trusts and societies
Penny Bright .. why we need a lot more people like her
September 5, 2018 | 
Author 
It is exactly 12 years ago today when I met Penny , I remember the date well , because it was her birthday. We are the most unlikely mates, I am the ex cop and she the activist . In the spring bock tour we were on opposite sides of the fence , she had an opinion but my uniform prevented me from having one.
Since leaving the Police and Becoming a Private investigator I stumbled onto corruption. I thought it would be a simple task to bring the lack of existence of a Law enforcement body to the notice of the government, but I was wrong and encountered a cover up of gigantic and unbelievable proportion that has apparently called for a 12 year character assassination of me which continues to this day . Heaven forbid that some one should believe me or look at the evidence, then some very prominent people would be taking up beds in our prisons .
With Penny’s activism and union background and my police prosecution and investigative Background we formed a very close relationship of mutual support trust and respect.
Penny and I are on the same page with corruption, we do not always agree on everything but the good part is that when we talk about our different views we often find that there is yet another angle ,one neither of us anticipated.
I have learned heaps from Penny , having been in Government service you come out rather blinkered and Penny helped me see beyond the things that public service blind you to .
In return helped Penny with my prosecution skills ,I remember her coming to me because she had been thrown out of the town hall and arrested for trespass , I said whoa that is a public place you can’t be trespassed from a public place , there is specific legislation with regards to removal from council meetings and so Penny learned from me and won some 22 cases of trespass .
We took on projects individually and worked on others together one day we ended up in Rodney Hide’s office and together learned from him of the magic of the privacy act. So obvious once you know .
It is hard to believe that when we met in 2006 that the internet was still pretty much in its infancy , all sorts of things were being loaded on line , like the companies register and those who had been hiding their business connections in the files of the companies office suddenly found their business exposed . we unraveled the committee for auckland and saw how the tail was wagging the dog, this was he start of the super city and it was all about $$$$.
I started to blog and we soon found that transparency was not welcome . What it did however was to bring people together and we built a network of people who needed help on the way, a network of mutual support and information sharing .
Penny rang me one day about the Tamaki redevelopment company limited and together we worked through the quagmire of trading names, domain names and fake names which facilitate the transfer of a massive government housing stock to a company other than the one where it was intended to go . We cared bt apparently no one else did , but that is something that one day will become obvious .
We have made headway on corruption, the corruption we saw occurs through using fake identities , false names and fictional trusts. it is not on a person identity thing but using fake entities . the banks are now checking the validity of companies and the directors and shareholders, but you can still register a company and have a liquidation through a liquidator who is totally fictional and hopefully soon the questions will be asked about the tamaki redevelopment company Limited, Tamaki regeneration limited and the fictional tamaki regeneration company limited which , to add to the confusion is is referred to as TRC
see also Corruption Alert ..Tamaki Regeneration limited and Crown Entities , Fictional entities and making things up as they go
I knew that fictional organisations existed after questioning the existence of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand which was in reality nothing more than a trading name used by Neil Wells. Wells was the barrister who drafted and was adviser to the select committee on the animal welfare bill which, when passed facilitated the granting of coercive law enforcement powers . Wells made a fraudulent application to the minister and subsequently obtained this law enforcement power for his fictional organisation this was covered up by his associates in court action against me to re write history. despite many requests this has been covered up
Penny came to court with me and stood beside me more times than I can mention , no other friend has stood beside me like she has .
The state of corruption : New Zealand Questioning corruption is not for the faint hearted especially in New Zealand , because we are repeatedly told that there is no corruption , we must be delusional, ignoring corruption is liek ignoring cancer while penny was fighting corruption she did not notice the tumours in her own body .
Penny You are going to have to get better we still need you , I have had plenty of friends at deaths door and they are here today , You are a fighter your work is not done .
Get better girl and Onward and upward there is much more work to be done
Hugs
Grace
Posted in 
New Zealand , how we facilitate sham trusts
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.
I have written to the lawyers involved and again here and here, here, here , the law society by way of regarding the lawyers , the charities commission and again here and 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
The people posing as trustees here, and here,here, here
attorney general here
I had questions asked in parliament Here wrote to ministers here and here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts
Disparity in crime.. who you know matters
Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand
Questioning corruption in New Zealand.
Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers
The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain
Liquidation as a tool of oppression
shooting the messenger
Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption
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
Trusts the greatest vehicle for fraud
We have long believed that Trusts are the greatest vehicle for fraud and I do not believe that I am wrong.
A member received this flyer in an email recently it was from
The web site is owned by a former law firm .
we reported on the same email last year when it had not been titivated by graphic artists, I guess the enhancement means that business is doing well .
These trusts are set up using New Zealand’s very unsafe company registration laws and internationally this has ensured that New Zealand registers companies are abused by foreigners.
The this trust company trust web site is owned by the former law firm see this Whois Search _ .nz Domain Name Commission
Offshore Director(s) – provided from your side – Offshore Shareholder(s) – provided from your side and apparently you dont even need to know them .
One such director was Mr Erik Vanagels this is apparently how it works
Vanagels was a director of many of the companies associated with equity law and Equity trust ( well over 2000) . The offices of Equity law are the address for registration of the companies here in New Zealand .
By way of illustration one such company BERGSTONE LIMITED is shown on the companies register as having its registered office at Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton,
the director is Erik VANAGELS Buzon 1987, Zone 9a, Carrasquilla & Via Espana, Panama City, Panama , ( hang on wasn’t Vanangles latvian ?? ) the address used cant be located on google but I did find this EURIMEX CORP. – Business Located in New York no doubt there will be more but I know this all done by smoke screens and mirrors . Bizapaedia claims ” There are 3 companies that have an address matching Buzon 1987 Zone 9a Carrasquilla & Via Espana Panama City, Panama 00000. The companies are Continenta Corp, Finmarket Corp, and Centroform Inc.”
The above flyer sent out by Equity trust International states that they set up companies in Panama
Any way BERGSTONE LIMITED ‘s director signed a very suspicious looking consent consent Bergstone.
the shareholder of the company is UNIHOLD LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1150 , New Zealand director since 10 Aug 2011 Manti EFFROSYNI 11 Stavrou Stylianidi Street, Flat 3, Level 2, Nicosia, 2024 , Cyprus , prior to that Humberto Gregorio BARRERA MOJICA ,Ed Villas De Bonanza, Tower D, Apt. 3c, Panama City , Panama and before that Erik VANAGELS
UNIHOLD’S share holder is GENHOLD LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1150 , New Zealand
GENHOLD LIMITED has as its director Fernando Enrique MONTERO DE GRACIA,Calle Primera, Panama Viejo, House 496, Panama City, Republic Of Panama , the share holder is TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023 , New Zealand
TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED has one director and shareholder alady whi is the wife of who is the wife of the former lawyer
Google Eric Vanagles for more details which include links such as
Erik Vanagels™ – the extent of a money laundering supermarket
Boozy Latvian ‘billionaire’ is smokescreen for fraud
Fraud trail leads to OAP’s tiny flat
Massive Ukrainian government money-laundering system surfaces
together with Latvian colleagues such as Juri Vitman, Elmar Zallapa and Inta Bilder – preside over a sprawling network of companies with Baltic bank accounts that have extensive dealings with the Ukrainian state, covering everything from arms exports to machinery imports.
Behind the Proxies
Erik Vanagels offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/21975
Suspicious activity report. How does the global money laundering machine work?
During the same year, another company from New Zealand, Dominus Limited, also transferred about $6 million to Nomirex. These transactions by three seemingly different companies from New Zealand and Panama all have one thing in common: they all have the same directors and owners – Latvian citizens Sten Gorin and Erik Vanagels, who became known as part of controversies involving weapons sales and the supply of swine flu vaccines to Ukraine.
The Threat of Russian Criminal Money: – Global Initiative
Homeless Vanagels, partner of Ukrainian Naftogaz – YouTube
New Zealand: the Shell Company Incorporation Franchises (II)
Erik Vanagels | Craig Shaw
For more on this kind of activity try these links
New Zealand: The Shell Company Incorporation Franchises: Round-Up
While New Zealand’s Company Law Reform Stalls, GT Group Helps a Thieving Ukrainian Despot
New Zealand: the Shell Company Incorporation Franchises (I)
New Zealand: the Shell Company Incorporation Franchises (II) (and Ukraine)
New Zealand: the Shell Company Incorporation Franchises (III)
The court is being used to silence us we have therefore to removed the names of the parties involved as it appears that they consider factual information and truth to be harmful to them , While we have the right to speak up it also means that you have to enure months of court proceedings.
We see this as harassment
The Lawyer acting as the instructing solictor is also a director of the trust company involved , the trust operates from Auckland he lives in Alexandra
– will keep you posted .
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 14 July 2014 3:17 p.m.
To: ‘greg@stewartlaw.co.nz’
Subject: Proceedings
Good afternoon Greg
I have been served with two very large bundles of documents and a claim for a ridiculous sum by xxx.
Strangely enough these came right after the LCRO advised that they were going to be dealing with the matters between us on the papers.
These proceedings are the first that I have known that your client was unhappy with the posts on the web sites
He has been made aware of the posts in the past and he has been invited to suggest changes .
Could You please indicate what changes your client wishes to have made I have amended the anticorruption pages but presently cant log into Transparency to edit it.
If you get him to produce evidence as to why statements made are incorrect and tell me what needs changing I will gladly do so .
The file is not very comprehensible and also lacks affidavits .
Also a friend has been named she is not associated in any way and I wonder why she has been brought into it
I am aware that your client has known about these posts substantially longer than 5 days ago but despite that am happy to make the changes in accordance with section 25 of the defamation act.
I look forward to your prompt response so that this matter can be put right.
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.n
Companies currently registered at 4/44 Khyber pass
4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered NZ Company
The former director was the receptionist at equity law when she became uncomfortable and saw what was going on the directorship was transfered to Leah TOURELEO, B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu the shareholder is TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED
ARGOSTAR LIMITED (2038680) Registered NZ Company director Anastasia KOUMIDOU Persefonis 8, Flat 301, Aglandjia, Nicosia, 2102 , Cyprus shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands – I have been unable to verify the existence of Bridgepoint AG but it apparently has a human signature .. whose I wonder ?
BERGSTONE LIMITED (1871327) Registered NZ Company as mentioned above Director Erik VANAGELS
BEXLEY RISK ADVISORS LIMITED (1875420) Registered NZ Company- Director Manti EFFROSYNI shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands – I have been unable to verify the existence of Bridgepoint AG but it apparently has a human signature .. whose I wonder ?
BLACKWILL TRADE LIMITED (3330391) Registered NZ Company director Uatay KABLAN,189 Muratbayeva Street, Apt 18, Almaty , Kazakhstan, shareholder NORDWELL MANAGEMENT LIMITED whose director Steven James GREEN is a co director of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,shareholder of Nordwell is BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands a company which cannot be located but has a very real looking signature so it must be real.
BORGCAMP LIMITED (2175747) Registered NZ Company director Manti EFFROSYNI share holder Nordwell as above
CARGOTEX LIMITED (2084625) Registered NZ Company Inta BILDER shareholder Maxhold as above in BENTLEX LIMITED
CARGOTRADE LIMITED (3330373) Registered NZ Company director Petr ZIKA this time with shareholder shareholder Nordwell through Mr Green to the unlocatable BRIDGEPOINT AG Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, MH96960 , Marshall Islands
CASS ESTATE LIMITED (2362248) Registered NZ Company Manti EFFROSYNI and the Nordwell progression as above
CLOVER MANAGEMENT LIMITED (2102957) Registered NZ Company Yippy a new name Iosif FRANGOS 57 Spyrou Kyprianou, M Frangos Court 501, 6051 Larnaca, Cyprus who is also the shareholder how unique
More on an attachment coming soon the whole lot will be sent off to the MED for their input.
I am grossly concerned that an alleged company in the Marshall islands can be a shareholder based on an anonymous signature .. more on this later .
Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?
Open letter to Prime Minister.
I refer to the cabinet manual 2.53
“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.
A government for businesses.
In the famous Gettysburg address Abraham Lincoln stated
“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.
What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?
Open letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand
The Governance body of Transparency New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards to the ” integrity ” of your organization
You may or may not be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when Director Grace Haden was declined membership to TI-NZ on an application which stated that she was a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association and a licensed private Investigator.
Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption so that it does not spread.
We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored it , their fate is all too often sealed , then there are those who identify cancer early and act , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )
Corruption and cancer are pretty much the same thing. Cancer is caused by the corruption of cells.
We cannot deny that corruption exists , we cannot simply pretend that it is not there and above all we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )
While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand deals with reality .
The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system which has no accountability and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and conceal crime.
Our very own minister of Justice said this week that we have a legal system not a justice system
The old saying that it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true
yet TI- NZ states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107 Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..
So could some one please explain why TI-NZ believes that the court deliver justice when the people know it does not and this belief even extends to the minister of justice ! TI NZ state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.” It is obvious from that statement that no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to any of the actual court users especially those involved in the family or civil courts
While Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability and is true to that objective , this does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.
1. TI-NZ claims to be “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other person who is in any way associated a victim of corruption join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government bodies and members of the universities .
2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..
yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile claimed to be the director of a company which did not exist Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn. oops typo
Former director Michael Vukcevic slipps an LLb into his cv oops typo again
The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with his linked in profile.. another typo ?
The web site of transparency International has been set up by an American resident also named Snively and using a company which there is no record of . ? Nepotism and use of another fictitious company again. But who would notice as the web site states that you need less due diligence in dealing with New Zealand companies.
3. Transparency International New Zealand appears to be supported by Business, government departments and academics amongst the members are the SFO, office of the auditor general , ombudsmen , Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development, NZ Public Service Association, Ministry for Justice, Statistics New Zealand
- School of Government, VUW
- Ministry for Justice
- Statistics New Zealand
- The Human Rights Commission
- Ministry of Social Development
- The Treasury
- Inland Revenue
- Department of Internal Affairs
- Corrections
- Department of Conservation
- Ministry of Transport
- Civil Aviation Authority
- New Zealand Transport Authority
- Maritime New Zealand
- Te Puni Kokiri
- The State Services Commission
- The Ombudsman
- Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
- The New Zealand Defence Force
- Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
- The Serious Fraud Office
- Crown Law
- NZ Public Service Association
- The Gama Foundation
- Bell Gully
- VUW School of Government
- PwC
- Deloitte
- KPMG
- Human Rights Commission Launch Day
- School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
- Wellington Girls College
- Thorndon New World
- NZTE
- Institute of Directors
- BDO Spicers
- Russell McVeigh
- Chapman Tripp
- Gibson Sheat
- Susan Gluck-Hornsby
- Chen Palmer
- Juliet McKee
- Claudia Orange
- Te Papa
4. the objectives of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth and a very dangerous claim is made that “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing with New Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”
Transparency New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment as first you are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about saying I see nothing.
Transparency New Zealand advocates the ” trust but Verify ” approach to any dealings with any company or person anywhere .
5. TI-NZ claims to be “A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society” But apparently as mentioned before they do not lead by example. We question what High integrity is when by our experience you simply cannot report corruption .
There is also a difference in what our definitions are of certain terms as illustrated in the FAQ section of the transparency international NZ web site
How do you define corruption? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.
It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization either directly or indirectly.
Corrupt conduct can take many forms including:
conflicts of interest ( government departments paying for ” integrity” reports )
- taking or offering bribes
- dishonestly using influence ( promoting business in New Zealand though claims that there is no corruption )
- blackmail
- fraud
- theft
- embezzlement
- tax evasion
- forgery
- nepotism and favouritism( this includes having a relative designing a web site through a fictitious company )
NOTE: Corruption does not include mistakes or unintentional acts, but investigations are required to determine intent.
What is “transparency”?click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Being open , truthful and lacking concealment .
What is bribery? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand : Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
What is fraud? click link for TINZ,s definition
Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud and the use of ” organizations” which do not exist. In New Zealand one of the largest vehicles for fraud are trusts .
Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the reins to just one person an economist who misunderstands the importance of corruption prevention . We suspect that her objectives are to assist business development and growth rather than combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business woman with an objective of bringing in money rather than an objective of independence.
True corruption prevention comes from Accountability , I gave this example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently with regards to Suzanne Snively LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited
We believe that Susan Snively wished to create a false perception of her abilities , she was blowing her trumpet too vigorously and duplicated some of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.
Because no one checks in New Zealand when may have believed that she could get away with it.. this is often the case.
Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability
Susan had control over her Linked in account .. Monopoly
She and she alone had discretion of what was presented.
We are holding her accountable
= Linked in profile changed. and no corruption
I also gave an example of perception
When I was on Police patrol in Rotorua , I saw a decapitated cat on the road, I made a comment to the driver about the grizzly find.
He disagreed with me and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.
Because our views were so different we went back and on close inspection found that we were both right, it was a cat with its head stuck in a plastic bag.
The reality was that he cat lived to see another day . Happy ending !!!!
When you deal with perceptions you cannot just look from one side. You have to look at the facts and consider the views of many and not just a few.
You cannot promote the lack of corruption by will fully being blind and intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.
To examine the corruption which is occurring and to call for accountability for those involved is what will prevent corruption from blowing out of control.
What good are laws which are not enforced, codes of conduct which are ignored , and processes which are flawed.
ACCOUNTABILITY is what we should be insisting on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is doing fantastic work , when they are openly ignoring corruption and fraud, does not serve NZ .
A report which has been funded by the party concerned is not an impartial report.
The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International and has given $15,000 and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond that ) when you get $30,000 from someone and want to get $30,000 again next year you will give them a favourable report. This process is akin to reverse bribery where the state is paying someone to give a glowing report .
Being no partisan and apolitical is not enough TI NZ should be totally Neutral and not be acting for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.
I look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to truly strive to make New Zealand Transparent by focusing on ACCOUNTABILITY . I would like to start by making Transparency International Accountable to their code of ethics and the definitions of fraud and corruption which I have provided above.
We look forward to hearing from the directors of TI-NZ and we undertake to publish their response .