equity Law barristers  Limited started its life as Equity law 2007 limited.  there are no other companies on the  companies register  which  bear the name “equity law ”  and the company now known as Equity law barristers is shown as having been  co  directed by the   the  lawyers  wife    and she also held 50% shareholding of the company   up until 16 November 2011  this  means that by the legal definition of  Incorporated law firm  equity law barristers was not and could not have been an incorporated law firm at the time when  it agreed , under a trading name to provide me with legal services.

The agreement was that  Barristers from within the chambers  supervised by the head of chambers, were to do the work . However the staff who worked on my matter were generally  new graduates who  had neither been admitted to the bar  and therefore did not have a practicing certificate ( you will also find that the law society  claims  privacy  when you ask   who had a practicing certificate  when )

Inquiries with the law society   have complicated matters further , they   tell me that Equity law barristers limited  was an ” an incorporated barristers practice ” from November 2008  they will not go so far as to say  if it was incorporated law firm  and they will not say  on what basis  it is an incorporated law firm. – vagueness is protecting their fidelity fund.

On the other hand the court is very strict on identities   a company is a separate legal  identity from a person   but here were have a situation where a company is using a trading name  and the director  has now claimed the trading name  as his  own. The law society  in their wisdom made a decision  naming the   director  of Equity law barristers limited and  told him to reduce his invoices  and refund our director.  However   he refused  we now have a gigantic mess where by  the  incorporated  barristers firm may not have been an incorporated law firm  and could not have provided  andy legal services, but because there was a lawyer  hanging about in the side office it is not an offence.

Another point of interest with this law firm  is that  the   shareholder   and other director the  Lawyers common law wife  appears to have had her signature forged. But that wont matter either they will have some explanation for that like a   sprained wrist .

It appears that the law applies strictly to us and loosely to lawyers .. that has to change.

This brings about massive identity issues and made us focus on the organizations which the  law society lists.

Many of the  ” law firms ”   are  just trading names, unidentified trading names

some of the limited liability companies  listed  do  not qualify as  Incorporated law firms  because of the share holding issue.

Solicitors trust accounts which  do have lawyers as directors and share holders  are not  incorporated law firms  but  would  qualify on face value as such .

This  whole area is a  massive deception

Stewart & Associates Equity Law  still appears on the   ” organisation  list”  it is neither a company nor is it a firm as it only has one employee a  lawyer who is not capable due to her lack of seniority to practice on her own account.

Also look at Brookfields  and Brookfields – Wellington branch  , who is it a trading name for  ? it could be any of these  or none.

It is time that the law society   tidied up their  ” find a lawyer  data base.  we the public should be able to go to the database and identify   the law firms  and  the lawyers practicing  in their own name.

 

The curious case of Equity Law and Equity Trust International

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 .

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.

NC’s Guess About a Sean Quinn-GT Group Connection Just Got a Bit More Solid (But a Bit More Ho-Hum, Too)

At Least Half of the 21,500 Companies Revealed by the Guardian/ICIJ Offshore Investigation Have Connections With Rogue Agent GT Group

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  .

email Bushe

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 .