trusts and societies
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
attorney general here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
“In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.
Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”
In 2001 the then minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton gave approval for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act 1999.
Section 122 of the act requires that the minister must be satisfied “by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence” that the “organisation “complied with the criteria as set out in sections 122 (1) (a) – (e).
It has transpired that the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) had no legal existence, It had no members, structure or existence beyond that of only one man. There was no Organisation, no body of persons had held a meeting or made a decision to make an application for the coercive law enforcement powers.
I have over the years made a number of OIA requests from the MPI and have conclusively established that.
1. The application for approved status for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was fraudulent
a. Mr Neil Wells made the application on behalf of an alleged trust knowing that no trust existed .
b. The statement with regards to the trust having been formed by way of trust deed was false and known to be false by Mr Wells a statement he was to attempt to retrospectively cover up in 2006.
c. The persons named as the alleged trustees had never formally met together as a trust, signed a trust deed, or discussed the application for approved status under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
d. Section 10 of the application, the institute’s compliance with section 122, sought to mislead and deceive the minister as an organisation which does not exist cannot comply with the criteria.
2. The minister relied on MAF advising him with regards to the trust deed, the reality was that there was no trust deed and no signed deed was ever considered or sighted. This ensured that the ministry staff evaluated the application on a worthless and meaningless document which had not been consented or agreed to by any persons.
3. Mr Neil Edward Wells who had appointed himself as Manager (10.4 of the application) was the former Head of the RNZSPCA, in 1996 he wrote a business plan for his own personal ambition to integrate council’s dog and stock control with Animal welfare which was a central government concern. He called the service Territorial animal welfare service .
4. Mr Wells was well connected with the MPI (MAF at the time) and through this and his party connections (Labour) came to write the No 1 Bill for the new animal welfare legislation this bill was written with his personal business aspirations in mind.
5. Mr Wells served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills but no record has ever been located of any declaration of his conflict of interest.
6. During 2000 Mr Wells and his associate Tom Didovich provided the minister and the ministry with information which appeared to be legitimate, however neither the minister not the ministry verified
a. The legal status or existence of AWINZ
b. The consent and knowledge of Waitakere council in providing funding, staff resources and infrastructure for the venture.
c. The knowledge and consent for the alleged trustees named on the fraudulent application
7. Records show that the policy advisors for the ministry of Agriculture were opposed to the granting of the application despite having previously assisted Mr Wells. MAF officials had voiced their concerns with regards to Mr Wells’s undeclared conflict of interest.
8. Consent was finally given after the application went to the labour caucus after Neil Wells was able to comment on and amend the caucus papers and allegedly briefed his former work colleague, Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the labour party and Mayor of Waitakere City Council.
9. In 2006 as a result of an enquiry from a Waitakere dog control officer I established conclusively that
a. There was no legal person by the name of the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand
b. Neither MAF nor Waitakere council who both contracted to AWINZ held a signed trust deed.
c. The law enforcement authority AWINZ was not identifiable.
10. Despite AWINZ not existing the then Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not consider that AWINZ no longer complied with section 122 and did not revoke the approved status, he too was deceived as to the existence of AWINZ due to a group of persons posing as AWINZ and despite lacking evidence claiming to be the law enforcement authority . These persons were Tom Didovich, Neil Wells, Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley. Not one of these persons (other than Wells) had been a party to the application process or consented to it.
11. This deception continued through the next minister’s term off office and David Carter was similarly deceived.
12. In a series Official information act requests I have established that MPI do not know who the legal persons were who represented the law enforcement authority and it would appear from the latest response ,that they did nothing to investigate the consequences of having a fictional law enforcement authority .
I have recently discovered submissions by Mr Wells for the Animal Welfare Amendment Act , curiously he does not mention his involvement with AWINZ at all but in these he points out the seriousness of this situation by pointing out that New Zealand is only one of two countries to have a private law enforcement authority (the other is Australia).
Mr Wells in his submissions states “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.”
He goes on to state “There are (in NZ) three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations. “
And “MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.”
AWINZ was an approved organisation yet it did not exist, no one knew who comprised it, ran it, apart from Mr Wells who was not given law enforcement powers in his own name but obtained it fraudulently in a fictional name and then acted on behalf of that fictional body.
The act, section 122, requires that the Minister must be satisfied – by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence – before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act.
For the decision of several Ministers to have been lawful evidence must exist which shows
1. Who the legal persons were who applied for the law enforcement powers and
2. The legal basis upon which the ministers granted law enforcement powers to a trading name for person or persons unknown and had belief that there was accountability to the public.
If that evidence does not exist then there is another option and that is that successive ministers were deceived.
If this is the case the government has two options
1. To condone fraudulent applications to the crown for law enforcement authority or
2. Instigate a full ministerial enquiry into the matter and hold all those who played a part in the deception accountable to the full force of the law.
The current Minister, Nathan Guy appears to have distanced himself from this matter despite repeated requests for him to conduct a ministerial enquiry into this deception. Every request I write to him is routinely handed over to the MPI. The MPI do not hold the evidence and quite clearly under the act it is for the minister to be in possession of the suitable evidence which satisfies him, it is therefore clear that if there is any evidence as to the legitimacy of the application of AWINZ and the existence of AWINZ then it must be held by the minister.
If the minister does not hold that information then the minister cannot condone a fraudulent act of this magnitude. It is also not a responsible action just to ignore the issue. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse Crimes act 1961)
Fraud is a crime and obtaining law enforcement powers for one of only two approved organisations is serious, it is even more serious when the law was enforced through this fraud and I have evidence that it was.
I did not intend to be a Whistle blower, I simply raised issues which I believed were in the public interest to raise in what was reported to be the world’s least corrupt country. I asked
1. Why did the minister give law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation
2. Why was the manager of a council dog and stock control unit contracting to himself in a fictional name
Those two questions have devastated my life and that of my family, I have had a total cold shoulder from the government for 8 years now. I have been treated like the villain in a tactic which I now recognise as classic Darvo where the roles of villain and victim are reversed.
I have been persecuted thought the courts on defamation claims for which I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion, skipped formal proof and went straight to sentencing.
My crime has been to speak the truth and speak up on a matter of serious public corruption, it has been 8 years I have had every bit of spin and every bit of avoidance, it is painfully obvious that no one knows who the law enforcement authority was and there was no accountability to the public.
I should not be the scape goat. If New Zealand wished to strive to be the least corrupt country in the world then it would instigate a full investigation into this matter and see that whistle blowers are compensated as intended by the United Nations convention against corruption.
While New Zealand is still covering up corruption it will never be able to ratify the convention. We cannot continue to pretend that there is no corruption the only way to deal with it is to meet it head on.
I therefore ask for you Mr Key to direct that the minister for MPI conduct a full investigation into this matter together with lawyers versed in criminal law and Trusts.
I am happy to assist I am a former Police Prosecuting Sergeant and am currently a licenced Private investigator, the matter is already well investigated and researched.
Additionally I request financial assistance to relieve the financial hardship which I am experiencing due to having blown the whistle. I would not be in the position that I find myself in today if the government had acted responsibly and relied on evidence rather than hearsay.
I will soon be attending an international anti-corruption conference and hope that I can report that NZ is taking corruption seriously. I will also send a copy of this to the United Nations for their reference and also publish this on www.transparency.net.nz
I see this as a true test of the ethics of our current government.
“government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”
Well he was wrong , the year was 1863 and New Zealand was still in its infancy and no one would have thought that this would be the country where democracy would become a farce.
We vote for the members, in a competition where by money rules , those supported through secret trusts and large businesses have the biggest adverting budget and we all know how effective advertising is
Once into office the debt to the sponsors needs to be re paid . There are several ways of doing this so as to make it look like it is an open an transparent process
One way is through the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.
This is a charitable trust which was set up in 1991 by PATRICK LEDGER GOODMAN and DRYDEN THOMAS SPRING “To advance and encourage business understanding of Parliament and parliamentarians’ understanding of the business community of New Zealand’
( a quick look at their backgrounds shows that they are very well connected
GOODMAN one of the wealthiest families in New Zealand and Australia, with an estimated worth of $A770 million see also Goodman dynasty cooks up recipe for success
SPRING held a number of directorships including Nufarm Ltd., Maersk NZ Ltd., Affco Ltd., Fletcher Building Ltd., Sky City Entertainment Group Ltd., Northport Ltd., Deputy Chairman of Goodman Fielder Ltd., Chairman of Ericcson NZ Ltd. Chairman Of Tenon Ltd., Deputy Chairman Of Ports Of Auckland Ltd., Deputy Chairman of The Rural Banking and Finance Corp of New Zealand. He was formerly a member of The APEC Eminent Persons Group, which in 1993 drafted the APEC Vision of Free and Open Trade in the Asia Pacific, a member of APEC Business Advisory Council, Chairman of Asia New Zealand Foundation,
the members are listed here
Each business has an MP assigned to them ( called associate members ) they are listed here some companies e.g. Fonterra has several MPs .
So while we the mere mortals who believe we live in a democratic society have difficulty in accessing our MPS this is not so for big business.
There does not appear to be any legislation which supports MPs membership to this trust and I have done an OIA to clarify this .
I have also asked if we can set up an organization along the same lines which educates MPs with regards to corruption
until we get an independent commission agaisnt corruption we will have
Government of our businesses by those who have been sponsored by businesses to support businesses.
I also have to wonder why David Cunliffe was the only one to disclose his role in the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust.
Recently Steve Hart Interviewed Suzanne Snively on his show , which we believe require clarification we may have to spread the load over several posts as we do not wish to go into overload.
the Interview can be listened to here we will respond in order starting with the elevator speech
The elevator speech
Suzanne’s Elevator speech was far more in line with her own objectives than that of the objectives formally adopted by the incorporated society , her response proves that she has no idea what the objectives of the society are shown at point 4 on the latest rules
The registered objectives are principally “to promote transparency, good governance and ethical practices in all sectors of society in New Zealand”
There is nothing in the rules which says anything about focusing on building stronger integrity systems or praising a society for being “already trusting “by deliberately ignoring corruption which is occurring.
I really have to wonder where the assumption of the already trusting society comes from Susan Snively is an economist and I have learned that assumptions are a very good starting point for economists.
“A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One can only imagine what sort of play date went awry to land them there. Anyway, they’re hungry. Like, desert island hungry. And then a can of soup washes ashore, Campbells Chicken Noodle, let’s say. Which is perfect, because the physicist can’t have much salt, and the chemist doesn’t eat red meat.
But, famished as they are, our three professionals have no way to open the can. So they put their brains to the problem. The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” And the chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.”
Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”
While on the subject of assumptions it has become apparent to me that Suzanne Snively may not be familiar with the legislation which governs the incorporated society , as will be noted later in the interview she said that she was unsure of the structure of Transparency International and thought that it was a company.
The overriding feeling of the interview was that Suzanne wanted to recruit more members so as to increase revenue but Incorporated societies do not exist for pecuniary gain.
Suzanne claims that there are about 100 members , if you look at the web site you will see that the vast majority of the members are connected with either the large audit companies who contract to the office of the auditor general or are Government departments or past employees of these departments.
The perception which can be gained from the membership list is that the vast majority of the members have a vested interest in keeping the lid on corruption In New Zealand. This becomes obvious when you visit the partners/ sponsors page
There is one golden rule which pertains to impartiality and that is you cannot be impartial if you comprised of and paid for by the people whose integrity you are judging.
This in itself means that there is a lack of integrity.
Any good economist will tell you that if you get your wages paid by a group of people and or organisations that they will no doubt employ you again in the future if you do a favourable job.
So in this instance TINZ did an integrity study on 13 pillars this is who worked on them and how they were funded, note that I have paired up the funders to the pillar which they would most naturally be associated with . The researchers are as mentioned in the integrity report . You can see who funded and researched the various pillars here Who funded and worked on the various pillars
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”
Suzanne’s perception of the TINZ chapter
- only 5% of the population knows it exists.
My comment: Yes but they sure get the false message out that there is no corruption in New Zealand
- The group that was initially involved was focused on building a chapter but not necessarily on how to get the message out to the wider community
My comment: They were and still are Government servants dressed up as a watchdog to tell the country how well they are concealing corruption.
- I knew nothing about TI until I became a director
My comment: I am so impressed that Susan Has learnt so much about corruption in New Zealand in three short years especially since she has never examined corruption and does not wish to know it is there, In typical Economist style she has carefully studied everything except the reality
Three economists went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first economists fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second economists fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third economists didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”
- At about the same time a colleague became executive chairman of the Cambodian branch he got funding and got over a million dollars.
My comment: My own suspicion is that Susan saw the possibility of becoming the CEO and getting funding to pay her wages , I have sen this tactic used in many incorporated societies, most of the members dont care a toss and leave one person to run the joint and let them find a way to get their own wages . Incorporated societies are not supposed to work that way but when you can be part of an organization which protects you from scrutiny in your day job then its a great trade of for some.
- we do have some govt members at the moment they became members to support the work of the TI integrity systems assessment
My comment: there is no integrity in getting people to fund the independent research which affects them , its like paying for advertising and a lot more efficient when a government department e.g. the office of the auditor general can pay some one to show how effective they are being. That is far more economic than actually doing a good job
Q:Why did God create economists ?
A:In order to make weather forecasters look good
- very few people are aware of how well we score internationally and that international perceptions of our lack of corruption are not as widely understood across NZ as it could be , if it is true that we can be proud of as because it makes a difference to us as a trading nation in terms of how we trade and do business
My comment:it is all about boosting business not about the reality
Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.
Experienced economist: “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!”
Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating it so he does and collects money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit.
Not so experienced economist: “Now, if YOU eat this shit I’ll give YOU $20,000.”
After evaluating the proposal experienced economist eats shit getting the money.
They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”
Experienced economist: “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve been just involved in $40,000 of trade.”
- the international perception is that we have the least or amongst the least corrupt public sector in the world
My comment: Yes that perception is kept alive by the members of transparency International New Zealand who are those very same govt departments and also fund the work to make themselves look great.
- It means that you can get up in the morning and go about your business without paying a backhander without paying facilitation or a bribe.
My comment: I agree there are very few bribes or backhanders in New Zealand but on the other hand every one has some dirt on every one else and although the monitary transactions dont come into it , there are often winks and nods involved… same thing- corruption
- we focus on systemic issues around corruption to ensure that there are systems in place that deal with corruption
My comment: but TINZ deal with the hypothetical only and refuse to look at the corruption which is occurring to learn from it to see how it occurs. You cannot combat something which you dont understand.
Q: What is a recent economics graduate’s usual question in his first job?
A: What would you like to have with your french fries sir?
to be continued …..
If all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion.
– George Bernard Shaw
this is the second part of my comments on Suzanne’s interview
Snively : We would not go after that specific instance we did raise that we need a more transparent approach of dealing with political appointments to boards etc.
My comment : Transparency alone will not resolve such issues , it is about accountability and when there is no accountability to the public and politicians can do as they please then we live by the rule of might is right .
Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability
Snively : We are strong in our report about transparency in all political funding we expect businesses to be transparent so why not political parties
My comment : Transparency is even more important in the government sector . The use of secret trusts has reached epidemic proportions, again we have Len Brown receiving ¾ million from an unincorporated trust, i.e. unidentifiable, that is anonymous. Six months after the complaint was lodged nothing has happened. Police don’t know how to deal with trusts least of all trusts which do not exist.
In a Mayday parade in the Soviet Union. After the tanks and the troops and the planes and the missiles rolled by there came ten men dressed in black.
“Are they Spies?” Asked Gorby?
“They are economists,” replies the KGB director, “imagine the havoc they will wreak when we set them loose on the Americans”
Gambling. Conference center
Snively : fast forward to 44.33 for her comments they have me scratching my head
My comment : Sky city is part of the committee for Auckland , there appears to be extraordinary pressure placed on political parties and council officers from them.
An economist is someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about – and make you feel it’s your fault.
Web site and Membership
Snively : we really like to be exclusive – inclusive as we can be
My comment : I thought this was a hoot the first word was exclusive which I am certain would be the true desire as persons bringing examples of corruption to the meeting are not welcome .
The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist.
The Second Law of Economists: They’re both wrong.
Steve Hart: Refers to my application to join transparency International (I have made three applications I set up Transparency NZ Ltd after being rejected )
Snively : I came in without the baggage of the people who directed before me so I did not know about Grace so I was quite welcoming that she might be a member but if you look at her web site she is strongly anti our chapter and people who want to be members need to be supportive.
My comment: Suzanne Snively is but one person, one vote in an incorporated society , does her statement mean that there is not a democratic process for the selection of members . When I last spoke to Susan about membership she told me I had to get rid of my company name as it was too close to their name.
I believe that I am supportive of the aims and objectives of Transparency International as set out in their constitution, perhaps Suzanne needs to take a hard look at what she is doing and take time out to read her societies rules.
One day a woman went for a walk in her neighborhood and came across a boy with some puppies. “Would you like a puppy? They aren’t ready for new homes quite yet, but they will be in a few weeks!”
“Oh, they’re adorable,” the lady said. “What kind of dogs are they?”
“These are economists.”
“OK. I’ll tell my husband.”
So she went home and told her husband. He was very interested to see the puppies. About a week later he came across the lad; the puppies were very active.
“Hey, Mister. Want a puppy?”
“I think my wife spoke with you last week. What kind of dogs are these?”
“Oh. These are Investigators.”
“I thought you said last week that they were economists.”
“Yeah, but they’ve opened their eyes since then.”
Snively : I am really very embarrassed my problem is that I am not a great linkedin or face book person I get over 300 emails per day which doesn’t leave me much time and I don’t get much sleep because there is a lot of work to do to build this chapter. When I went onto likedin I quickly filled out the profile thing and I was a new director so I just googled to see what the name was and of course Graces web site came up first and I thought oh that’s it so I put it down but we are an incorporated society and so Grace has obviously decided that she want a very similar name to ours and I made the mistake of thinking that she was the same as us and I changed it as you can see.
1. Type in the word transparency and this is what comes up .. TI NZ comes up first every time
Transparency International New Zealand – TINZ
Transparency International New Zealand is the recognised New Zealand representative of Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption.
Transparency New Zealand
Apr 20, 2014 – Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the .
2. There is nothing on either link that would indicate whether it is an incorporated society or Limited liability company. Suzanne the economist simply assumed and assumed wrong.
3. As can be seen on the actual post Suzanne first writes down
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand Chapter
Transparency International – New Zealand Chapter is developing a growth strategy to work with
partners to build capability to that our reputation for high trust and integrity is as good as we are
Then two below that
Transparency International New Zealand Ltd
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand
As a country with low corruption, New Zealand has the potential to be an examplar to others,
demonstrating how this can improve business profitability through lower cost of doing business in
overseas countries, better access, lower cost of capital and for those listed companies, a higher
yeilding share price.
It is sad that a person at the helm of an organisation has not checked out the structure of the organisation as they are run in very different ways
4. As to the name being similar we just need to look at the news item this week of Cadbury and Whittakers Whittaker’s wins ‘Berry Forest’ battle. Does transparency International New Zealand incorporated sound the same as Transparency New Zealand Limited ?
One night a policewoman saw an economist looking for something buy a light pole. She asked her if she had lost something there. The economist said, “I lost my keyes over in the alley.” The policewoman asked her why she was looking by the light pole. The economist responded, “it’s a lot easier to look over here.”
Minutes and agendas
Steve asked about the minutes and agendas, Suzanne goes on at length that they don’t have the resources and finances to get the minutes . I find it quite odd that an incorporated society with 100 members expects to have staff and does not have a properly appointed secretary.( it is a statutory requirement that an incorporated society should not be run for pecuniary gain )
The comments made by Snively really makes me wonder if she knows how an incorporated society operates. She may have sat on lots of councils but this is not a council, this is not a business this is an incorporated society where people are elected by the membership into specific roles to fulfill the functions of the society as set out in the rules.
It is the secretary’s function to take the minutes and type them up. Funding has nothing to do with it.
An economist returns to visit his old school. He’s interested in the current exam questions and asks his old professor to show some. To his surprise they are exactly the same ones to which he had answered 10 years ago! When he asks about this the professor answers: “the questions are always the same – only the answers change!”
My overall impression is that Snively is wanting to build the membership to increase the Funds so that she can be paid a wage. Welcome to the real world Suzanne. I don’t get paid either and I have not sold my soul to various government departments.That is why Transparency New Zealand is totally neutral We can criticize government departments and know it won’t affect our income.
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.
– Laurence J. Peter
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.
The old saying that it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true
yet TI- NZ states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107 Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..
So could some one please explain why TI-NZ believes that the court deliver justice when the people know it does not and this belief even extends to the minister of justice ! TI NZ state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.” It is obvious from that statement that no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to any of the actual court users especially those involved in the family or civil courts
While Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability and is true to that objective , this does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.
1. TI-NZ claims to be “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other person who is in any way associated a victim of corruption join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government bodies and members of the universities .
2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..
yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile claimed to be the director of a company which did not exist Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn. oops typo
Former director Michael Vukcevic slipps an LLb into his cv oops typo again
The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with his linked in profile.. another typo ?
The web site of transparency International has been set up by an American resident also named Snively and using a company which there is no record of . ? Nepotism and use of another fictitious company again. But who would notice as the web site states that you need less due diligence in dealing with New Zealand companies.
3. Transparency International New Zealand appears to be supported by Business, government departments and academics amongst the members are the SFO, office of the auditor general , ombudsmen , Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development, NZ Public Service Association, Ministry for Justice, Statistics New Zealand
- School of Government, VUW
- Ministry for Justice
- Statistics New Zealand
- The Human Rights Commission
- Ministry of Social Development
- The Treasury
- Inland Revenue
- Department of Internal Affairs
- 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
- Human Rights Commission Launch Day
- School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
- Wellington Girls College
- Thorndon New World
- 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 )
- tax evasion
- 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 .
Last week I went to the movies I saw “now you see me” excellent movie, it is about magicians and magic. The by line in the movie was “Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see”.
As a fraud Investigator I have found this to be true for fraud as well , I have narrowed it down to “ you will find fraud where the assumption is” I usually find that this is somewhere between the roles of lawyers and accountants.
Last week I watched Campbell Live “When your employer proposes a pay cut” by Rebecca Wright it go me looking at the Ranfurly Home. My question being how can a home historically intent for war veterans end up becoming flash residential ‘own your own homes“ retirement village for the general public?
The logical place to start is with the History
Ranfurly was founded under a deed of trust in 1903. The then Governor of the Colony of New Zealand the Earl of Ranfurly sponsored a National Patriotic Appeal to establish a National Memorial in Honour of the servicemen who laid down their lives in the South African War.
A Board of Trustees administered the home until 1915 when it was transferred to the Auckland Provincial Patriotic and War Relief Association. This situation continued until 1941 when a new constitution and rules were set up under the approval of the Minister of Internal Affairs. At the same time the name of the administering body was changed to the Auckland Veterans Home Board. In 1950 the capital interest in the property was transferred to the New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board of Wellington.
A name change took place in 1954 to Ranfurly War Veterans Home in memory of the Earl of Ranfurly and his foresight in founding the home.
Considerable expansion of services took place over the next 30years with the homes capacity being increased to its present situation of 82 bed Rest Home, 35 bed Hospital and a 24 bed Stage 3 Dementia Unit. The home now provides the highest quality of service for 141 veterans. Since March1995 Ranfurly has held accreditation by the New Zealand Council on Healthcare Standards. Source ranfurly.org.nz archives.
The New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board was a body established under the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 1947. The function of the Board is to expend its monies to best advantage on the relief, assistance, and support of discharged servicemen of certain wars who may be in need, and their dependants, and the dependants of deceased servicemen, or any purpose approved by the Minister. See source
Until 2002, the Board’s main activity was the administration of 4 war veterans’ homes. In that year, the Board decided that each home stood a better chance of financial survival if its governance was localised and community support and responsibility encouraged. To this end, the Board agreed to devolve the administration of the homes to 4 separate trusts.
By the end of November 2002, the transfer of assets and liabilities to each of 3 trusts was completed, and 3 of the homes were operating under new administration. The trust arrangement for the Levin Home for War Veterans did not proceed and it was sold to Presbyterian Support Central, a charitable trust set up under the Charitable Trust Act 1957. The Board retained residual funds only to cover remaining administrative expenses. Source
These boards were repealed by legislation in 2005 by which time three of the four homes administered by the fund were transferred into ownerships of trusts set up to take over the care and administration of the properties.
- Ranfurly Home in Auckland, administered by the Ranfurly Trust;
- Rannerdale Home in Christchurch, administered by the Rannerdale Trust; and
- Montecillo Home in Dunedin, administered by the Montecillo Trust.
The Ranfurly trust was set up in 1999 by trust deed
The deed is of particular importance and it can be seen that the trust was set to include the following intention of the settlor.
“The Settlor considers it desirable that a Trust be established to achieve the continued existence of Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital, the continual provision of existing services, and the enhancement of these services, and the ancillary objects hereinafter set out in detail.”
The Objects referred to are listed as :
The Trustees shall stand possessed of the Trust Fund UPON TRUST to pay or apply so much of the capital and the income thereof as the Trustees think fit for or towards any one or more of the following exclusively charitable objects and purposes which are hereby declared to be the objects and purposes of the Trust, namely:
3.1.1 The benefit of discharged servicemen and servicewomen (as defined in the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 194 7) presently resident or at any time in the past resident in Ranfurly, and their dependants;
3 .1.2 the benefit of other persons in the community lawfully and properly admitted to Ranfurly;
3.1.3 The work of any public charity or any organisation dispensing charity or relieving or caring for discharged servicemen and servicewomen or persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly;
3.1.4 The promotion or support of and participation in medical research of benefit to those eligible for entry to Ranfurly as may be approved by the Trustees;
3.1.5 the furtherance by any means and in any manner as may be approved by the Trustees, of works for charitable purposes, which in accordance with the law in New Zealand for the time being, are charitable whether such purposes relate to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or any other matter beneficial to discharged servicemen and servicewomen their dependants and those persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly.
The property was transferred into the trusts control in 2002 Land title , this means that the property became part of the trust fund .
In 2007 the trust set up a company to employ the staff in the care facility this was called Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited.
I instinctively feel that there is something very wrong in what has happened at the Ranfurly home. I have no more interest in this than any concerned member of the public should have. It appears to me that this land which is now very valuable is being exploited by developers who do not care about the residents or the terms of the trust deed.
I know that houses in Epsom on lease hold land owned by the Cornwall park trust board are paying huge sums for proportionately smaller sections 1297sq m pay $70,000 . see Brian Rudman: Founder’s great gift may need rethink In this case the entire site has been leased for $203,125 for 2.7892 hectares being 27892 sq meters and 21 times the size of the Cornwall park property.
If the developers were leasing the land from Cornwall park trust board they would be paying $4,368,205 per year now I am not saying that Cornwall parks rates are fair , what I am saying is that there is a massive difference between lease hold rates on land which is some 5 kilometres apart.
It may be an idea for the residents and potential future users of the facility to test this matter in court as it appears to me that the trust has lost all control over the assets and by “ selling the business” to developers the trust board appears to me to have walked away from their responsibility as trustees.
A judicial review of their action may protect veterans of the future. Who says there are not going to be any more wars ?
If you have any more information which will assist with this chronology please provide it to me and I will include it.
Trust incorporated charitable trust act
Property transferred from Patriotic and canteen fund to the trust for administration. title trust
Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board ceased to exist
EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED incorporated director Graham Ross WILKINSON shareholders Graham Ross WILKINSON & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )
RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED changes name to RETIREMENT ASSETS LIMITED
RANFURLY VETERAN CARE LIMITED formed directors
Ranfurly veteran care constitution filed with companies office
The Ranfurly Trust became a charity officers listed as ………… David McGregor 01/04/2001
Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited registers as charity lists officers as Graeme McKay 27/08/2007
RANFURLY VILLAGE LIMITED created through name change of EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED
The The Ranfurly Trust 2010 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited ,to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the facility will be completed approximately 1 year after construction commences. The operational assets of the Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited will be sold to the developers at either assessed market value or book value upon completion of the new facility. The land will continue to be owned by the trust. An estimate of the financial effect on the carrying values of the assets cannot be made at this time.
TheThe Ranfurly Trust 2011 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited, to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the
date of commencement of lease to Ranfurly Village Limited
web capture Ranfurly trust web site
Big plans for vets’ home “A $100 million project to improve care at the Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital is under way. “
lease hold title 100 years for entire complex to Ranfurly Village Limited
Ranfurly trust accounts 20124. Ground Rental
Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited assets sold to Ranfurly Care Limited
RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED incorporated director Graham Ross WILKINSON shareholders Nathaniel Tolleth CRAIG & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )
RANFURLY VILLAGE registered as a retirement village
RANFURLY VILLAGE HOSPITAL LIMITED created through name change of RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED
I am calling for an independent commission agaisnt corruption we need a body which can monitor and look into public issues such as this.
We have to ask ourselves is it OK to effectively give away a veterans facility for 100 years to companies that do not have a constitution which priorities care of veterans ?
How is the Ranfurly trust going to be able to ensure that the current residents are going to be provided for ? Sure they will get an income of $203,125 per year but how are they going to ensure the continued care of the residents ? what has been put in place? what obligations do the new owners have and what stops them form liquidating and transferring assets as developers frequently do.. what then ?
It would be wonderful if the current trustees of the trust could be more transparent and provide a copy of the agreement between themselves and the developers. It appears to me that the trustees have given away all their rights and are left with obligations which they cannot fulfill.
It has taken me a week and a steep learning curve but I am happy to announce that I am embarking on a new chapter.. Video.. This is my first attempt or should I say the result of many attempts its not perfect but it sets out the story. I welcome feed back
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….
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.
Senior Registered Legal Executive
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.
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.