identity concealment
Was Mike Sabin’s disposal of the petition for a commission against corruption lawful ?
February 3, 2015 | 
Author 
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
Posted in 
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
- cannot be identified as a person
- 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.
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 .