Problem : client Neil Wells had had written legislation for his own business plan and then made an application to the minister in a false name and falsely claimed that a trust was making the application when quite clearly no trust existed and no one had signed the application
So time rolls by and in 2006 Mr Wells is caught out by some questions which potentially exposed this as corruption so something had to be done fast , before he was fitted up for an orange jump suit.
So David Neutze to the rescue. Despite the fact that lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law (section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act) David saw a way of contorting facts figures and chronologies
The rule of law is defined by LexisNexis as “The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.”
It turns out that LexisNexis and David Neutze disagree on that interpretation.
David must be right because he has managed to get the support of the court at each court event and has successfully prevented me from placing evidence before the court while he has used nothing but procedures and manipulations of the law to secure victory for his clients Lawyers Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley and JP Graeme Coutts.
Contortion of Facts
It is always easy if you can put your side of the story and you stop the other side from putting evidence and facts before the court. so David filed a claim but did not file any supporting evidence.
He then got the court to act on this claim as though it was the truth , He manipulates proceedings so that high costs are awarded agaisnt the other party , then demands them at 2 weeks notice.
How many people could possibly come up with $18,000 in two weeks ???? could you ????
With my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out for being unable to find $18,000 in two weeks for a claim which was essentially agaisnt a trust and not me , the coast was clear for Neil Wells to tell the court what ever he wanted so that history could be re written. As a result no investigation has ever been conducted into AWINZ by any authority .. Get a court judgement and you can get off any crime.
the Fiction which Neutze changed into fact were
The application made by Neil Wells was suddenly made by an ” oral trust “ and because Neil Wells told the Judge that this application wasn’t the real application he said ” Any correspondence
with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .” page 7 line 15
He went on to say ” When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application , that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”
On page 10 he says ” In the formation of any Body Corporate or non Body Corporate there is a series of processes which ultimately create the existence of an organisation, and in the case of the Animal Welfare Institute, the various drafts of the Deed of Trust which were formulated in 1999 led up to the final Deed, but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then. “
Now this is what the Judge relied upon as being true. You must admit it sounds pretty convincing.. but what if it was not true ?
I have spent years trying to extract the actual application MAF have clearly indicated to me that the one and only application was the 22 November 1999 document and this is confirmed in the letter from the minister dated 18 December 2000 which clearly states that it was The application of 22 november which was relied upon.
what difference does this make.. Heaps
- Wells Lied to the minister
- there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
- Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
- Maf Never checked to see if an organization existed and did not check to see if those named actually knew what was going on.
Its like saying you have a degree when you fully intend to get one in the future, So if it was bad for John Davies and Mary-Anne Thompson to have false credentials How is it Ok for a law enforcement authority to be a fictional organization? And why have I been persecuted for asking the question .. “Why doesn’t the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand AWINZ exist ???? “
So David Neutze secures the judgment which by law becomes a new version of fact , so I find the evidence that Wells has told Porkies in court _ David Neutze to the rescue and stops me from telling the court that it has been lied to .
Are officers of the court supposed to do that ??? at least Neutze was honest when I got them all by the short and curlies when they liquidated my company on a false affidavit. he knew that that game was up then and did the decent thing.. but he cannot read his documents and say OMG my client has lied to the court and since I am an honest and respectable officer of the court I must right this injustice… No Neutze keeps on covering up and stops evidence from being presented.
I then find new evidence to prove that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were never the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, their relationship was born from the need to create a trust when Maf was alerted to the lack of existence of their law enforcement authority . Now Wyn Hoadley is a former Mayor we could not possibly imply that she had done something improper.. so its much easier to Crucify me.
so the quick easy formula for re writing history is
- Hike up the costs on false claims
- Make a demand for payment and seek to have the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
- withdraw the false claims
- Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say the statement of claim is true
- then tell the court what ever you like and stop the other side from placing anything before the court which could alert the court to the fact that they have been lied to.
- No problem with police they don’t do perjury any way
this is called justice.
NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED AT ALL ! History re written !
Contorting facts # 2
This is not “ Pulling the Wool over the ministers eyes “
I have learned from Davis Neutze that you are not pulling the wool over the minister eyes when you:-
1. Make an application for law enforcement powers to the minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999 and state that “ A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of trust as the “ animal Welfare institute of New Zealand’ AWINZ when no such deed exists.
2. Claim that a trust whose deed was allegedly signed on 1.3.2000 were the applicants for the application three months earlier despite the fact that none of the alleged trustees ever signed their name on the application .
3. Tell the minister that “ A copy of the signed deed of trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with section 20(a) of the Deed. .
a. No trust deed is ever forwarded
b. Ministry of commerce does not register deeds the ministry of economic development does and they accept certified copies.
c. Section 20a does not exist in the trust deed which materialises in 2006
One of the claims of defamation was that I had said that Neil wells Pulled the wool over the ministers eyes. .. well that statement certainly was worth the $57,500 and 41,00 cost .Susan Couch gets $300,000 for being crippled for life ,
Neil wells gets nearly 1/3 that for some one telling the truth about him. What is more he has used well over $100,000 of charitable fund s to get this money for him personally !
I was also mistaken to believe that to become trustees a person had to sign a trust deed or some document but according to David Neutze it is perfectly acceptable for a trust
1. not to meet at all –( not even to sign the trust deed ) despite claiming to be a law enforcement authority with coercive statutory powers
2. Ignore the requirement of its trust deed to meet no less than 4 time per year and record meeting instead once every two years .
3. Have no evidence of re appointment of trustees.
4. Have a meeting on 10 May 2006 and produce the minutes 20/5/2011 after having told MAF in 2008 that the governance documents are missing due to hard drive failure
5. Appoint a trustee through invisible means at a time when the trust deeds are missing. meeting on 10 May 2006
Manipulation of Chronologies
The chronologies of these events were a stumbling block so the process above was used to
|turn this||into this|
|application for law enforcement powers||create trust|
|approval process||application for law enforcement powers|
|law enforcement powers granted||approval process|
|contract with MAF||law enforcement powers granted|
|exposed||contract with Maf|
|draw up 2000 trust deed||become charity|
|take legal action|
|draw up new trust deed|
The difference is simple trusts need to exist before they can make an application .
In summary Wells who had written the bill for and advised on the legislation as an independent adviser to the select committee , made an application for law enforcement powers on 22 November 1999 and allegedly set up the trust which makes the application three months later on 1.3.2000, there is no evidence of this trust ever having met or functioned . Tom Didovich (Wells’s associate) went to each of the persons to get their signatures at their respective work or home addresses. It is note worthy that in 2006 the trust deed was missing, as it was in march 2006 right after it was signed and Neil Wells lied to the minister about having sent the deed off for registration
The second great manipulation of chronologies was with regards to the plaintiffs in the claim
Get three people together for the first time on 10 May 2006 and without any formal documentation adopted a trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand and have them file legal proceedings against a legally incorporated charitable trust ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST then registered as The animal welfare institute of New Zealand and make claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. this trust was a legal person in its own right registers from 27-APR-2006 three weeks before the first meeting of Hoadley Wells and Coutts.
Rather stupidly I presumed that their legal name ( if they had had a deed ) would be Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand or otherwise Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts trading as the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. While the incorporated legal entity would be called by its legal name which Is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand . perhaps we shoudl not let Neutze advise clients on contracts.. they woudl not be worth the paper they are written on if he cant identify who the real persons are and who are trustees.
- I also mistakenly believed that the group which existed first and legally had more rights to the name than the second informal group and that if they wished to contest the rights to the name they should have followed the advice of the ministry of economic developments
- and at least had some evidence that they were a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???
- By claiming to be a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley wells and Coutts suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
- they also sign a trust deed in December 2006 which is different in purpose to the original trust deed allegedly signed on 1.3.2000 and claim continuity of trust when the first trust has never met or acted together. AH! the magic of bits of paper with words on them.
- The trustees of the December 2006 trust become a charity and use charitable funds to pay for the legal proceedings classic identity fraud….. Tom is a butcher my brother is Tom he must therefore also be a butcher.
Confused.. yes you should be it makes no sense but the court has been led to believe its all kosher its what officers of the court do .. bet he even goes to church on Sunday.
Neutze Takes Maths and accounts to a new level .. a low level that is
In April 2012 I took a new claim agaisnt Hoadley Wells and Coutts for obtaining a judgment by fraud.
Not only did Neutze manage to get the claim struck out Judgment of Gibson 10.05.13 he also managed to get the Judge to call me Vexatious for attempting to seek justice , al the judge needed was for Neutze to place his victories before him. the mere fact that all the judges have rejected proceedings and all but one appeal was actually heard is beside the point.
That appeal was taken by my solicitor at the time Paddy Finnegan who I had to dismiss due to my marriage failing s due to the stress , My bank accounts wer frozen and justice was denied… in the stress of it all I battled on and I have found lay litigants don’t get a look n. lawyers can tell lies but lay litigants don’t get heard.
the cost order Neutze put in was the worst accounting I have seen for a long time see here costs application Brookfields
I have summarized what the issues are here
- CIV 2012-004-696 was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts each in their own capacity as individuals .
- The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on accounts made out to AWINZ
- AWINZ is the acronym used by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a charitable trust formed on 5 December 2006. This trust was not and never has been a party to these proceedings.
- No other definition for AWINZ is provided and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were ever AWINZ together.
- The accounts submitted , see costs application are for a number of proceedings in both the High and District Courts, the accounts are intermingled to such an extent that matters pertaining to one litigation has been billed against another.
- As pointed out to his honour Peter McCutcheon (18/5/2012) and Translegal (22/8/2012) for whom items appear on this set of accounts were never involved in the District Court proceedings.
- The items under the heading 31/7/12 refer to a set of accounts where not one of the items is Quantified as to value , it is therefore impossible to quantify cost claimed and the only conclusion is that and the sum of $369 is ‘made up” .
- The item 29 august which is claimed as $390 states “Attendance on file regarding strike out application;” whereas on the accounts on which this entry is based shows that this billing was for other matters as well yet the entire sum has been charged the indemnity cost application .
- The accounts dated 28/9/12 cannot be made to add up to $6232.50 this sum is in excess of $1035 of the total.
- There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
- Further the affidavit in support of the strike out which consisted of nothing but judgments which were readily available was charged out at $1805.
- The calculations for costs on the basis of the figures given in the attached accounts made out to AWINZ do not add up to the sum claimed . The total which can be established is $12,434 and this sum includes items which did not
- The lawyers for the defendants were aware of the fact that matters were charged out incorrectly as this was drawn to their attention through the submissions on costs, they did not choose to seek a correction and are therefore guilty of negligence.
In short If you can understand Maths better than law then you can deduce that their Maths and Law are on a Par. its best seen in this document Cost itemised
as can be seen there is a mere difference of some $4,000 and a lot of unquantifiable items thrown in at that.. would IRD accept such accounting.. don’t think so !!!!!
I must congratulate Mr Neutze he has proved that in New Zealand it is possible To win a court proceedings
1. with people who have no right to make a claim
- without producing any evidence at all
He has proved that you can take defamation proceedings and
1. not need to produce one statement allegedly made by the other party
2. Not show who these statements were made to
3. Not show any alleged words in context
4. Not allow the other party to prove the truth of the statements
5. Deny the accused any type of hearing including a formal proof
6. Strike out any action which the accused takes in an attempt to get justice
7. Produce false accounts to the court for indemnity costs and gets them ( $16,000) even though he falsehood is pointed out to the court
- Mislead the court and succeed.
The actions of Mr Neutze have been such that I have to question the integrity of the officers of the court and their responsibility to the law society I will once again make a complaint stand by and watch the law society condone this actions.
It should not cost a whistle blower on serious corruption the obscene sum that it has cost me
We don’t play Monopoly with people who cheat so why should we let lawyers cheat in court !n
This must surely be case law on how to win any case in New Zealand a country with proud sporting traditions clean and green but where “justice” keeps it all under wraps.
‘State capture’ obtains when a small number of firms (or such entities as the military) is able to shape the rules of the game to its advantage through massive illicit, and non-transparent provision of private benefits to officials and politicians. Examples of such behaviour include the ability to control legislative votes, to obtain favourable executive decrees and court decisions. A relatively new concept, the main proponents being World Bank researchers, it echoes that of ‘crony capitalism’ and covers cases where high-level corruption is pervasive.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/state-capture#ixzz1E0fTEZHG
By recognizing the dynamics of state capture, we gain a much clearer understanding of the factors underlying the persistence of corruption in many transition countries. Although corruption has usually been seen as a symptom of weak state institutions, our analysis highlights the powerful forces that have a strong interest in fostering and maintaining these weak institutions.
Any reforms to improve the institutional framework, which might undermine these highly concentrated advantages, will be strongly opposed by captor firms that have the political influence to derail such reforms. Consequently, tackling the problem of state capture is a prerequisite for reforms to improve governance and strengthen the legal, judiciary, and regulatory environment. But once the capture economy has become entrenched, how can the country break out of the vicious circle?
How does it relate To New Zealand?
we need only look at the workings of the former Waitakere City Council and its relationship with the Auckland film studios as an example of state capture .
Over the next few days I will be revealing the inside story for a taster visit How to invest using public funds
It has long been a concern of mine that court action can be brought by any one on anything.
If you have a larger wallet than the person you are taking on and wanting to beat them up and totally destroy them then the court is your arena.
Defamation claims are always good because they put the onus of truth on the other party and then when you can ensure that their defence is struck out- you are on a home run.
I have been fighting this for four years and have met up through the course of events with Vince Siemer who has had a similar experience.
While we spend years arguing law, the facts are not put before the court. Lawyers who are skilled debaters can win any argument especially when they do not have to produce the facts to back them up.
The police do not act on perjury complaints, I have had one with them for 6 months now for a matter I was involved in and it has not progressed
Through my Fresh prepared Limited case I can prove categorically that the courts are abused .
Today I received some documents from Vince , he has asked me to put them up on the transparency site and I have done so in the interest of transparency.
Regulation required if judges can’t be trusted
Liam Baldwin | Friday April 16, 2010 – 03:59pm
There is a fundamental flaw in the Guidelines for Judicial Conduct in that they are not binding.
The guidelines, which were kept secret until late last year, were coincidentally publicly released after the repeated badgering of the Crown Law department by judge-busting lawyer Sue Grey.
The purpose of the guidelines, dated August 2005, was to “provide practical guidance” to judges.
“The general principles can readily be accepted as standards all judges in accepting appointment agree to live by and the public of New Zealand is entitled to expect in judicial conduct.”
However, the guide is not intended to be a code, it self-decrees. “It does not identify judicial misconduct. It is advice.”
But, given the judicial rort that surrounds the precarious situation of Supreme Court judge Justice Bill Wilson, the government should start to look at these guidelines as an opportunity to create statutes – laws that actually govern what a judge must reveal before sitting on a case.
Justice Wilson was a fresh-faced Court of Appeal judge when he sat on a case between superfine wool producer Peter Radford against the Wool Board Disestablishment Company (Disco). He was part of a panel that overturned a High Court ruling in favour of Mr Radford.
Queen’s counsel Alan Galbraith was Disco’s lawyer. He was also Justice Wilson’s business partner and friend.
Because of Justice Wilson’s failure to be completely honest about aspects of his personal business dealings, a mockery is being made of the judiciary. If the government finds itself unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it, the least it should do is seriously consider sweeping changes to the rules.
The guidelines actually go on to explain further why they should only be an advisory.
These guidelines are not principally concerned with the sort of misconduct which would justify removal from office. They are concerned with the promotion of higher standards of conduct.
No system of discipline to impose and support a code of conduct for judicial officers exists in New Zealand or comparable jurisdictions for good reason. It would undermine the fundamental principle of judicial independence.
The guidelines claim judicial independence is not protection for judges but for the people of New Zealand.
In the case of Justice Wilson, the disqualification of judges’ guidelines are particularly pertinent.
The judge must be alert to any appearance of bias arising out of connections with litigants, witnesses or their legal advisors. The parties should always be informed by the judge of facts which might reasonably give rise to perception of bias or conflict of interest.
Justice Wilson failed to do this. There was some attempt to point out the nature of the relationship he had with a lawyer who appeared before him, but the true scope of it was only made clear when it was prised out of him by the Supreme Court.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s more.
Judges should disqualify themselves if in a close relationship to litigants, legal advisors or witnesses in the case. It is impossible to be categorical about the relationships which may give rise to concerns about impartiality. Clearly close blood relationships or domestic relationships are disqualifying.
That seems clear. However, it might not have been clear to Justice Wilson – it doesn’t specifically refer to bloodstock.
Justice Wilson is, or was, friends with Alan Galbraith QC, apart from being a business partner. Mr Galbraith is, or was, clearly friends with Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. These three, along with Dame Sian’s husband Hugh Fletcher, also had shares in racehorses together.
But, wait, there’s more.
Shareholding in litigant companies or companies associated with litigants should be disclosed. They should always lead to disqualification if the shareholding is large or if the value of the shareholding would be affected by the outcome of the litigation. Where the shareholding is small, full disclosure should still be made.
Justice Wilson and Mr Galbraith each held 50% of Rich Hill Ltd. A 50% shareholding is considered substantial. In additions, this was a company that owned land worth millions of dollars. There was also debt which led to the Supreme Court concluding Justice Wilson was financially indebted to Mr Galbraith.
It is impossible to be categorical about relationships which give rise to disqualification but a judge should always disqualify himself or herself whenever a party, lawyer or witness of disputed facts is a close blood relative or domestic partner of the judge or a close relative of the judge or where such person is a close friend or business associate of the judge.
It is purely semantics to argue the fine points of the guidelines because, as they point out, they are simply guidelines and not absolute rules.
The intent of the guidelines is clear. Justice Wilson should have fully disclosed his business relationship with Mr Galbraith even prior to the Court of Appeal case being considered.
If New Zealand can’t rely on a man’s integrity, then the government must regulate. It has no reasonable choice.
By PHIL KITCHIN – The Dominion Post