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 .

Michael Vukcevic CV

VukcevicJust 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.”
The CV can be  found here Michael Vukcevic CV

this is the offending bit

vukcevic LLB



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

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





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
© 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 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

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

David Neutze of Brookflields has lousy Bookkeeping and logic skills

bookkeeping for dummiesWhat degree of accuracy do we expect from Layers? it appears that for some  we don’t expect any.

Is near enough Good enough  or  do  we  believe that there is amoral  and ethical obligation for them to  place only true matters before the court.

It  is in my experience that David Neutze of Brookfields is extremely ” loose ” with his facts. In fact  the facts are  so Loose that they are not facts at all , like loose bowls  it is a load of S….

Today I received his  submissions  for the recall of  judgement

Its a  bit of a hoot   he  blatantly states that his maths  is spot on .  I had added the    items up   dozens of times   using different   means  and    continually got the  same result.

Now Neutze associate Lisa Walsh  says  that the  list that they put  in  to the court  for the  cost application was not a verbatim list   it appears  that I have left off an item..   Yes like I am clairvoyant ! .. always shifting blame good way to cover up .

But most  hilarious of all is that we  now have  a clear cut case of  double entry bookkeeping   we have one set of accounts which  they submitted to court   for   the  July 2012 period  and another  set that they sent in now for the same period   ..  the  content is the same  but the  totals are vastly different.    its only  a  $3,000   discrepancy    hardly worth  worrying about ?, I justhave to wonder why there are two sets of accounts any way.. bit liek the two sets of   trust deeds for AWINZ  one for me and one for  MAF    . yes  same date allegedly the same deed    but different content… don’t such things matter ?

So Neutze bookkeeping is as good as his concept of who trustees are   he is  employed by Wells and Hoadley alleging that they are a  trust  called Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )

Neutze Accepts proof that they are a trust based on a  trust deed signed by  Nuala Grove, Graeme Coutts , Sarah Giltrap  and Neil Wells .

He then takes legal action in the name of AWINZ represented by Wells Coutts and Hoadley    when  it has been spelled out to him by the  ministry of economic developments that  Wells  2000 trust does not have body corporate status.

Identity is the  key to the fiction behind this litigation  and just this week I picked up  a new word   Conflate  “the word is seldom used in a positive or neutral sense, but instead highlights a negative or careless blending of two otherwise disconnected ideas. To conflate  is to confuse “

Basically it  goes like this

Joe  the  accountant  wears brown shoes . Trevor wears  brown shoes therefore he is an accountant.

or John Smith is a baker    here is another John Smith  he must be a baker as well.

The David Neutze version is

AWINZ is a law enforcement authority  with  coercive public   powers  resulting from an application  27.11.1999

AWINZ is a  trust purportedly formed  by trust deed 1.3.2000  between  Coutts, Grove, Giltrap and Wells

His clients  casually use the name  AWINZ  therefore they are the  law enforcement authority and the trust.

It would appear  that  law and accounts  make  as much sense to  Brookfields  as gibberish does to the rest of us.. except  Brookfields  can sell this tripe to  courts and win.

I’m just the one  paying  the bills  for this Bullshit.. that’s NZ justice for you .

Personally I am over the lies.. without truth there can be no justice !

New Flash : Accounts  as explained by Lisa Walsh

The invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “C” to the defendants’ costs memorandum) shows that our total costs of attendances for this period were reduced from $12,964 to $10,516 (plus GST and disbursements).  The reduction related to attendances unrelated to this matter.

The schedule of attendances in relation to the invoice dated 31 July 2012 (annexure “A” to the defendants’ memorandum in response to the plaintiffs’ recall application) lists all attendances before the reduction.  You will note that the attendances on the invoice also total $12,964.

The total of $16,532.17 on the schedule includes GST and disbursements.  However, this full amount was not billed to our client, in accordance with the reduction recorded on the invoice itself.


Lisa Walsh


Senior Registered Legal Executive


Brookfields Lawyers

DDI: +64 9 979 2219

Fax: +64 9 379 3224



19 Victoria Street West

P O Box 240, Auckland 1140


Note :    if indemnity fees  means  payment of what the client paid  then   I should not be paying  the inflated accounts  but actual costs. 

Wendy Brandon strikes to silence me again

hear see speak no evilI have to  question  what Wendy Brandon  is  doing jumping to the deference of  former employees.  To me  it indicates  that she is actively concealing corruption .

I have wondered why we actually bother electing  our Councillors    why not just have  Wendy Brandon in  charge.  Today she pulled rank on the mayor andmisled him by alleging that I could not  give my  address to council because there was an injunction  out to prevent me from  speaking out.

Funny  but I don’t  recall an injunction with regards to AWINZ  and there  is certainly no injunction which stops me  from   referring to council documents and   pointing out  the  discrepancies between  them.

My address to council can be found here Open Forum – 28 Feb 2013

As soon as I got the word AWINZ,  Brandon jumped up and started talking to the Mayor.  I was told  that I could not continue because there was  an injunction.  I pointed out that AWINZ does not exist, it never has existed  and there is no and  can not be an injunction against something which is not a real.

There appeared to be  considerable apathy with regards to corruption , the two ladies who gave  an earlier address  on the Mt Roskill   buildings drew far more questions than serious corruption.  Wendy had done her work well.

I later got an  email purporting to come from her  which  said  “HAHAHAHAHA Grace. I’ve told EVERYONE you are crazy and they believe me. In fact I’m getting you locked up HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…Tadpoles in small ponds get eaten up by big fish yum yum yum!”

This was  the second such email I have received from  what purports to be her the earlier one said “Crazy cow. Soon they will come to lock you up…”   very professional if this is her  . Guess to some people it is a crime to speak up about corruption.

I had sent Wendy the two documents  which  i later  attached to my presentation  , I had thought  that   if she was only half competent as a lawyer she  would have seen alarm bells ringing   lets look at the  Memorandum of understanding   and the  job application for Neil Wells and I will show you what I mean.

As you  will see  the MOU is  between  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   and the  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere ( “the linked organisation ” )

1.  The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  did not exist in any real or identifiable form  apart from being a trading name for Mr Wells  alone and later a trust which  he set up to cover up  but  got the dates all wrong.

2. The  so called Linked organisation  was  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere

The agreement was  for  Animal Welfare services of Waitakere  to provide inspectors and resources to AWINZ, this agreement had not been passed through Councillors or  the council solicitor.

Neil Wells signs  on behalf of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand,  no mention of a trust or of him  being a trustee. The council  lawyer never had a trust deed on file, but then aparently he was not in the loop.   Wells  signed in the  name of a fictitious organization a pseudonym for himself.

Lets look  at the job application  this  application was made when Tom Didovich( the signatory sor the so called Linked organisation) had to leave the services of Waitakere.

In his application Wells states  “ In animal welfare compliance, by successfully leading a pilot programme with MAF
and Waitakere City Council. This led to the formation in 1999 of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand and established an alternative to the SPCA in animal welfare law enforcement, which is able to be extended nationally. The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

 Lets identify the   spin This led to the formation in 1999

  1.  In court Wells claimed that  the  ” oral trust had formed in 1998, but  supplied a deed showing that  the trust  deed was signed in  2000 . I still have difficulty  getting  my head around the fact that the  people who  allegedly formed  a trust in 2000  made an application for approved status the year before the deed was signed.but then do such time frames matter?……apparently not
  2. As to the argument of an oral trust   the  people came together in   late 1998  when Wells was paid  by Didovich with council funds,  to set up a trust   this is the concept he came up with:  note that  one of  the trustees was the city itself.
  3. An email is  sent 23/12/98  statingWaitakere City Animal Welfare is setting the standard and to assist its future progress as an approved organisation it is proposing the Council should create a trust with which it will work in harness. An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. The Council’s final decision on the Trust will be in May”… You wont  find any records of this in council minutes  its all done without Councillors approval. Bit like the truck that was bought a few weeks ago… makes you wonder who runs the show
  4. Things change  quickly  and although we were told  in December98  that the trust existed  by  19 January 1999 Neil Wells tells MAF that “It has now been agreed that Waitakere will no longer be in the trust.”
  5. Neil Wells who had written the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act  is  also employed as ” independent adviser to the select committee  to  advise on the animal bill at this time  and  it appears that at this stage he has not  declared his conflict of interest. Why should he he was after all writing and advising onlegislatin fro his business plan  .. apparenlty that is quite acceptable here in the least corrupt country see territorial animal welfare authority
  6. While  MAF  lawyers  were confused by the entire set up  the council lawyers appear to have been completely oblivious to  what was going on  and the elected representatives even more so.
  7. MAF request a legal opinion   on the  involvement of  Council in animal welfare issues and suddenly see the light.
  8. On 14/2/99 or there about Wells writes To MAF  stating that  AWINZ will be a charitable trust, this indicates to me that AWINZ has not  as yet been set up and therefore there is no oral trust.
  9. MAF ‘s legal adviser  returns a negative  response   and the Maf staff  become uncomfortable with the entire venture, in the mean time  council has been left out of the loop entirely.
  10. MAF produces a document  involvement of territorial authorities AWwith regards to  the involvement of  Territorial  authority staff  in animal welfare which if councillors had seen would have caused them to reject  any proposal from wells, hence  they were on my opinion left out of the loop.
  11. Tom Didovich the manager of animal welfare then   seeks to have Wells  complete the  documents  for   animal welfare there by   taking the council lawyer out of the loop  and this  set teh scene for  Didovich to directly contract with Wells.
  12. When a trust emerged in 2006 , although back dated to  2000 ,  not one of the persons   other than Wells had any involvement with the running of AWINZ, in fact they did not meetand significantly in the minutes of the  only recorded meeting since the trust  was allegedly set up , he explains to the trustees  what an approved organisatin is  .  Despite the fact that their deed  said they would meet 4 x per year they   had never had a recorded meeting and allegedly last met  two years earlier.

 Lets identify the   spin  The linkage of Waitakere City to AWINZ is core to the continuing successful implementation of animal welfare in the city. “

  1.  we need to look back at the MOU   it clearly states that the linked organization is  Waitakere animal welfare.
  2. No definition is provided  for AWINZ  and  AWINZ does not exist as a legal person .
  3. therefore this statement is entirely false Wendy  do you  tolerate lies  in   job application? Perhaps I am pedantic about this because I do  pre employment screening  and to me truth in an application  is essential, if an employee tells porkies in the application then he/she is not going to b honest with you further down the road

No where in  his job application  does Neil Wells refer to  the MOU  that he signed with the previous manager  whose job he is now seeking.     Wendy  is this not a conflict of interest that you  expect   prospective employees to declare ?

Do you not care either   Wendy  that  section 171 of the animal welfare act  which Wells wrote and advised on,   allows for the proceeds of prosecution to  be returned  to approved organizations?   Fines are up  to $350,000   Wells was using   your staff    to  locate offenders  which he then prosecuted himself and  banked the proceeds in to a bank account only he had  access to.

Wendy  does it not concern you   that  all the correspondence   for animal welfare  went missing from  2000 – on, do you know  what a red flag in  fraud is ? or are you there to protect  some council employees? I had rather hoped that you would be protecting  the rights of  the rate payers to open and transparent  governance.

Wendy   thsi is a perfect example of corruption in council , much can be learned from it,  if you  ignoe it  it only serves to prove that you  condone corruption  ?  If you  condone corruption of teh past you will also  condone corruption of the future.. as I said coruption is like cancer   you can thave just a little bit .. once you have it  it spreads.


Ministers misinformed by MAF

I have been working on a chronology whereby I am collating documents in my possession.

In doing so I revisited the   questions which were answered in parliament.

I always suspected that the answers to these questions had been provided by Neil Wells himself and now have even more cause to suspect that I was right in view of this document .

With this in mind and having seen more recent communications with MAF asking Wells for advice and guidance I have addressed the questions asked in parliament   to show how the minister was misled by is staff. In Particular Joanna Tuckwell   who stated “I may have forwarded one or two of her very early emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response…… I do recall sending Mr Wells one draft ministerial response relating to the audit, on which we offered him the opportunity to comment, earlier this year”.

 In view of the documents I have seen it appears to me that MAF was totally out of its depth with regards to anything to do with the animal legislation and relied upon advice from Neil Wells regularly.

Also the persons who were in control of MAF at this time   were the very people who had been working with Neil Wells when he was setting up the concept.

My chronology shows that Wells had connections with may key players including Bob Harvey, Barry O’Neil and David Bayvel.

The latter two played significant roles in the release of information   since 2006; Mr Wells had significant connection with these two for many years and served on various animal welfare committees and such like with them.  There are references in documents such as “accept that any informal discussions we have are off the record and will not be brought back to haunt either of us later”

There are documents which I   had released to me under OIA from MAF with extracts withheld .For some of these documents I had another copy which I had obtained from the Waitakere city  files  and it is only in revisiting theses documents  that  the  extracts  were  identified and the significance of what was removed from the documents  provided to me  was revealed.

I believe that had the issues been mitigated there would have been no reason to have removed the extracts. The removed items state  Items in blue are hyperlinked and open the  documents referred to )

  1. 30 may 2000 uncut  “MAF believes that, as a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate for you to approve a proposal which is contrary to the law.”
  2. 30 may 2000 uncut MAF considers, following advice from Crown Law Office.” that the  proposed funding arrangements between AWINZ and the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils are ultra vires the Local Government Act 1974 resulting in financial arrangements that are such that having regard to the interests of the public AWINZ is not suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;”.


  1. 30 may annexure The WCC obtained a” legal opinion” however this legal opinion was obtained by dog control and not the council and Mr wells appears to have had significant input into this  “ opinion “  The  extract reads  “  MAF also notes that should AWINZ’s application be successful, AWINZ expects to take over the animal control activities and facilities of the WCC. Longer term, AWINZ intends to compete for local authority animal control contracts anywhere in New Zealand but only if the contracts include animal welfare. MAF considers that this strategy is not appropriate given the concerns about the legality of TA funding.”
    1. Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation. I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.12 june Maf copy  and the uncut version showing what MAF  removed when they sent the document to me  12 June Wells copy .
    2. 28 Aug. 2000.pdfMaf state “Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit
    3. 8 Sept 2000.pdf.If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of he crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.”
    4. 13 October 2000.pdf “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court.  should the minister agree to approve AWINZ or decide fi the risk is too high MAF believes regulatory clarity should be sought to remove any doubt”
    5. A schedule showing all material that has been withheld is available at the link.  It would appear therefore   that what has been withheld is that which will  sort this matter for once and for all .

From what I have uncovered it would appear that Mr Wells has had the benefit of many legal opinions paid for by the public and many opportunities to discuss matters on and off the record with both ministers and MAF staff, he has also been consulted on replies   to ministers and  has acted in general in situations of  conflict of interest, therefore precluding an independent and unbiased investigation into this matter.

One document which MAF withheld is a KPMG legal opinion paid for by the people of Waitakere city through the council dog control section.   This legal opinion was provided after a draft had been sent to Tom Didovich the then manager the draft can be located here

The final version  contains  more detail and information  which  would probably only be within Neil wells knowledge because he was on the select committee, this indicates to me  that he possibly   had significant in put into this pivotal legal opinion which  in essence is his own.

While there are many documents  which were withheld due to the fact that this related to Mr Frittmanns cat,  there are  other very  relevant  documents which  should be considered by the in an independent and thorough review  of the of approval of AWINZ .

I have here with the written answers which were put  to Parliament  and have been responded to I have for each  added my comments and he evidence which impacts on  the  reply.

Questions for written answers.

3013 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What investigations did the Minister undertake before approving the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) as an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Minister at the time, through his officials at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, undertook detailed investigations before declaring the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. This included consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury and the Crown Law Office.

My comment:

While extensive  legal  opinions were  sought as  to  the ability  of AWINZ to provide  animal welfare services for council , Crown Law office  said that it was  not legal  for this to occur, however Neil Wells obtained  two legal opinions  circumventing the   council lawyers  and   apparently had significant in put into these opinions especially the latter which was the only opinion  to persuade the minister that it  was legal.

There were however  no  investigations as to  the existence  and operations of AWINZ  itself.

Crown law office  MAF and treasury  opposed the application .

It was a legal opinion  obtained by the council (Kensington Swan final version)  into  which  Neil Wells  appears to have had  an input,  which   was used to persuade  MAF  to allow the  document  to go forward to  caucus. This happened after Mr Wells had met with the then president of the  Labour party his colleague and  Mayor  Bob Harvey.

My evidence is:

The legal opinions are as follows

  1. 24 march 2000. Wells writes to MAF “while that could have been answered immediately by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” “Waitakere City are awaiting your directions as to where the Kensington Swann letter should be sent.”
    1. The reality was that Waitakere city was not involved in this request and the  council lawyers  were being circumvented,  , the request was made by Didovich  at  Wells Direction.
  2. The Crown Law opinion which was obtained  supplied to Neil Wells via Didovich
  3. Kensington Swan Draft  can be located here
  4. Kensington Swan final version   which  successfully over turns the  intent of the legislation  that is should not be used for animal welfare though councils.  Wells had written and advised on the Legislation for   which he had written the business plan many years before and had set the precedent by setting up  the pilot programme

Connections  Bob Harvey and Wells

  1. Bob Harvey   owned Mac Harman Ayer  advertising  1962-1992 Harvey CV
  2. Neil Wells was general manger there Neil Wells C.V.
  3. Bob Harvey in welcoming Wells to Waitakere stated “Neil is an old colleague of mine from advertising days and takes over from Tom Didovich.”appointment  wells.pdf
  4. 4.     Wells briefed Harvey when MAF objected to AWINZ becoming approved   Harvey briefed.pdf
  5. 5.     a paper was prepared for caucus  which wells  had had the ability  to have input into  commentary-from-Wells-on-caucus-papers.pdf

The applications are considered by caucus and the minister approves the application despite the following comments   most of which were  removed from  documents released under OIA

  1. MAF believes that, as a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate for you to approve a proposal which is contrary to the law.  30 may 2000 uncut
  2. MAF considers, following advice from Crown Law Office. that the  proposed funding arrangements between AWINZ and the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils are ultra vires the Local Government Act 1974.resulting in financial arrangements that are such that having regard to the interests of the public AWINZ is not suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;.  30 may 2000 uncut
  3. The WCC obtained a legal opinion” the legal opinion was obtained by dog control and not the council. Maf also notes that should  AWINZ’s application be successful, AWINZ expects to take over  the animal control activities and facilities of the WCC. Longer term, AWINZ intends to compete  for local authority animal control contracts “anywhere in New Zealand but only if the contracts include animal welfare. MAF considers that this strategy is not appropriate given the concerns about the legality of TA funding.30 may annexure some missing sections
  4. Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation. I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.12 June MAF copy  and the uncut version showing what MAF  removed when they sent the document to me  12 june wells copy
  5. MAF state “Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “28 Aug. 2000.pdf
  6. ” If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of he crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.”8 Sept 2000.pdf
  7. A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court.  should the minister agree to approve AWINZ or decide fi the risk is too high MAF believes regulatory clarity should be sought to remove any doubt13 October 2000.pdf
  8. Bayvel to Neeson  ” although Neil has drafted the documents himself  they will need to be closely scrutinised by you and legal  to ensure that the crowns interest are protected12 Dec 2000.pdf
  9. 9.     From treasury : Our overall advice is that you do not send this paper to Cabinet. The paper has not clearly argued what the benefits and costs( economic, social, fiscal) of approving AWINZ are and why these benefits outweigh the costs.treasury.pdf


3014 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What procedures did the Minister undertake in approving the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) as an  approved organisation pursuant to section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

On receiving an application for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to be declared an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the then Minister of Agriculture considered the application, took advice from his officials at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and from the Crown Law Office, and consulted with his colleagues, the Minister of Local Government, the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury and Cabinet.

My comment:

No consideration was ever given to the effect of incorporation, as shown in  3013 above , the minister acted against the advice of his advisors.

Despite the INC being shown behind AWINZ name , AWINZ was never incorporated under any legislation  and  has not been dealt with   in  the appropriate legal manner for a trading name.


3015 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What procedures does the Ministry have in place to determine whether an organisation shall remain an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

Section 123 of the Animal welfare Act 1999 permits the Minister of Agriculture to revoke the declaration of an organisation as an approved organisation under the Act, if he or she is satisfied that the organisation no longer meets the criteria for an approved organisation or has failed to comply with any condition relating to the establishment of performance and/or technical standards for its inspectors and auxiliary officers. There are two approved organisations in New Zealand, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand. Both have established performance and technical standards as required by the Minister, and operate under a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). MAF audits both organisations annually, to ensure their continued compliance with the provisions of the relevant memorandum of understanding, adherence to the performance and technical standards for inspectors and auxiliary officers, and compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment: the MAF Audit of 2008  records .

  1. Since the MOU was signed in 2003 , AWINZ has not been providing the two  annual reports to MAF as required by section 17 and 22 of the MOU . this was  an issue  identified in  the previous 2006 audit  and continues to be an area of concern
  2. Only  one of the bi annual meeting s  has taken place
  3. The MOU which should be reviewed annually had not been reviewed… ( it should be noted that Animal welfare institute of new Zealand is just a name and cannot enter into a MOU as  its not defined as to who it is. )
    1. Inspectors are not being formally notified of amendments to AWA
    2. The current AWINZ Administrative and Operating Procedures, for Animal Welfare had not been approved by MAF

With regards to the RNZSPCA MAF does not check out each individual organisation it treats all of the societies (nearly 60 of them)   as being one and the same.

The question with regards to AWINZ has to be how could it be held accountable as AWINZ itself had no legal existence.

MAF did not get the required documents from AWINZ in many years and no one considers how you can enter into a MOU with a trading name.

We have a further anomaly that the inspectors, Waitakere city council employees   signed a performance contract with a person called Rochelle dean who is not  associated with AWINZ in  any apparent manner or form. See this response from Minister


3016 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

How many, if any, animal welfare officers/inspectors has the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) approved?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture: auxiliary officers are appointed by the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Seventeen inspectors recommended by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand have been appointed by the Minister under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Ten of these appointments are current. There are no auxiliary officers appointed under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 on the recommendation of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.

MY comment:  

Each and every inspector was an employee of council  under a contract which Mr Wells had  effectively with himself   MOU waitakere.pdf  (Wells  took over the  position  and responsibilities of  Tom Didovich there by   now  being both parties to this MOU. )

The AWINZ inspectors are recorded as being council employees final draft audit 2008

Page 2  it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC

page 9   all personnel  ( including the AWINZ  inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation  facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry  to monitor AW issues, this did  lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations . Page 10 Since 2003 no written report has been provided to MAF ,

Page 13 AWINZ inspectors use WCC database.

Page 14 the inspectors vehicle was inspected. This would have been a council owed vehicle.

Page 18 Location of audit WCC animal accommodation   the concourse


7723 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (07 May 2007):

Was any verification undertaken to determine whether the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was a bona fide organisation with a proper legal structure and accountability before Barry O’Neil, Group Director, of the Biosecurity Authority signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Mr Neil Wells, signing as a Trustee of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, on 4 December 2003; if so, what was the result; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand is an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Before the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was declared to be an approved organisation under the Act, its application was carefully considered in relation to the relevant statutory criteria. These include, inter alia, the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements and management of the organisation. There was no statutory requirement that these matters be re-considered for the purposes of signature of the Memorandum of Understanding, which defines the requirements to be met by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand in the selection and appointment of, and other matters relating to, Inspectors and Auxiliary Officers appointment under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.

My comment:

Acceptance as an approved organisation   does not   give any one body corporate status.

The information which I have shown that Mr Wells was the only person acting for “AWINZ “   an apparently everything he said was accepted without verification, he gave a number of assurances that AWINZ existed these are

  1. 28 January 2000  MAF requests could you please provide documentary evidence confirming that the Trust has been legally registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.17 March 2000 Wells responds and asks for the registration criteria to be reconsidered. He concludes by stating AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is in being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.
  2. 25 March 2000  Wells writes to minister and   advises him that a signed copy of the deed will follow  -claims that the original is being submitted to Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed
    1. – originals are never sent certified copies are
    2. b.    There is no section 20 in the deed. trust deed.pdf
    3. In 1998 Wells put a proposal to the council for a trust called the national animal welfare trust  this trust was registered by him in 1999 as was another trust called the ark angel trust.  This registration process that he knew the process and if AWINZ had existed by way of trust deed on 22 November when the application was made it would have been well registered by Christmas.
    4. The evidence from the chronology appears to be that MAF was out of their depth with the legislation as they continually asked Wells for advice on it. The advice given appears to have been self-serving and in giving this evidence Wells was  very much  acting in a situation of  gross conflict of interest.


9240 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (31 May 2007):

Further to the answer to question for written answer 07723 (2007), was a copy of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s (AWINZ) trust deed received by the Minister, and was incorporation of the trust confirmed prior to the Trust becoming an approved Organisation under Section 121 Animal Welfare Act; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

A draft deed of trust was submitted as part of the application by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Incorporation of a trust is not a requirement under the Act.

Prior to declaring AWINZ to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act, the Minister received detailed advice on the application from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and confirmation that the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied.

My comment:

If there was relevant statutory criteria considered in the application, it certainly was not with regard to the registration of a trust.

Mr Wells gave assurances of registration and therefore the consideration that the trust was not registered was not questioned, nor was the   fact that a trust existed or not considered. No one else was spoken to in the process. No one determined if the persons who were to be this law enforcement authority were fit and proper persons and if they were actually real persons and willing to take on such responsibility.

A draft trust deed is a valueless bit of paper it has not been accepted by any one and is therefore not a trust deed.

MAF eventually ( 2006 after I had raised the issue ) received a copy of a trust deed  this however was different to the   draft examined and different to the copy which I had been sent

Incorporation of a trust may not be necessary for the legislation but you still have to know who the legal persons are you are dealing with and if they  give consent to being responsible for  the law enforcement venture.


9241 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (31 May 2007):

Further to the answer to question for written answer 07723(2007), was the Minister aware of the unincorporated status of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, before approving it as an approved organisation; if so, were the implications of an unincorporated trust becoming an approved organisation considered with regards to section 122 (1) b, c and d of the Animal Welfare Act; and why was it considered appropriate for an unincorporated trust to be an approved organisation.

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

As advised in the answer to written question no. 09240 (2007), incorporation of a trust is not required for a declaration of approved organisation status to be made under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. A draft deed of trust was submitted as part of the application by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) to become an approved organisation under the Act. The proposed structure of AWINZ was included in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s consideration of whether the criteria in section 122(1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Act were satisfied, prior to advice being given to the Minister that the declaration of approved organisation status should be made.

My comment:

 It may be correct that incorporation is not necessary but it would have been essential for a signed trust deed to have been presented with the application and all those who were named as trustees to give their consent in the application.

The name of the organisation making the application in that case would be the full names of all of the trustees as trustees in the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.

For legal reasons and perpetuity, an unincorporated trust would probably not be an ideal format for a law enforcement authority and I note that there was never a legal opinion on that aspect.  This is probably due to the fact that Mr Wells gave repeated assurances of registration even telling the minister that the deed had been sent for registration. 25 March 2000

In light of two trust deed having been presented in court and   evidence being sworn in affidavits

  1. a.     affidavits supplied may 2007 didovich.pdf
  2. Graeme Coutts affidavit 31 .pdf
  3. affidavits supplied may 2007 wells

and that we also now have  two trust deeds  allegedly dated the same date but the MAF one  is not  signed on  every page and differs from the copy sent to me.

  1.  trust deed MAF version which was different to  both the deed MAF  considered  as part of the application
  2.  And the deed which I had been given a copy of. trust deed

We therefore have to question what truth is and what is deception?

If there had been only one trust deed the statement to the minister in saying that the original is not available could be acceptable (except that certified copies are sent).

But in view of there being two deeds you have to wonder why didn’t Wells just send a copy of the other original?

And then why were both copies missing   when the   so called trust met in  2006    and why was it referred to as being a  singular deed   when they knew there were two?

And how do you appoint a trustee when the deed is missing how the trustee would know what the rules of the trust are?


19741 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Nov 2007)

Further to the answer to question for written answer 9241 (2007), did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in consideration of the structure of the trust, verify the claims made by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, in its application dated 22 November 1999 to become an approved organisation, that “the institute will be registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957” and “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust … It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trust Act 1957”, before advising the Minister that the declaration of approved organisation status should be made; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s (MAF) consideration of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s application to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 included the question whether the Minister needed to be assured that the trust had indeed been registered as a charitable trust.

MAF concluded that registration of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand under the Charitable Trust Act 1957 would not add anything to the criteria which the Minister must consider under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment: MAF’s own document provided to me show that this statement is wrong and was probably drafted by Mr Wells himself.   

My evidence is:

  1. In the 22 November 1999 application. Neil Wells claims that a trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.

What registration under that act does is set out in section 13 Effect of incorporation .

MAF accepted an unsigned application from an applicant named the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

This applicant did not exist at the time. In effect even if   it was registered later it is like a baby making an application before it is born.

The animal Institute of New Zealand could only have made the application if it had been registered prior to 22 November 1999, which it was not.

Therefore the application was not made by the Animal welfare institute of new Zealand  it was  made  by Mr Wells  , the reason the application was not  signed was that it did not exist.

  1. The minister is quite correct in saying that the animal welfare act does not say that the applicant needs to be incorporated, but in the case of accepting an application from unincorporated persons MAF should have accepted the application from the individuals who together wished to be considered as an organisation.

MAF did not have any dealings or applications from any other persons and therefore no   other individuals were   considered for approved organisation only a fictitious organisation.

This did not happen and as such no other persons are applicants.

  1. A lawyer for MAF  Gets things terribly wrong with regards to incorporation  and this  gives the basis for this statement  . She does not address the  risks   and the   process for dealing with an unincorporated    applicant  who cannot be identified.

19742 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Nov 2007):F

further to the answer to question for written answer 9241 (2007), did the Ministry, in considering the application from the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation, determine whether a signed trust deed existed at the time and were they aware of any untrue statements that had been made in the application?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

A draft deed of trust was considered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as part of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s application to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. While the application stated that a charitable trust had been formed, the deed of trust included with the application had not been executed. As stated in the answer to written question no. 9240, incorporation of a trust is not required for a declaration of approved organisation status to be made under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment:

The application.Made a number of false statements

The criteria for approved organisation had been published

Under section I21 the information that an application must contain is

  1.  the full name of the applicant:

This was a pseudonym, trading name, undefined as whose name it was, it was not a legal name for a legal person or any group of legal persons.

  1. A contact  address:

A registered office was given;   AWINZ was not registered and therefore did not have a registered office

  1. The area in  which the applicant proposes to operate as an approved organisation and

The intent was stated as nationally, however something which does not exit cannot have intent. A trust can have intent only after meetings and after a quorum has voted on an issue.

  1. Information which will enable the minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 121.
    1. Evidence of the purpose of the organisation such as rules deed of trust memorandum and articles of association. It must be possible to verify the legal status of the organisation including a clear statement that its principle purpose is to promote animal welfare.

The organisation did not exist and could not be verified as the evidence is overwhelmingly that the application made on 22 November 1999 predated the existence of a trust deed.

The trustees didn’t even meet   and did not meet to sign the deed and probably did not meet until 10 may 2006 when the trust deed was missing.

  1. Evidence of a quality management  system together  with associated policies and procedures

Wells produced the management system a document   was sufficient.

  1. Procedures for selection of persons to be recommended for appointment as inspectors and auxiliary officers

They had to be council employees .The council paid for the training of the animal welfare officers. Wells provided the training.

  1. Copy of employment contract or other written agreement or arrangement between  the organisation  and inspectors and  auxiliary officers

Agreements were signed with unknown persons  acting as  AWINZ,

  1. The wiliness of the organisation to enter into a memorandum of understanding  with MAF

The MOU was signed but it was not enforceable.

  1. All information  should be clearly written  be comprehendible  and credible

The   application was a piece of fiction, it was not even signed.


Section 122 criteria are


  • (1) The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—
    • (a) the principal purpose of the organisation is to promote the welfare of animals;
      • This is what it said but if his organisation did not exist how this could be a purpose?
    • (b) the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and
      • The public needs to be able to   locate and identify the organisation, this was not possible.
    • (c) the functions and powers of the organisation are not such that the organisation could face a conflict of interest if it were to have both those functions and powers and the functions and powers of an approved organisation; and
      • The organisation could not have a conflict it simply did not exist.
    • (d) the employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and
      • The council officers were required to give their council paid time voluntarily  , the time was not theirs to give. Wells explains to MAF  how this was to work  However  council did not  give approval for this  only  Didovich who was later to assist in the cover up  gave this consent.  He was not the employer, he was only a manager.
    • (e) the persons who may be recommended for appointment as inspectors or auxiliary officers—

(i) will have the relevant technical expertise and experience to be able to exercise competently the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on inspectors and auxiliary officers under this Act; and

(ii) Subject to section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.

  • No one can be answerable to a non-existent organisation

(2) The Minister may, in making a declaration under section 121, impose, as conditions of the Minister’s approval, conditions relating to the establishment by the organisation of performance standards and technical standards for inspectors and auxiliary officers.

There were further items in the   application which were simply not true, that is the financial statements and the   intent of later taking over the council dog and stock control division.

The intent of the application fits perfectly with the intent of Wells expressed in the   business plan for the territorial animal welfare authority   but the act precluded an individual being an approved organisation.

It would appear that MAF never considered the implications of considering a draft deed.  They  did not receive a signed trust deed until  2006  and they sent me a copy of this trust deed trust deed MAF version which was different to  both the deed they considered and the deed which I had been given a copy of. trust deed

The fact that the deed was unsigned has nothing to do with incorporation, it has everything to do with a trust existing or not. In effect the   application was not made by   any organisation and it generally appears that MAF does not know how trusts are formed, what constitutes a trust and what constitutes a legal person.

The audit and the minutes of the MAF meeting with AWINZ  both show that the intention was for AWINZ to have been registered so as to be a body corporate.

The reality is that in 2006 a cover up occurred to make it appear as though AWINZ had exited all along.

The law enforcement abilities under the act require accountability to the public. How can there be accountability to the public if the law enforcement authority cannot be identified as to being a real or legal person.

The documents for AWINZ were such that no bank would have given them a $5 loan on their lack of existence yet the Government gave   it Law enforcement authority.

Talking Works Tom Didovich!

Talking works Tom Didovich    perhaps you need to admit to the corruption you are involved  with  , corruption which is bringing about  a  rise in  dog registration fees …  See Council to hike dog fees   

I have been talking for years but  you who  claims that  talking works ,have remained silent  and now I find that you are a counselor for talking works. Which quite frankly I find quite hypocritical.

You see the real issue is that dog owners have been paying for a great deal more than   dog control  they have also been  paying for   animal welfare.And you  are right in on this scam up to your neck , in fact it would not have got of the ground if it wasn’t for your involvement.

To  differentiate between the two.. Dog control is a council responsibility  and Animal welfare is  carried out by the RNZSPCA, police and MAF.

Tom Didovich is a trustee of a trust called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand , he became a trustee in 2006  but  while he was the manager of dog and stock control at Waitakere city council actively campaigned to set up  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )  and  approved payments   from the public purse to facilitate  the origins of this trust  ( full back ground can be found here with  supporting documents )

When Tom  Didovich left Waitakere  his associate Neil wells took over and quickly  changed the  branding on the building , vehicle  and gate

This coincided with   a  public fund raising  campaign sent out with the   dog  registration papers  the  logo   that  Mr Wells  used   are shown on the  top of the  flyer  which  was printed in green .donation request    The letterhead was  adjusted after I complained to the council    and became

Do  you  not think  that  this logo and the signage  on the buildings  and vehicles  are deceptively similar?

One is a council the other is a private enterprise run by the  council manager.  Who would guess that there were two entities being  run   “symbiotically” close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. And true to form there was no benefit to the public/ratepayers/dog owners   just to you and Mr Wells.  refer  this letter to you  from Neil Wells

It just so happened that Mr Wells had written the  bill  leading up to the animal welfare act  and had been independent adviser to the select committee.  When the  law passed  he  made an application   for AWINZ to become an approved organization with the ability to appoint inspectors  who had  statutory powers  .

While Tom was manager he  had ensured that all the  dog and stock control officers had received training  through Mr Wells  who was paid  By Mr Didovich from the  councils   dog   control  budget through his discretionary spending.

The  dog control officers were required to  Volunteer their time   to  the approved organization   and prioritize the  work  to the approved organization. Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. So when you  saw the van driving about Waitakere  the staff and  vehicle were not necessarily on council business they were on private business paid by  you the  rate payer and  dog owners .

Problems arose in 2006 when  Lyn Macdonald  asked me to find out  who or what the animal welfare institute of new Zealand was   and   I discovered that there were no trust deeds or anyone associated with AWINZ except Neil wells  officially and Tom Didovich as support person.

On 27 April 2006  With two others we categorically proved   that AWINZ did not exist by legally  registering an identically named   organization .

On 10 May 2006 Neil Wells  claims to have had a meeting  at which  Wyn Hoadley is appointed trustee to the animal welfare institute of new Zealand, a   trust which has not met, had lost its trust deed ( if it had ever  had one before then ) and  by a section which does not appear in a deed which is eventually produced .

WYN Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme courts to legal action which started with  a legal  executive , now lawyer harassing  me to force us to give up the name of the  legally  incorporated entity in which I was a trustee.

Her husband at the  time Nick Wright then became involved and   harassed our  web host, he then prepared a letter which David Neutze of Brookfileds signed without checking the accuracy of it . How could they ever have claimed passing off?  when they didn’t even get together before we had legitimately formed .

And so 6 years of court action which   relied on words and NLP  and not on evidence  began. ( Neil wells through the proceedings referred to AWINZ as having legitimate business dealings  when the reality was that  it was no more than a leach off council services.

Tom Didovich  turned up in court more often than any of the so called trustees   and    became a trustee  by signing a deed in December 2006 when    Neil Wells tried to get AWINZ charitable status but  failed to do so due to  lack of documentation.

This is a complex matter   a perfect fraud    more can be found on this  at, some of the documents no longer open   but we are  going through and fixing that, if you  are interested in a particular docuemtn please let me know and I will update the link   or send you a copy.

More recent articles   are on  the anticorruption web site ANIMAL LAW MATTERS

But getting back to  rise in dog registration , this is due  to  persons such as Tom Didovich and Neil Wells   using council resources facility and staff for their own income.

Stop corruption and our costs will decrease.

Ask the question  why  is the dog control division of council  adopting out pets  , who is funding it and why?

why Have I not been able to expose this corruption of  Public office for private  gain

Tom  its time to  talk   talking works !

Why hide behind trading names?

Just sitting here minding my own business and the phone goes.

It is a Chinese lady ringing from a line which is obviously an overseas call due to the echo.

She tells me that she is calling on behalf of ANZ something.

I tell her I don’t do marketing calls and could she tell me which country she is calling from.

She tells me that she is calling from 40 Beach Road. My computer tells me that these are serviced apartments.

I ask her to tell me what the name of the company is again and she spells it out ANZ WEB CO. a quick search shows that there is no such company, I tell her that and ask for the company number  she  says it is 3037483  and confirms that  it is WB 5 Ltd  which was incorporated  22 July 2010 by Clyde Steven YOUNG 9 Laxon Terrace, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand

She gives me the phone number 09 280 6124.  And says you want to order a web site now?

When I get off the line I do some research and find the web page

I note it has the address for the serviced apartments  and the phone number she gave me 09-280 6124 is listed on the site.

I ring the number and it is a  pre recorded telephone message.. Like the one which comes with the phone no indication what so ever of  who you are calling .

I check the domain registry the admin name is “Look n Find “ and gives a contact number of 021 0751 903  I phone this  and there is an answer phone with no message, just one that says  sorry I didn’t get your message.

I find the  phone number for the  director of the company 3037483   and I ring Young C S & C M          9 Laxon Tce Newmarket Auckland 1050   09-522 6972.  The answer phone says it is the  Colleen , Clyde  Steve ,Sasha  and Simone.  After ringing  back a couple of times Simone answers but   she doesn’t know if her father is  involved with ANZ web co  or how to contact him.

Dodgy  I thought  so I check out the owner of the company  and find that Clyde Steven YOUNG is involved with the a large  number of  companies .

I check the chartered accountants listings and find that Mr Young is a chartered accountant for O’HALLORAN but in opening the link from the chartered accountants association the web site for WILLIAM BUCK (NZ) LIMITED opened and I find the page which refers to Mr Young  who transpires to  be a fine upstanding  citizen   and major share holder of WILLIAM BUCK (NZ) LIMITED who has been

  • Chairman of the Pacific Island Chamber of Commerce between 1997 and 1999
  • board member of Enterprising Manukau from 2000 – 2009
  • on the Advisory Board of the Accountancy Law and Finance Faculty at UNITEC
  • He was appointed by the Hon. Trevor Mallard in 2004 to Chair the Pasifika Education Centre.
  • currently a trustee for the New Zealand Good Samaritan Heart Mission to Samoa Trust
  • member of UNITEC’s Fono Faufautua’s Pacific Advisory Board

All I can wonder is  Why the lack of  transparency, why the secrecy ..    had I not  asked for the company number I could never have traced  the owner of the company  and in my opinion  what I saw    had all the hall marks of a scam .

I phoned Mr Young at his office left a message   for him to call. I have yet to hear from him.  I think an explanation is called for .  don’t you?

I further note that Willliam Buck  has  some  identity issues as well

Company number:  1172579

incorporated 13 Nov 2001as O’HALLORAN & COMPANY LIMITED until 19 Dec 2005 when it became O’HALLORAN HMT LIMITED then on  09 Apr 2010 became WILLIAM BUCK (NZ) LIMITED

Company number:  2412291

Incorporation 23 Feb 2010  as WILLIAM BUCK (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED  and on 25 Feb 2010changed its name to WILLIAM BUCK (NZ) LIMITED  and on 09 Apr 2010 became O’HALLORAN & COMPANY LIMITED

Company number:  907183

Incorporation 03 Jun 1998as WILLIAM BUCK BUSINESS RISK CONSULTING (NZ) LIMITED and on 12 Jul 2001changed its name to WILLIAM BUCK LIMITED

These three companies  have all shared  each other’s names, this is always an indicator to me that someone is trying to  confuse  another party   .

There is a fourth company

Company number:  1961856 incorporated 28 Jun 2007 now called CORPORATE FINANCE WILLIAM BUCK NZ LIMITED  but has this  name history


The  directors associated with these companies are

Bruce MINCHAM  70 Runciman Road, Pukekohe East, R D 2

Clyde Steven YOUNG  9 Laxon Terrace, Newmarket, Auckland

Arran Karl BOOTE 83 Saddleback Rise, Murrays Bay, Auckland , New Zealand

Michael Derek WOOD  1/55 Anita Avenue, Mt Roskill, Auckland , New Zealand

Reply  emails from Mr Young .(.I wonder why  he copied the lawyer in ? )  are found at this link emails with mr Young

those who pull the strings of the new super city

The  chamber of commerce have  not bothered to get back to me , I guess  it would be too embarrassing fo them to admit that a hand full of persons  run the society and it is  only an illusion of democracy . You see if they allowed the  members of the chamber to vote then  the power and control would be lost.

This appears to be part of the wider trend.  Take for instance the Business round table

which is an organisation of  influential  business persons  – all White  men  except for   two  women   and one male of asian  origins.

Many appear to be  in bed with  major overseas consortiums . I have compiled a list of business round table past and  current directorships.

These persons , the chamber of commerce  directorship and   the committee for Auckland   are what I believe to be the  New Zealand based puppet masters they pull the  strings  and it would appear that they have already taken firm control of hte new super city .

I have taken their business  connections and  matched them with those selected for the Auckland  super city  committees  those which the Aucklander calls the the secret seven.   These are the business connections of the so-called members of the secret seven committee business directorships past and present

The results speak for themselves see the document   council business connections It shows directorship  relationships between those on  the new  council committees and those who I believe are  at the helm of this country.

There has been a lot in  the news about privatisation of water the document   associations of Keenan – water care to liquor industry

illustrates  just how many  and how close the associations are  with the liquor industry  .

is this  poised for insider trading or what ?

Ironically just yesterday there was an item in the herald, an insider trading matter

Involving IBM

of which a judge said  “White collar crime is just as destructive to our social fabric as the crimes of drugs and violence”

But I think in light of the events of  this past week   in particular  with ACT which is pushing this whole super city thing  we have to question  just what  the  accepted standards are  I refer in particular to Stealing baby’s identity ‘a bit of a lark’

Just goes to show that those we  elect do not have the values which the rest of society condone.  Perhaps we need to be a bit more cautious about proceeding with this  supercity thing  which has been done in a tad of a rush..  I say  there is only one  vote  and that is   Vote for Penny Bright