identity

Penny Bright .. why we need a lot more people like her

It is exactly 12 years ago today  when  I met Penny , I remember the date well , because it  was her birthday.   We  are the most unlikely  mates, I am  the ex cop  and she  the activist . In the  spring bock tour  we were  on opposite sides of the fence , she had an opinion but my uniform  prevented me from having one.

Since leaving the  Police and Becoming a  Private investigator   I  stumbled  onto corruption.    I thought it would be a simple task to bring the  lack of existence of a Law enforcement body to the notice of the government,  but    I was wrong and encountered   a cover up of   gigantic and unbelievable proportion  that has  apparently called for a 12 year character assassination of me  which   continues to this day .  Heaven forbid that some one should believe me or look at the evidence, then some  very prominent people would be taking up beds in our   prisons .

With Penny’s activism and union  background   and my police prosecution  and investigative  Background we    formed a very close relationship  of mutual support trust and respect.

Penny and I  are  on the same page    with corruption,  we do not  always agree on  everything  but the good part is   that when we   talk about  our different  views  we often  find that   there is  yet  another angle  ,one neither of us anticipated.

I have learned heaps  from Penny , having been in  Government service  you come out rather  blinkered  and  Penny  helped me see beyond the things that public service blind you to .

In return  helped Penny  with my prosecution skills ,I remember her  coming to me because she had been thrown out of the town hall and arrested for trespass  , I said whoa  that is a public place you can’t be trespassed from a public place , there is specific legislation  with regards to removal from council meetings    and so Penny    learned  from me  and    won some 22  cases of trespass .

We  took on projects  individually and worked on others together  one day we ended up in  Rodney Hide’s office   and  together  learned  from him of the   magic of the privacy act. So obvious  once you know .

It is hard to believe that when we met in 2006   that the internet was still  pretty much  in its infancy , all sorts of things were being loaded on line , like the companies register  and those who had  been hiding  their business connections  in the  files of the companies office  suddenly found their  business  exposed .  we unraveled the committee for auckland and saw how   the  tail was wagging the dog,  this was he start of the super city   and it was all about $$$$.

I started to blog and  we  soon found   that transparency was not  welcome . What it did however  was to bring people together  and  we built a network   of people  who needed help on the way, a network of mutual support  and information sharing .

Penny rang me one day about the Tamaki  redevelopment company  limited  and together  we   worked through the  quagmire of trading names, domain names  and   fake names  which facilitate the transfer of   a massive government housing  stock to a company other than  the one where it was  intended to go . We cared bt apparently no one else did  , but that is something that one day will become obvious .

We have made headway on corruption, the corruption  we saw occurs through using  fake identities  , false names and   fictional trusts.  it is not on a person identity thing but using fake entities . the banks are now  checking the validity of   companies  and the  directors and shareholders, but you can still register a company and have  a liquidation   through a liquidator who is totally fictional   and hopefully soon  the questions will be asked about  the tamaki redevelopment company  Limited, Tamaki regeneration limited and the fictional  tamaki regeneration  company limited which , to add to the confusion is is referred to as TRC 

see also Corruption Alert ..Tamaki Regeneration limited   and Crown Entities , Fictional entities and making things up as they go

I  knew that  fictional organisations existed after questioning   the existence of   the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  which was in reality nothing more than a trading name used by Neil Wells.  Wells was the  barrister  who  drafted  and was adviser to the select committee on the animal welfare   bill  which, when passed    facilitated the  granting of  coercive law  enforcement powers .  Wells made a fraudulent  application  to the minister   and   subsequently  obtained this law enforcement power for  his fictional organisation   this was   covered up by his associates  in   court action  against me   to re write history. despite many requests  this has been covered up 

Penny came to court with me   and stood beside me more times than I  can  mention , no other friend has stood beside me like she has .

The state of corruption : New Zealand  Questioning  corruption is not for the faint hearted especially in New Zealand , because we are repeatedly told that there is no corruption , we must be delusional, ignoring   corruption is liek   ignoring cancer  while penny was    fighting  corruption  she  did not notice the tumours in her own body .

Penny You are  going  to have to get better    we still need you  , I have had plenty of friends at  deaths door   and  they are here today ,   You are  a fighter   your work is not   done  .

Get better  girl   and  Onward and upward     there is much more work to be done

Hugs

Grace

 

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.

 

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 .

TINZ Integirty systems in question

LochinvarTransparency 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.

  1. Corruption was not defined or looked at – due to the assumption that  as”the least corrupt country ” we must be doing things right .
  2. 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
  3. 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

P1010420It 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 ?

TI-NZOpen 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

with  sponsors

  • 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 .

Auckland council naive about Identity and the law

identity crisisI 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