identity
Vivienne Holm seeks a new practicing certificate
December 8, 2016 | 
Author 
Yesterday I was approached by Net safe , who on behalf of Vivienne Holm sought changes to former blog posts because Vivienne after holding a practicing certificate for the past 10 years suddenly cant get one because of something that was written many years ago . Vivienne is seeking changes to the blog. We are happy to make corrections but there is nothing to correct . we are interested however in addressing injustices and if she feels that the comment is an injustice then she can assit in correcting a far greater injustice before we look at the perception she has of tiny little one .
Summary of Blogs which mention Vivienne
About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand see also my affidavit
Intimidation by Vivienne HOLM ( Vivienne Parre ) ( Vivienne Wright )
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC
Did David Neutze check the facts before he acted?
Is Wyn Hoadley fit to be a Lawyer, A trustee or a councillor?
How to get your litigation funded through the public purse
The following is my response to Net safe , The fact that Vivienne and Malcolm North who has been harassing me, both worked at the ministry of social development is a fact that is not lost on me .
….Thank you net safe
The animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) had law enforcement powers which it obtained after an application was made to the then minister of agriculture on 22 November 1999 .
A blank trust deed had been attached to the application made by Neil Edward wells a barrister .
In reality ,No trust existed and no entity existed but the government gave AWINZ wide sweeping law enforcement powers akin to those held by the RNZSPCA, which includes search and seizure and ability to fine people .
Neil Wells who applied on behalf of AWINZ had written the no 1 bill for the new Animal welfare act and had inserted the sections to facilitate the application he subsequently made and he also advised on the act as “independent advisor” to the select committee without declaring his obvious conflict of interest of writing an act to facilitate his own business plan
In March 2006 an employee of Waitakere city council Lynne McDonald ( the bird lady ) approached me with the concern that she, a dog control officer, was required to “ volunteer “ her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over dog control . The building at the council had been rebranded and Neil wells her council manager from 2005 was the only person operating AWINZ for which he used a logo which was identical to the new branding of the council building .
Maf at the time of an audit acknowledged that the two entities appeared to merge and it was difficult to see where one began and the other finished. The council on the other hand denied that AWINZ operated from their premises . This was in reality a massive public fraud using public office for private pecuniary gain.
To prove that AWINZ did not exist several of us incorporated the name Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand .It is impossible to incorporate the identical name of an entity, we were successful there by conclusively proving that AWINZ the law enforcement authority did not exist .
Vivienne Holm @ Vivienne Parr @ Vivienne Wright Phoned me late at night and made threats against my Private investigators licence and there by my income and livelihood. She demanded that we had to give up the name AWINZ when intimidation did not work Her then husband Nick wright then took over the matter as Vivienne at the time was working as a law clerk .
I called at her address to discuss a resolution and was promptly served with a trespass notice.
Now it has always puzzled me why a Law clerk was instructed , surely that is not usual and why was her first port of call be an intimidating phone call late on a Friday night .. I thought that a legitmaley instructed person would use more transparent means rather than acting like a thug.
After her husband , a resource management lawyer , became involved Threats of legal action were made and out of the blue a trust deed materialised.
I was to find that the trust deed dated 1.3.2000 had been signed when the then dog control manager at Waitakere city council, Tom Didovich visited the various people who thought they were trustees.
However they never met never passed a resolution and certainly were not involved in the application for the “ approved organisation’ under section 121 of the animal welfare act ( which Neil wells had had such a massive part in ), the trust they were allegedly involved in held no assets and after three years the trustees who still had not met were not reappointed, hence this was a totally sham trust
Nick Wright took me to court for defamation , for saying that AWINZ was a sham trust, which it was and has proved to be . The defamation was allegedly of Neil Wells , I was denied the right to a statutory defence of truth and honest opinion and no finding has ever been made that I defamed Neil wells but I had to pay some $100,000 to him and his lawyer all for being a whistle-blower on serious corruption .
This went on for some 10 years the object was to bankrupt me . Neil wells in an email to MAF in 2007 said that this was his objective , he certainly tried hard enough
Nick wright who is reputedly the “Auckland lawyer who had “fallen on hard times”( http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77079681/auckland-lawyer-awarded-14000-from-police-over-false-arrest-imprisonment) has ceased practicing and Brookfields continued their attack on me, I can only guess that if they had done the decent thing they would have seen some notable lawyers struck off for not checking the facts before filing matters in court and using their office contrary to the provisions of the Lawyers and conveyancers rules .
In the process of suing me they used dirty tactics because facts and evidence would not have won it for them . I have reason to believe that that also worked covertly on my marriage and ensured that my 23 years marriage and my family was destroyed. The lawyer who represented me was later found to be incompetent and I very much suspect he was working for the other side . So I lost , no way of winning when you have a lawyer who the law society acknowledged as being incompetent and for whom judges had no respect .
All in all this created a massive miscarriage of justice and one which I physically paid out well over $300,000 for and find it impossible to quantify the lost hours of work, health stress etc.
Brookfields, on behalf of whom Vivienne Wright at the time,(previously Vivienne Parr now Vivienne Holm) , took instructions from the fictional AWINZ tried to liquidate my company and succeeded until I found out that they had filed a false affidavit of service and the whole thing was reversed.
So now 10 years down the track and after having held many practicing certificates Vivienne wants a different type of practicing certificate because she is going to work for Paul Cavanagh who retired exactly a year ago .
Vivienne “ believes “ that she already had her application in . I am sure that she did not.( this is based on my concurrent records )
I believe that my post is totally accurate and that the fact of the date of her application for a practicing certificate is just a teensy weensy bit trivial compared to the years of suffering which I and my family have had to endure.
The good news is that I am happy to work with any one who helps put things right . When the AWINZ matter has been addressed and is history I can take down all the posts but while the injustice exists it requires exposure of the fact and the facts will remain in the public realm
I cannot understand why she claims that she cannot get a practicing certificate on this occasion , the email you sent is dated 19 September 2016 and states that she has held a practicing certificate from April 2015 to the present .
Practicing certificates renew at the end of June , The law society have just informed me that she does not currently hold a practicing certificate, her last one expired 25 November 2016, it appears that that is the date when she left the MSD
My internet search reveals that Paul Cavanagh QC retired a year ago .
It would appear that Vivienne Holm now wants to work in public practice again , as such she will become an officer of the high court and according to section 4 of the Lawyers and conveyancers act will have an obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
She may wish to help address the AWINZ injustice , once that has been sorted I can look at removing / altering blogs .
I do find it amusing perhaps coincidental perhaps not , that she was employed by MSD until 25 November where Malcolm North who has been harassing me, by email also works.
But getting back to Vivienne I am happy to remove anything minor when a greater injustice has been resolved, she only needs to contact me and help me right the wrongs of the past that she was instrumental in in kicking off . A person with integrity would see that an as officer of the court Vivienne would have an overriding obligation to justice and if she cannot how integrity in putting the past right then she should not be asking me to change factual information .
In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on Transparency.net.nz
Posted in 
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
- 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.
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 .
Vault Compliance Systems- where is its registered office ?
I have just been al
erted to a post on Kiwis first entitled International Players
The article is about Suzanne Snively and Victor Cattermole
Susan Snively of transparency International fame is the chair person of Vault compliance systems .
She works along side Victor Cattermole sole director and share holder of the company.
382 Wairakei Road, Burnside, Christchurch, 8053 , New Zealand
According to Whale Oil “Victor Cattermole is one such dodgy ratbag standing for public office. Amongst other things he has been censured by Securities and Commerce Commissions for running a (likely) ponzi scheme.”
Despite this the company registered to 3/38 Clearwater Drive, Belfast, Christchurch, 8011 , New Zealand gives its address on the web site as Level 19, Two International Finance Centre,8 Finance Street,Central, Hong Kong .
This is also the address for http://suisseinternationalgroup.com/contact/
I personally find that funny as Suzanne used to work for Jarden and co which became credit Suisse.
It would appear that Clearwater Avenue is a new development on the golf club Zoodle is the only site which locates it , we still need to check it out perhaps Suzanne can help us out on this one.
It is not clear where Mr Cattermole, who uses both Victor and Thomas as his first name , lives as the company records on 5 August show him using the address of 25 Northcote Road,Northcote Christchurch 8052 which is the address he used as Thomas Cattermole on the vault shareholder application form but at the same time as Director Thomas victor Henry Ronald Catermole and using the same signature claimed to live at 382 Wairakei Road, Burnside,vault compliance
I find this all very confusing Suzanne do you work from Hong Kong or do you work from Christchurch.
what is the registered office of the company and who exactly works in Hong Kong.
And what about the transparency of your business partner what standards do you have .. what can we expect?
TINZ Integirty systems in question
Transparency international New Zealand was funded by the government to do an integrity report on our public service.
We found that the finding that we had ” the least corrupt public sector ” came about due to a number of factors.
- Corruption was not defined or looked at – due to the assumption that as”the least corrupt country ” we must be doing things right .
- Transparency Internationals New Zealand itself having given NZ the status of being perceived to be the least corrupt so as to encourage business growth in NZ
- Transparency International New Zealand funded by government departments
see correspondence with the minister Judith Collins Please provide the evidence to support that New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world.
and the response from the companies office
the following is a news release
We repeatedly hear that Shanghai Pengxin has purchased land in New Zealand previously the Crafar farms and now poised to buy the Lochinver Station.
It is time that we got our facts right as to who actually owns the property and just a tiny bit of research brings massive concerns.
There is no company in New Zealand called Shanghai Pengxin and no land in New Zealand owned by a company of that name
There is however an entity called PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED which owns some 76 titles according to Terranet .
PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED has one director, Chinese billionaire Zhaobai JIANG, the company’s sole shareholder is MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED which in turn is also directed by Mr Jiang.
But look at the shareholding of MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED and it is allegedly owned by Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central.
Strangely enough Milk New Zealand investment does not exist on the New Zealand company register.
The question is how can a non-existent company make an application to be a shareholder?
According to the lawyers for the company’s registrar takes applications on face value, this is the reality of the integrity systems which Transparency New Zealand reported on recently .
It was these very same integrity systems which Judith Collins attributed to New Zealand being perceived as the least corrupt.
If we don’t look we don’t see
If we don’t define it we cannot have it
Will there be an enquiry into the company structure of PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED ?
Grace Haden Independent candidate for Epsom.
see anticorruption.co.nz
How struck off lawyers continue to practice
It is business as usual at the premises of Equity law Barristers Limited, the only things that have changed is that the receptionist now answers the phone as equity group. Ask her if it is a law firm and she will tell you that it is .
The sign in the foyer and by the lift at 44 Khyber pass road still read Equity Law . The business of Equity law barristers has allegedly been ” merged with Stewart an associates lawyers limited a firm from Alexandra operated by an associate of Equity law barristers director . Greg Stewart is also director of associates companies operated from the same premises EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED . The share holder of this company is the ultimate shareholder of companies such as Unihold . Maxhold which are companies directed by Cypriot Manti EFFROSYNI they have a interesting origin and have owned a multitude of off shore trust companies between them. they had origins with Glenn SMITH ( THE COMPANY NET TRUST ) 69 Ridge Road, Albany, Auckland , New Zealand see news item Web of intrigue
It appears that EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED took over the administration a number of Glen Smith and Gt Taylor’s companies .
Both Greg Stewart and the director of Equity trust placed their wives in positions of ultimate share holders of companies which had been operated by Smith and Taylor.
Although the web site of the former law firm has gone and the principal no longer holds a practicing certificate a you tube clip promoting the firm as a law firm still exists
Today we obtained information from Julia Leenoh that she is working under the ” trading “name Stewart and associates equity law which she claims is a branch of Stewart and Associates .
The fact that she is a very new lawyer working under what appears to be the supervision of a struck off lawyer appears to be beside the point see Lawyers to face forced competency test
What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?
Open letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand
The Governance body of Transparency New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards to the ” integrity ” of your organization
You may or may not be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when Director Grace Haden was declined membership to TI-NZ on an application which stated that she was a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association and a licensed private Investigator.
Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption so that it does not spread.
We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored it , their fate is all too often sealed , then there are those who identify cancer early and act , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )
Corruption and cancer are pretty much the same thing. Cancer is caused by the corruption of cells.
We cannot deny that corruption exists , we cannot simply pretend that it is not there and above all we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )
While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand deals with reality .
The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system which has no accountability and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and conceal crime.
Our very own minister of Justice said this week that we have a legal system not a justice system
The old saying that it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true
yet TI- NZ states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107 Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..
So could some one please explain why TI-NZ believes that the court deliver justice when the people know it does not and this belief even extends to the minister of justice ! TI NZ state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.” It is obvious from that statement that no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to any of the actual court users especially those involved in the family or civil courts
While Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability and is true to that objective , this does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.
1. TI-NZ claims to be “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other person who is in any way associated a victim of corruption join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government bodies and members of the universities .
2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..
yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile claimed to be the director of a company which did not exist Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn. oops typo
Former director Michael Vukcevic slipps an LLb into his cv oops typo again
The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with his linked in profile.. another typo ?
The web site of transparency International has been set up by an American resident also named Snively and using a company which there is no record of . ? Nepotism and use of another fictitious company again. But who would notice as the web site states that you need less due diligence in dealing with New Zealand companies.
3. Transparency International New Zealand appears to be supported by Business, government departments and academics amongst the members are the SFO, office of the auditor general , ombudsmen , Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development, NZ Public Service Association, Ministry for Justice, Statistics New Zealand
- School of Government, VUW
- Ministry for Justice
- Statistics New Zealand
- The Human Rights Commission
- Ministry of Social Development
- The Treasury
- Inland Revenue
- Department of Internal Affairs
- Corrections
- Department of Conservation
- Ministry of Transport
- Civil Aviation Authority
- New Zealand Transport Authority
- Maritime New Zealand
- Te Puni Kokiri
- The State Services Commission
- The Ombudsman
- Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
- The New Zealand Defence Force
- Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
- The Serious Fraud Office
- Crown Law
- NZ Public Service Association
- The Gama Foundation
- Bell Gully
- VUW School of Government
- PwC
- Deloitte
- KPMG
- Human Rights Commission Launch Day
- School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
- Wellington Girls College
- Thorndon New World
- NZTE
- Institute of Directors
- BDO Spicers
- Russell McVeigh
- Chapman Tripp
- Gibson Sheat
- Susan Gluck-Hornsby
- Chen Palmer
- Juliet McKee
- Claudia Orange
- Te Papa
4. the objectives of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth and a very dangerous claim is made that “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing with New Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”
Transparency New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment as first you are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about saying I see nothing.
Transparency New Zealand advocates the ” trust but Verify ” approach to any dealings with any company or person anywhere .
5. TI-NZ claims to be “A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society” But apparently as mentioned before they do not lead by example. We question what High integrity is when by our experience you simply cannot report corruption .
There is also a difference in what our definitions are of certain terms as illustrated in the FAQ section of the transparency international NZ web site
How do you define corruption? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.
It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization either directly or indirectly.
Corrupt conduct can take many forms including:
conflicts of interest ( government departments paying for ” integrity” reports )
- taking or offering bribes
- dishonestly using influence ( promoting business in New Zealand though claims that there is no corruption )
- blackmail
- fraud
- theft
- embezzlement
- tax evasion
- forgery
- nepotism and favouritism( this includes having a relative designing a web site through a fictitious company )
NOTE: Corruption does not include mistakes or unintentional acts, but investigations are required to determine intent.
What is “transparency”?click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Being open , truthful and lacking concealment .
What is bribery? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
What is fraud? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud and the use of ” organizations” which do not exist. In New Zealand one of the largest vehicles for fraud are trusts .
Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the reins to just one person an economist who misunderstands the importance of corruption prevention . We suspect that her objectives are to assist business development and growth rather than combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business woman with an objective of bringing in money rather than an objective of independence.
True corruption prevention comes from Accountability , I gave this example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently with regards to Suzanne Snively LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited
We believe that Susan Snively wished to create a false perception of her abilities , she was blowing her trumpet too vigorously and duplicated some of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.
Because no one checks in New Zealand when may have believed that she could get away with it.. this is often the case.
Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability
Susan had control over her Linked in account .. Monopoly
She and she alone had discretion of what was presented.
We are holding her accountable
= Linked in profile changed. and no corruption
I also gave an example of perception
When I was on Police patrol in Rotorua , I saw a decapitated cat on the road, I made a comment to the driver about the grizzly find.
He disagreed with me and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.
Because our views were so different we went back and on close inspection found that we were both right, it was a cat with its head stuck in a plastic bag.
The reality was that he cat lived to see another day . Happy ending !!!!
When you deal with perceptions you cannot just look from one side. You have to look at the facts and consider the views of many and not just a few.
You cannot promote the lack of corruption by will fully being blind and intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.
To examine the corruption which is occurring and to call for accountability for those involved is what will prevent corruption from blowing out of control.
What good are laws which are not enforced, codes of conduct which are ignored , and processes which are flawed.
ACCOUNTABILITY is what we should be insisting on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is doing fantastic work , when they are openly ignoring corruption and fraud, does not serve NZ .
A report which has been funded by the party concerned is not an impartial report.
The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International and has given $15,000 and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond that ) when you get $30,000 from someone and want to get $30,000 again next year you will give them a favourable report. This process is akin to reverse bribery where the state is paying someone to give a glowing report .
Being no partisan and apolitical is not enough TI NZ should be totally Neutral and not be acting for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.
I look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to truly strive to make New Zealand Transparent by focusing on ACCOUNTABILITY . I would like to start by making Transparency International Accountable to their code of ethics and the definitions of fraud and corruption which I have provided above.
We look forward to hearing from the directors of TI-NZ and we undertake to publish their response .
Michael Vukcevic CV
Just recently there was much discussion on a Linked in forum CV Fraud, is this a sin or not the topic of Michael Vukcevic was raised as it had just been in the news . Today as a result of that discussion I have received several copies of the offending CV which is apparently doing the rounds.
I have cropped it to make it download faster but otherwise I am assured by various sources that this is the CV is that which he submitted for the job at Baldwins.
I routinely check CV’s for my clients and I cannot accept Michelle Boag’s statement
“This is a bit of a storm in a tea cup,” Ms Boag, an executive adviser to the Middle East Business Council, said.
“As I understand it, he should have had the word ‘incomplete’ next to LLB. Having said that, I don’t know why it wasn’t there.”
this is the offending bit
It appears to me that the claim of having a LLB is conclusive. It does not say studied for LLB and BA and deceptively avoids saying that the LLb was not attained. the statement is clear. LLB, BA indicating that the person whose Cv it is holds those degrees.
Going back to a former life of Michael Vukcevic we find an interesting story when he was a recruiter in the It industry , he states in this article entitled Values pay off for everyone
The reason the Curriculum Vitaes they put forward have such a high success rate is due to a range of factors .
Let me guess what that some of those factors are could it be that he left this degree of his CV
It is certainly my experience that people who make it big after coming from no where do so with a tad of blarney.
I would welcome any input from any one who can give any formation with regards to Michael Vukcevic’s career path .
For recent news items see
Fake degree forces new resignation for Vukcevic
False law degree stoush ‘storm in teacup’ – Boag
Boss admits he had no law degree
Vukcevic admits he has no law degree
CEO steps down after fake degree exposed
Vukcevic Quits Business council
see also
BIG BAD BOY AT “BALDWINS” FULL OF BULLSHIT
Auckland council naive about Identity and the law
I have it in black and white Auckland council have no policy with regards to trading with undefined or unidentifiable entities.
My long over due LGOIMA was addressed last night the actual response is here EY report response
I have referred to the actual report previously in the post The Ernst and Young report into Len Brown not worth the paper it is written on
The reason I asked about who the report was written by was because the report did not disclose who EY was and as I pointed out the report on its last page provides the definition for EY as being
EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member
firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.
© 2013 Ernst & Young, New Zealand.
All Rights Reserved.
If you visit the companies register you will note that there are several EY companies
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067)Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
Go to the intellectual property office and you will find that the trade mark EY is registered to EYGN Limited which is not even registered in New Zealand but is apparently registered in Nassau in the Bahamas. The general disclaimer with regards to that company can be found here
The person at Auckland Council who dealt with the request could well have assumed who the company was which prepared the and assumed wrong we will follow up requesting evidence .
As a private Investigator myself I find it most disturbing that a report has been issued which has no evidential value at all for the quoted price of $198,751. I have to wonder if that is before or after GST .
The law issue
I requested the legal basis on which this report was commissioned
the response states
The report was commissioned in accordance with s12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b) of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). Additionally, the Chief Executive has broad power
under s42 of the LGA to ensure the effective and efficient management of the
activities of the local authority.
This response totally circumvents the requirements of the code of conduct elected members set out in part 8 and has requirement for an independent panel .
The sections which have been quotes in the response are nothing more than a brush off
12Status and powers
(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—
(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.
and section 42 sets out the general duties of the Chief executive
But when a specific duty is placed on the CEO that takes prescient over any general responsibility in this case the obligations were to the provisions of the code of conduct and an independent panel should have been appointed not an organsiation which had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Mayor .
Item 2 time sheets
In an open transparent and democratic society one would expect a bill for $198,751 to be explained . Private investigators work at $150 per hour this represents over 33 weeks of work , how many people worked on it and WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE .
The report is such that it has no accountability paying 200,000 for which amounts to unsubstantiated opinion is reckless.
Item 3 Engagement agreement dated 26 October 2013
I have to question the terms of any agreement between EY and Council. the previous CEO Doug Mc Kay was a member of the committee for Auckland and met with the members of this elite group behind closed doors without any requirement to report back to council see Download View as HTML
Membership to the committee for Auckland was justified as follows
Membership to this committee is an operational issue and was approved by the Chief
Executive, or his staff, within delegated financial authority. As such, no Governing Body
approval is required, nor is the Chief Executive required to report back to the Governing
Body.
Once we drew the attention of the CEOs placement on this committee to the attention of he world Stephen towns name was removed from the membership of the committee for Auckland .
Doug Mc Kay who was concurrently with being CEO of Auckland council a director of another committee for Auckland member BNZ .
It appears to me that a CEO who does not appear to know what conflict of interest is , spent more time instructing his fellow members of the committee for Auckland than properly consulting with the executive body of council who employed him.
We await with baited breath to see the path the new CEO follows, his removal from the membership of the committee for Auckland is a step in the right direction