muse on allen

Samuel North conviction recorded by MBIE

The conviction of Samuel North has been recorded by the companies registrar

section 386 A  of the companies act states

386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name

(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—

(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.

(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out in section 373(4).  ( A person convicted of an offence against any of the following sections of this Act is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding $200,000:)

The conviction was  for   setting up  and operating  Muse eatery through the   new company CATERING LIMITED  which took over he business,  the  processes and chattels of Muse on allen which  was liquidated by IRD.  Samuel   has since liquidated Muse eatery but not before he was seen asset striping CATERING LIMITED on the last day. see The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

Malcolm North   , Samuels father   who works for the ministry of social development  was a director for the phoenix company  for a short while  when he was  a bankrupt .Malcolm  North was a director  from 28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017   he was a bankrupt    7 march to  20 June   the official assignee’s report is worth reading  by any one who  is contemplating a business venture with  Malcolm North or Samuel North  . The official assignees report is located here   Malcolm North bankruptcy report it is worth noting

 The Bankrupt ticked “no” to having any real estate interests, however
attached to his Statement of Affairs was a piece of paper with details of his
property ownerships and their corresponding values. This information is
below:
30c & 30d Arawhata Street, Porirua  $370,000.00
10 Palm Grove, Lower Hutt $560,000.00
1/10 Makara Road, Paraparaumu   $430,000.00

 

The Bankrupt stated on his Statement of Affairs that he has been in business
as a director or manager of a limited liability company registered with the
Companies Office in New Zealand in the past three years. No further
information was provided by the Bankrupt as to the Company details that he
was manager/director of. The Official Assignee requested further information
from the Bankrupt. The Bankrupt advised it was an error and that he had not
been in a business as a director or manager in the past 3 years.

company office records show  him as being director of MUSE ON ALLEN LIMITED (3933441)  09 Jan 2013   to 11 Nov 2014  then again  17 Nov 2014  to  06 Dec 2015

he was then a director of CATERING LIMITED (5860509)     28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017

Throughout the administration, the Bankrupt has failed to co-operate with the
Official Assignee on a number of occasions. He has consistently raised issues with
the costs of his personal lawyer as well as the costs of The Official Assignee’s
lawyers. This has resulted in the Official Assignee spending significant time
corresponding with the Bankrupt regarding matters that are not necessary for the
administration of the bankruptcy and have added unnecessary costs to the estate

 

Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company

On 1 March 2018, Samuel North appeared at Wellington District Court in front of Judge Mill for his sentencing indication.

Judge Mill indicated the matter was of moderate seriousness and that a community based sentence would be imposed.

Samuel  North accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to two charges of being a director of a phoenix company.

Samuel  North was convicted and sentenced to 200 hours of community work.

We believe that Samuel is now working   at the Petone ale house  hopefully all those  owed  money by him  will be repaid

 

 

 July 9 2015   Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

August 27 2015 Muse on Allen a case study of the dangers of NZ companies

August 28 2015 Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

March 6 2016 Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?

September  7 2016 Muse Eatery is it or is it not connected to Muse on Allen ?or what does this say about Samuel Norths integrity ?

February  4 2018 The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

February  21 2018 Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

March 1 2018   Convicted

386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name

(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—

(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.

(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out insection 373(4).

Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

 Just three weeks after  Samuel North closed the  doors to Muse eatery   the company catering Limited which  operated the business muse eatery  has  gone into liquidation  .

It would appear that the share holder

HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand

has placed the company into liquidation  and appointed their own liquidators .

Samuel North was the share holder of the company but   moved  the share holding into a trust in  april 2016  .  It has all been very predictable  and North continued to sell Grab one   and groupon deals  even after he knew he was closing, we  believe that this is  fraudulent.

Our suggestion is that if you  are owed money that you  attend the liquidators  watershed  meeting  when it is announced and  ensure that independent  liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one  appointed by North )   .

When a company  appoints its own liquidators  the  liquidation is   likely not to be  as transparent  or fair as it would be  if the liquidator is working for  a creditor .

It is our honest opinion  that the Liquidators will   sell on the   Chattels, at a nominal price and  the phoenix will  fly again   when North purchases them .

Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and  it is believed that many of its  assets actually belonged to muse.

We have  been contacted  by many persons   who are  owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are  former staff members who  have unresolved  grievances .

Samuel north has removed the  face book page, the  linked in page  and the web site .

samuel north _ LinkedIn

samuel north _ LinkedIn messages

samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators

samuel north _ LinkedIn 2

Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn

the old web site is still viewable  here 

Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.

Any one knowing  where North is please send an email to us through our comment section  and we will share the information  but will keep your  details confidential

We will happily  collate information to  ensure that Justice is  done

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation

Update

Samuel North  has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz>   and is bleating defamation

We Hope the   barrister gets  paid .

Open letter to the North family Debbie ,Malcolm and Samuel

pic 3Dear Malcolm Debbie and Samuel

several months ago I corresponded with you and told you that neither Jozsef  or  I did  wished to communicate with you ,but you continued to send bullying and abusive emails.

The police even contacted you email to muse restaurant 171115 and warned you that your communications  could well be breaking the law.

But the law apparently means nothing to you,  you appear to find it humorous .

So we have just had Christmas. Both Jozsef and I have had to endure more harassment  and bullying  now  you claim you wish to negotiate because you fear being in prison  this time next year.

Now you and I both know that  innocent people do not have to fear  repercussions of the law  but you have already stated that   the police will not arrest you for  stealing Jozsefs shares. WE have so many confessions it appears unreal that you are still in denial .

The lawyers firm which you engaged to represent the company   found themselves in such a bind that  they had to take court action against me because they didn’t know which way to turn . on one hand they had to admit that Jozsef had no  rights and on the other   hand you were suing him as a majority share holder  . Never before has there been such a ridiculous set of circumstances and blatant theft and you wish to negotiate settlement with Jozsef .

Those who commit offences are not  in a position to negotiate  to seek a discount on the sums which they have stolen and the losses they have caused.

I have already told you  that a good starting point  would be full compensation to Jozsef for  his losses. You have his bank account details  you may wish to  start repayment  of the shares which you  unlawfully transferred.

I have also taken the liberty of writing to the business broker who has Muse on Allen listed  for sale   it would appear that  this is a major transaction one which is not permissible without consent from the share holders  and s you   have commenced  legal action against Jozsef as majority share holder it would appear that you have  posed yourselves  some problems

No matter what, the outcome for you will be much better if you were to  voluntarily commence reparation to Jozsef. the police and the courts will view this favourably .

Other than that  neither jozsef or I wish to hear from you and emails and gifts indication what a laugh   the last year has been will not serve you well .

You will be contacted by Jozsefs lawyer in due course , currently we are in the middle of  a legal holiday . so  please be patient  and do not   communicate with either of us  your communications are unwanted  .

We look forward to seeing the matter resolved in 2016 , the ball is entirely in your hands you can make it better or you can make it worse. your current conduct is unhelpful.

 

email in response by Samuel

From: “samuel” <samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz>
Date: Dec 29, 2015 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Meeting
To: “Jozsef Szekely”
Cc:

 

Jozsef should we both spend 50k on solicitors again in the new year.
Looking forward to it.
I love filling their pockets.

 

Open letter to the ethics committee of the New Zealand association of Counsellors

Opethicsen letter New Zealand association of Counsellors 

From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 11 December 2015 10:22 a.m.
To: ‘ethicssecretary@nzac.org.nz’ <ethicssecretary@nzac.org.nz>
Subject: harassment and bullying by Debbie Norths son and Husband.

I am a licenced Private investigator.

I have been assisting  a young  chef who has had all  his equity  in a company stolen  from him  by  Debbie North , her husband  and   son.

Jozsef   invested $64,000  in  a restaurant Muse on Allen     there were  two share holders Debbie’s son  Sam  and Jozsef  30 % Samuel   70% Jozsef .

Debbie became an alternate director  but  exercised full director powers  and allowed her son to transfer  21% of the shares from Jozsef into his own name   contrary to the provisions of legislation and without any legal basis. This  reduced Jozsef’s share holding to  49%.  No other money was invested into the company   apart from  funds  clearly introduced as LOANS by the  Norths and Samuels girlfriend    Annabelle Torrejos

Debbie   was  then party to  making her husband Malcolm a director   and the three of them removed Jozsef  as director   and then transferred the remailing shares to Samuel making him the 100% shareholder   of the company while he had not introduced any equity in to the company and   was in fact showing a deficit of some  $6000  of drawings against  equity in 2014

In court documents  she claimed this was  an  error   how ever this error has not been corrected by her  despite the fact that she filed the annual reports with the companies office 21 October 2013 and
09 October 2014 and failed to  correct the share holding   .   these are serious offences under the companies act

I was taken to court  for alleged Harassment after the  lawyer they employed to act  for the  company ( but  in reality only acting for  their interests) accused me of contempt.   I advised him that he had a legal duty to comply with the law and be independent  in acting for the company  and  so  I was taken to court for harassment .

The court action was in Wellington  ( I live in Auckland )    I   told the lawyers   who were taking this action that I would give an undertaking not  to contact  this  sensitive lawyer who  apparently  did not wish to  be independent and comply with the law .

The court date was concealed from me and I was advised  of the hearing at 9 am on the day of the hearing     and therefore could not make it to wellington on time.  I was  called a serial defamer and harasser   based  on  the lawyers submissions  and    have been ordered to pay $5000   for this privilege    I have asked  for this decision  to be recalled as   the process was not fair  and transparent.

The Bullying and harassment in this matter is  beyond belief.  I am not he only one subjected to it – Jozsef has had    abuse hurled at him and has been  physically threatened in court by Malcolm North .

After losing his  own restaurant  Samuel taunts him     by saying  what is it like flipping ham burgers..  and  making himself out to be the all successful chef  based on the fact that  he “ owns “ a restaurant which Jozsef  has  effectively  purchased the chattels for   before being kicked out three months into the  operation .

The police are only   good for writing  warning letters     and nothing  further   appears to be on their agenda   other than getting people to take things to court  where they are subjected to massive legal bills (  Jozsef has already paid out  over $50,000)

amendment:   It is  our honest opinion that  Malcolm has been attempting to  interfere with Jozsef’s  employment   apparently by using his capacity  as Employment Support Representative in  the ministry of social development . This  honest opinion is based on events which occurred at Jozsefs work place   and   events which played out .   Malcolm has alleged that this statement is declamatory  but it is our  honest opinion that this is the case perhaps Malcom would like to explain why he met with Jozsefs  supervisor  and why  Jozsef was then put in the position that he was placed in . Honest opinion is never defamatory 

Jozsef  is under extreme pressure and I fear that the ongoing attacks on may have serious repercussions  . this has been going on  for three years

Even after the police  told  Samuel  and Malcolm not to send  any more emails they have continued to do so  making  false claims  and  bullying remarks about personal relationships  remarks which are    untrue and have no substance but are made  in an attempt to hurt  and denigrate

I find it ironic that Debbie works for the mediation service      and I see the ethics of her and her family  counterproductive to the aims and  values of your organization

Since Debbie made a claim to the court that   Jozsef’s shares were  transferred in error  she should seek to correct it, instead she chose to resign as  director  and has allowed her husband and son to continue harassing   and bullying.

This has to  stop    and that is why I am bringing this to your attention

I have Lots of information about this on Transparency.net.nz  and in the interest of transparency  I will publish this letter there as an open letter  the public has a tight to know that you employ a  membership secretary who is  party to all of this .

I doubt that you will do anything  as  we appear to  be incredibly good at duck shoving in NZ  it is always someone else’s problem  .  The problem in this case   is the lack of enforcement of our laws  once upon a time    people who committed these offences  were behind bars  now they  just   bully people    and hopefully  their victims will commit suicide  and  then they can say see  he/ she was mad all along.

This is why NZ’s  suicide rate is higher than   our  road toll and drownings put together  .  You and any one reading this has to  act     we force people to go to extreme expense   to save the one or two toddlers who drown in  domestic pools each year  but we allow bulling in adults  and through lawyers to continue .

I do hope that you act.    I fear that you will not .

Regards

Grace Haden

Muse on Allen – Samuel North and the Convention against corruption

Muse on AllenOpen letter to the registrar of companies

On 1 December 2015 the  NZ Government ratified the UN Convention against corruption 

We have  written to you and your minister in the past and published several  articles with regards to the Muse on Allen  and the so called Owner Samuel North  who  according to the latest accounts we have    does not hold any equity in the company yet claims to be the 100% share holder.

We have identified the fact that  Josef’s shares  were transferred  to Samuel North  without  consent and without any corresponding change in equity  . It has also been acknowledged in court that the  required documentation was not completed.  For good measure  the shares of the majority share holder were taken in two steps  and then  even after it was alleged in court that this was  done in error Jozsef was sued as a 62.4% share holder  when  he is denied all  share holder rights.

We compiled a list of offences which have occurred, there were about 30 of these Offences  but the registrar of companies  appears to condone these  offences  by failing to act.

We wish to draw your attention to article 22 of the United nations convention against corruption  a treaty to which we are now a full signatory

 Article 22.

Embezzlement of property in the private sector

Each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally in the course of economic, financial or commercial activities, embezzlement by a person who directs or works, in any capacity, in a private sector entity of any property, private funds or securities or any other thing of value entrusted to him or her by virtue of his or her position.

Malcolm North  in an email  stated “we are not going to get locked up for stealing shares

There can be no doubt  about the embezzlement of shares  by Samuel North  and  since share transfer  is done  under the supervision of the directors  both Samuel’s parents Debbie North and  Malcolm North appear to be complicit . They and Samuel   admitted to having  reduced Josef’s shares in Error and now it appears that  asking for errors to be corrected by their lawyer  is  more of an offence than the actual act of misappropriation.

The second least ( perceived ) corrupt country  appears to  be out of wack with  reality .

Now that we have signed the  convention   will the  registrar of companies please act to  correct this criminal  actand prevent the asset stripping   of the  equity which Jozsef has invested into the company and from which Samuel North has profited.

In the mean time  Samuel North has become the only director with  Janine Corke  resigning  on 23 November  and Malcolm North resigning  6 December

Samuel north   has now set up a new company Catering limited on 3 December ,this was right after  we had  Trade me take down the   posting for the sale of the chattels. see the   trade me ad here Chattels, lease, fitout for sale _ Trade Me

this is what Samuel  wrote in reply

Samuel North <samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz

Hello Rosie

I have been passed on your questions about the premises.

So the business is not for sale, it has been very successful and I am relocating it to a bigger venue.

The lease has around 5 years remaining with a further 6 years right of renewal ( I have asked the landlord for a copy and should have it within the next couple of days)

I recently fitted out the restaurant (not kitchen) so all chattels in the front are all brand new, kitchen equipment has been well maintained and ranges from 3 years to 6 years old.

Attached is a  chattels list

We turned over 800k the last financial year, the street is very busy during the night, we operate Tuesday to Saturday – Friday and Saturday are our busiest.

Muse on Allen is a fine dining restaurant with a bar, our average spend is $90 however you may want to make it more accessible as the street is busy but not everyone spends $90 on a dinner these days.

Please let me know if you have any more questions or you would like to view the premises, it is price to sell and I’m open to offer as I’m moving in January.

Thanks

Samuel

so what is the bet  will he liquidate  Muse on Allen   ?   when changes occur  something is up  . Muse on Allen has been in liquidation court already this year .

We further draw your attention to the provisions  of the convention   in

Article 52. Prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime.    

The  chattels  are being disposed of there is an attempt to pervert the course of justice   and  there can be no doubt that many crimes including misappropriation of assets have occurred crime has been committed   but   our authorities  will not  act.  there appears to be a  ping pong game between police and  Registrar in the mean time Jozsef has paid out $50,000 to lawyers and needs to find $10,000  more  . If he drops out of the court action his lawyers advised him to  commence before bleeding him dry  then he will be cleaned out with costs  and as victors   the offenders will walk free.

We request that the  registrar of companies  urgently intervenes  as required by our new obligations to the convention  and  ensure that   the crimes which have been identified  are  not left unprosecuted and the assets  secured.

This letter is  an open letter as this  is now a matter  which is not  just in the national interest but in the international interest.  New Zealand wither condones corruption  or it does not.  If it does not condone corruption then   the  government officers  cannot sit on the side  line when we have signed up to   this  important treaty

Muse on Allen Limited a lesson on share holder agreements and Independent & competent lawyers

Today  Monteck Carter chartered accountants  sent out a news letter on  Shareholders agreements

“A Shareholders’ Agreement is a contract between the shareholders of a company. Without one, you risk a dispute at some point down the track when each shareholder has a different idea of who can do what, when they can do it, how it is done, and what was agreed at the outset. Like a pre-nuptial…

Read the whole article »

The entire fiasco with  Muse on Allen Restaurant and Bar   is a  great example as to why share holder agreements are essential and why the company should have a Lawyer who acts for and on behalf of the company ensuring that all parties have the protection which the  law  affords  them.

Two Chefs agreed to purchase an existing business  , One a relatively new immigrant  to New Zealand  had the finances to set up   a company, the other    had an ambition  too large for his  pockets which was to be the  youngest chef to be  the owner of a restaurant.

The young chefs owner   worked with their  family lawyer to  transact  matters  in the company and then they drew up their own document  which has no real basis in law  but   despite this and lack of compliance with the  document  have staunchly held  to  this grossly defective and deceptive document.

What was signed  between the so called partners of  Muse on Allen  was called  apartnering agreement partnering agreement as opposed to a Share holders agreement  There was no interdependent legal advice nor was an opportunity provided for  such advice. As a result the majority share holder had all his investment   taken from him and transferred   to the young chef Samuel North ,  contrary to the provisions of the companies act  so that    the  most cash strapped  member of this so called agreement could  claim publicly and repeatedly that  the restaurant was his own  .

A  sample copy of a share holders agreement   can be found  at this link   an unprotected version of the document is here shareholders-agreement.

As can be seen there is a massive difference  between this  document and the  ” partnering  agreement

Share holder is defined in the  companies act in section 96.  Partnership has no definition other than that  given  under the limited partnership act  and this registers partnerships.  this does not apply in this instance as this is  a limited liability company with share holders.

It is interesting to note   that the agreement  to the right is deficient   section 21 

 

It is quite clear therefore that Anabelle Torrejos Malcolm  North and Debbie North were not share holders.  they have never appeared on the  share registry, either those of the company or  as reflected on the  registrars  on line registry    therefore it  can quite safely be said that   this is not a shareholders agreement.

In this case Anabelle Torrejos, Malcolm  North and Debbie North  could not sell their shares  as they  did not hold any.  they were instead lenders   as   they loaned their funds   to the company.shae holder accounts

We are of the opinion that  this  Partnering document being held out to be a share holders agreement makes false representations  and through those false representations  those who hold this document out to be  be genuine should be looking at the provisions  of the crimes act .

We cannot emphasize enough the need for good and competent lawyers  who act in accordance with the law.  Without such  protection   companies can go entirely off the rails and  be used  contrary to the law .

It is therefore essential that any company has an impartial  Independent lawyer who ensures that all parties  comply with the law.

No one involved in a company  should sign anything  unless thy have sought independent legal advice .

 

Muse on Allen a case study of the dangers of NZ companies

Muse on AllenWe are led to believe that companies  structure is  safe. Companies are set up and  regulated  under legislation  which is the  companies act .  The legislation  is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment.  But does that give you any  confidence that   what is on the companies register is accurate  and what about the penalties and  enforcement measures  how realistic are they ? 

It transpires that enforcement of companies act offences  is not  taken on as diligently as  parking and speeding  matters  and the registrars approach is to seek compliance.  In other words.. they may ask people nicely to make corrections . In my career  as an investigator  I  have  found instances where  directors and liquidators  were  fictional. when I discovered this   I was sued  and taken to court for harassment , fortunately in those days the national enforcement unit   was active  and Lynne PRYOR and Terry Hay were both charged with   some 22 fraud offences . see news items Charges over alleged fake liquidator  and  Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt  .

We had hope that  our complaints to the registrar with regards to Muse on Allen may have been taken  and addressed in a similar vein but it appears that   in a few years there has been a rethink on enforcement.

Despite  a detailed complaint  with evidence  the minister of commerce and consumer affairs Paul  Goldsmith  has  advised in the letter  LETTER – to Grace Hadon – 19 August 2015 that ( RIET= Registry integrity)

the RIET is unable to take action in relation to every complaint it receives. I am advised that resources are therefore focussed on those matters that have potential to pose:
• a material risk of financial or other loss or harm to users of the register; or
• a reputational threat to the New Zealand corporate registration system.

We are unsure as  to the scope of the registrars   inclination to act in such matters  as we believe that the companies act offending   by Muse of Allen’s directors  was at the  top end of  the scale and fell into the category .

our complaint   is here  these are the offences  Offences and this is  evidence part 1 and  evidence part 2 the pages are referenced int eh complaint and the  offence summaries.

While the companies office  chooses the ” economical ” approach to   enforcement.. that is   not to  take legal action.. it has to be noted that Jozsef has already spent $50,000 on lawyers   who then  withdrew when they had  false allegations of contempt of court  made against them  and who advised jozsef  that it was not economical to  continue  due tot he fact that the company is insolvent.

The companies accounts have shown it to be insolvent since day  1   and ironically the accounts  in 2014 showed  that Jozsef was the only share holder with  paid up equity  yet  he had no rights   except to be abused and bullied.

Muse on Allen is currently in Liquidation court, it was due to appear this week on a  claim by the former land lord but our inquiries reveal that this sum has  since been paid.

Samuel North  who  misappropriated  the  shares and  the companies assets  for his own use  is now looking for  more hired help  and continues to promote the restaurant as a top restaurant.

Mean while the lawyer  for the  company xxxxxxxxxxx   has filed harassment proceedings against me  because I had the audacity to email him and express  concerns  with regards to   his  false allegations  against me .  Harassment proceedings are frequently taken by  lawyers who  find themselves in a pickle , in my opinion  it is bullying  and  there is no need for it if lawyers stick to their  legal obligations.

I personally also have to wonder why  this lawyer ,( whose father is a  well respected former police officer and   who worked  with me in the police), would go all out  to   try to have me removed as support person for the victim of this serious  matter.

lawyers have an obligation to the rule of law   section 4 Lawyers and conveyances act   and

Assisting in fraud or crime  2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.

  I  joined the police with this lawyers father  , I worked with him in Rotorua   , he would not condone the action of  your clients  . Pleases make your father proud and act  like a chip of the old block . in trying to remove me as Jozsefs support person  you  are backing the wrong horse.

removal

I have now spent  the best part of the past week preparing for  your harassment proceedings , this does not make mr happy at all  especially when   I went so far as to make amendments to  the web site    at your request to appease you .

You have falsely accused me of   contempt of court, blackmail and harassment  . please try  to  put your energy into justice  it will serve you  your reputation and the public so much better. .. but it may not bring in as much dosh  that is why i  am working for  Jozsef pro bono .

In the mean time  any one going into business   has to be aware that the New Zealand company structure is extremely unsafe  and it appears that with the use of the  company  key you can add  and remove directors and share holders. you then   protract the  legal  action  stall it  , come up with  false  complaints   provide a side show  and  hopefully the  aggrieved party will  find  that it is uneconomical to pursue   the matter.

It appears to me  to be a perfect script for  crime.    How to steal a company   by   Muse on Allen  :- if this is not a reputational threat to the NZ companies register  I wonder what is?

New Zealand companies appear to be safe on paper   but when the  30 significant breaches of the companies act  (see Offences ) ranging in penalty from $5000  to 5 years imprisonment can be ignored you have to wonder what  confidence  the public can have in the   integrity of the  companies register.

the   opinions expressed in this article are genuine  and  based on research a statute . If any statement is incorrect and requires modification please provide you evidence as to why it is incorrect and   we will  make the necessary  changes.

This publication comes to you  by courtesy of section 14 NZ Bill of rights  “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

SocialCooking.co.nz and Samuel North of Muse On Allen

http://www.socialcooking.co.nz/winter-menu/#Sam-North

Good afternoon Graham Bloxam

We noted that you are promoting Samuel  North   on your  web site http://www.socialcooking.co.nz/2014/03/samuel-north/

Samuel North  has misappropriated the assets of Muse on Allen  as described on our blog.

We  sent you an email   as  follows

Sent: Monday, 3 August 2015 2:34 p.m.
To: ‘events@socialcooking.co.nz’ <events@socialcooking.co.nz>
Subject: Samuel North .. correction sought

Your web site   states

SAMUEL NORTH

Info:At just 21 years old, Sam was considered to be the youngest Chef to be running his own establishment in Wellington, when he opened Muse on Allen 2 years ago.

This statement is not true  Samuel  opened the restaurant with a partner  who paid for  the  chattels  which Samuel uses.

Samuel removed his partner as director and    transferred  all the shareholding to himself.  This type of action is commonly  called fraud.

Samuel  has no  equity in Muse on Allen according to the 2015 accounts . annual accounts    

He additionally ran the    restaurant with his mother and father

In  the interest of fair trading act  could you please  amend this statement on your web site  to reflect the  reality  . those who misappropriate assets should not have the opportunity to benefit from it unduly.

The evidence is on our  website

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2015/07/25/samuel-north-alleged-owner-of-muse-on-allen-interview-and-comments/

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2015/07/24/malcolm-north-director-of-muse-on-allen-responds/

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2015/07/10/samuel-north-responds/

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2015/07/09/abuse-of-companies-act-muse-on-allen-limited-request-for-ministerial-investigation/

http://www.transparency.net.nz/2015/07/08/muse-on-allen-we-reveal-the-secret-to-samuel-norths-success/

 

 

The evidence  is there for   you to see but within seconds of receiving the email you had  phoned me on my cell phone and  had abused me and resorted to   calling me names.  You  threatened me  with lawyers  for “ spamming”   for the record  seeking a correction under the fair trading act is not spamming.

You followed it up with a text  which read  “never communicate  with me or my business again , you are a menace and this has nothing to do with  us  Graham social Cooking.”

You followed this up with a text stating “ you are evil .we do not support him either so  don’t put words in my moth .he is honest, hardworking we have ever had problems with Sam we trust him and you are a very very nasty person but I am sure you get told that often. Dont pick a fight with me you will lose spectacularly.”

Graham ,It would appear that you choose to believe what you are told  .You do not know me and you  are attacking me  unjustifiably.

I would like an apology for the name calling and would  like  you to correct your web site  so that it reflects reality.

I have suffered a lot of abuse from Malcolm and Sam   and now you  prefer to be ignorant   and support a person who has swindled a business away from someone else. Sam did this  by  changing the  share registry without any legal basis for doing so.

We note that socialcooking.co.nz    does not how  who it is registered to  http://dnc.org.nz/whois/socialcooking.co.nz

We see that you run a number of companies https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/individual/search?roleType=ALL&q=Graham%20Bloxham  many of them have been struck off  and social plater is about to be struck off.

Displaying 1 – 24 of 24 results.

BLOXHAM, Graham·         INFOSCREENS LIMITED (1673877) (Struck off) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SAVE THE SEVENS LIMITED (2411757) (Struck off) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         INFORMATIONZ LIMITED (1090657) (Struck off) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         LUCID MEDIA LIMITED (1188158) (Struck off) – Ceased Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SENSATIONAL SCOOTERS LIMITED (973797) (Struck off) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SPECTACULAR OUTDOOR LIMITED (831973) (Struck off) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         ISTATION LIMITED (1378206) (Struck off) – Ceased Director
BLOXHAM, Graham·         INFOSCREENS LIMITED (1673877) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SENSATIONAL SCOOTERS LIMITED (973797) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SAVE THE SEVENS LIMITED (2411757) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SPECTACULAR OUTDOOR LIMITED (831973) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         LUCID MEDIA LIMITED (1188158) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         INFORMATIONZ LIMITED (1090657) (Struck off) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SOCIAL PLATE LIMITED (3351630) – Shareholder
BLOXHAM, Graham·         SALESWORKS SYSTEMS LIMITED (1845570) – DirectorDirector Appointed 13 Oct 2009Flat 11, 24 Elizabeth Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011, New Zealand
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         COOKING SHOULD BE FUN WELLINGTON LIMITED (3766560) – Ceased Director
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         M5 LIMITED (1644310)
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         COOKING SHOULD BE FUN AUCKLAND LIMITED (3909064) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         SOCIAL PLATE LIMITED (3351630) – Director
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         COOKING SHOULD BE FUN HOLDINGS LIMITED (4015338) – Ceased Director
BLOXHAM, Graham Harold·         COOKING SHOULD BE FUN HOLDINGS LIMITED (4015338)

 

We can only presume that social cooking is owned by one of  the non-struck of companies .

Perhaps  a good course to run would be Sam North:-  How to cook the books :- Owning a business with no  financial input of your own.

If we all support corruption then there is only one way  that the country will go.

If we are united and  make people accountable to the law then be  can be a proud nation.

This open letter will be published on  Transparency  as the values of social cooking need to be judged by the   court of public opinion.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

 

Samuel North alleged owner of Muse On Allen – interview and comments.

Samuel North was interviewed on   Concrete playground 

We would like to set the record straight   by providing facts .

Yup okay that was impressively disastrous. You’ve certainly picked up from there though, you established this place at 21, which is ridiculously young, what gave you the confidence to do that?

SN: My parents gave me really good support, they’ve supported me the whole way through it. Especially my dad, he’s been in business before and really wanted me to do this I think. Probably not so young though. I could have waited a few more years but I was just too keen, too eager to own my own place, even if it was going to be something else. This place actually wasn’t even supposed to be a restaurant – I just wanted to have a bar but it turned out completely differently.

Reality 

The chattels of Muse on Allen were purchased  using  Jozsefs money .  this is a copy of the sale and purchase agreement purchaseopeing accountsas can be seen the place was purchased for $90.000  of which  $70,000  was  funds which  Jozsef introduced  see  here ( all enlarge on clicking )

In return  Jozsef received a 70 %  share holding 

Samuel $30 % based on the fact that HE was getting a loan from his parents and girlfriend as  can be seen  Samuel’s total investment into Muse on Allen which he claims he owns  is   a staggering  $10,000  from his bonus bonds. 

What was behind that huge need to h ave your own place?

SN: I just really hated working for people to be honest. I hated getting told what to do all the time. It was driving me crazy. I was just like fuck, what am I doing? I just wanted to do my own thing. 

Reality  

 yes the  reality is that  this statement is true  and it would appear that this dislike of being told what to do extended to   working with some one who has  just purchased the chattels for the business .  How true “I just wanted to do my own thing.”

Starting a business so young, was it kind of hard to get people to take you seriously?

SN: Yeah it was really hard, especially in the first year. I’d hired all these young people who were like fuck it, he’s 21 what the fuck does he know? It made me realise that I needed to be hiring the right people who were going to support me and who wanted to listen to me. I find that actually hiring older and more mature is better. I’ve got a lot of older staff now. They’re still in their like, thirties and twenties and stuff but they are passionate about the restaurant, the food and the service.

Reality  

 From what we have seen the person who  was calling all the shots in the restaurant was Malcolm North, he was   calling all the shots even before  he was made a director.    the scenario  goes   Samuel and Jozsef were directors. Samuel gets his  mother Debbie North , to be an alternate director  she  completes her own forms ( which is actually a no no  )  and uploads this to the companies register  and back dates it to the date of  the company formation. 

They now  use this as a two votes to one directorship and use this to    reduce Jozsefs share holding  without any new capital going into the business and without  any consent from Jozsef.  what they did is totally  against the  companies act . 

It is in reality Malcolm and Debbie   who were  directors with Samuel  in the first  year after passing resolutions  in private to get  Jozsef out .

 

In a herald  article   –Your Business: Young Entrepreneurs Samuel North is reported as  saying

The founder and head chef of Wellington-based restaurant Muse on Allen worked and saved hard for six years, and got a loan from his parents and help from his partner to set up the restaurant, which last year took out a top culinary prize – the Visa Wellington on a Plate Award.

Reality

As  we have shown earlier the opening accounts of Muse on Allen , they are evidence that  Samuel  put in $10,000.

Samuel Norths statement  above is  correct but it  conveniently leaves out the  $70,000  investment of his  business partner  who was then  in our opinion and no doubt in the opinion of any right thinking person “ shafted.”

The  financial accounts for Muse on Allen   show the  Loans from his parents  and Anabel Torrejos  and the share holding of Jozsef  but the companies records   up until  May this year showed Samuel as the only share holder. After that date they brought in Janine Corke a strategist of  Corum Limited   just days after she became a director  Jozsef was sued in the   district court . 

The shares Samuel North held were effectively stolen  from Jozsef  and  were never legally transferred and have certainly never been compensated for – there is no other way of saying but it is  Fraud  at the worst and a serious breach of the companies act at the least

Muse on Allen opened   in  September three months later Jozsef  was kicked out  and they  blamed him  for the company not   being profitable.. show us a company which  is profitable after  3 months .

Now Malcolm North on behalf of Muse on Allen  is  suing  Jozsef for the  losses in  what is reported in the press to be a ” very successful ” business owned and operated by  Samuel North , so successful that  the company is claiming to be insolvent  see  Statement of Claim. Goes to show  that  even after  three years  the company is still  running at a loss despite   all the glowing  press reports which say it is full night after night.. but then that is the power of advertising and a different story . 

Malcolm North supplied free of privilege the end of year accounts which   clearly show   that Jozsef  is a share holder   and  has  been totally alienated   from the company which Samuel  pretends that it is  his own- even   issuing a trespass notice against  Jozsefannual accountsshae holder accounts

False allegations are now being made of contempt of court  this is because lies  have a way  of getting tangled  and drive  desperate people to making  desperate accusations.

Samuel and Malcolm  you could try    paying Jozsef back his   money  and  his costs that you have    trumped up through  delay tactics. 

Let  us look at the future  by  being responsible   with regard to what you have done in the  past ,  what you have done to Jozsef is not  right .

We also include  the  some real feed back  with Samuel North’s responses   which  we captured before it was removed .. they  speak for themselves..click to enlarge they  originate from Trip advisor

group of 6group of 6 part 2Kiwi traveler 1Kiwi traveler