trusts and societies

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

  1.  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.
  2. you can have various copies of the deed  they can all conflict and no one cares see here  and here 
  3. no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust  complies with its deed
  4. 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 .
  5. 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
  6. 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 )
  7. 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

trust 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.

reappointment

 

 

 

 

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 2006 deed

 

 

 

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

 

Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?

corruptionOpen 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.

we the peopleIn 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.

Steve Hart’s interview of Suzanne Snively

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.

Membership
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

Steve Hart’s interview of Suzanne Snively continued

conclusions Steve Hart Interviewed Suzzane Snively , one of many directors  of Transparency International

the link to the recording is here

this is the second part of my comments on Suzanne’s interview

GCSB Recruitment
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

John Banks
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.

Refer to my post to another director of Transparency International New Zealand

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.”

Linked in

The background to the linkedin saga is documented at this link the actual post on Linked in is Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn

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.

My comments:

1. Type in the word transparency and this is what comes up .. TI NZ comes up first every time

Transparency International New Zealand – TINZ
www.transparency.org.nz/‎
Transparency International New Zealand is the recognised New Zealand representative of Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption.

Transparency New Zealand
www.transparency.net.nz/‎
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

Director
Transparency International
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
perceived.

Then two below that

Executive Chair
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

What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ?

TI-NZOpen letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand

The Governance body of Transparency  New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards  to the  ” integrity ” of your organization

You may or may not  be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when  Director Grace Haden was declined membership   to TI-NZ  on an application which stated that  she was  a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association  and  a licensed private Investigator.

Transparency New Zealand  and Transparency International NZ   are very different  in that  TI-NZ wishes to   sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption  so that   it  does not spread.

We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored  it , their fate is all too often  sealed , then there are those  who identify  cancer  early and act  , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )

Corruption and cancer  are pretty much the same thing.  Cancer is caused by  the corruption of  cells.

We cannot  deny that corruption exists , we cannot  simply pretend that it is not there  and above all  we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that   those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )

While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand  deals with reality .

The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system  which has no accountability  and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and  conceal crime.

Our very own minister of Justice said this week that we have  a legal system not a justice system 

The old saying that  it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true

yet TI- NZ  states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107  Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..

So could some one please explain why TI-NZ  believes that the  court deliver justice  when the people know it does not   and   this  belief even extends to the minister of justice !  TI NZ  state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.”  It is obvious from that statement  that   no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to   any of  the  actual court users especially those  involved in the family or civil courts

While  Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability  and is true to that objective ,  this  does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.

1. TI-NZ   claims to be   “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other  person who is in  any way  associated  a  victim of  corruption   join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that   TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government  bodies  and members of the universities .

2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..

yet Susan Snively on her linked in profile  claimed to be the  director of a company which  did not exist  Suzanne Snively ONZM _ LinkedIn.   oops typo

Former director   Michael Vukcevic  slipps  an LLb into his  cv oops typo again

The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with  his linked in profile.. another  typo ?

The web site of transparency International  has been  set up  by  an American resident   also named Snively and  using a company which there is no record of  . ? Nepotism  and  use of  another fictitious  company again. But who would notice as the web site   states that you need less  due diligence in dealing with New Zealand  companies.

3. Transparency International New Zealand  appears to be supported by  Business,  government departments and academics  amongst the members are the SFO,  office of the auditor general , ombudsmen ,   Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Social Development,  NZ Public Service Association,  Ministry for Justice,  Statistics New Zealand

with  sponsors

  • School of Government, VUW
  • Ministry for Justice
  • Statistics New Zealand
  • The Human Rights Commission
  • Ministry of Social Development
  • The Treasury
  • Inland Revenue
  • Department of Internal Affairs
  • Corrections
  • Department of Conservation
  • Ministry of Transport
  • Civil Aviation Authority
  • New Zealand Transport Authority
  • Maritime New Zealand
  • Te Puni Kokiri
  • The State Services Commission
  • The Ombudsman
  • Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
  • The New Zealand Defence Force
  • Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
  • The Serious Fraud Office
  • Crown Law
  • NZ Public Service Association
  • The Gama Foundation
  • Bell Gully
  • VUW School of Government
  • PwC
  • Deloitte
  • KPMG
  • Human Rights Commission Launch Day
  • School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington
  • Wellington Girls College
  • Thorndon New World
  • NZTE
  • Institute of Directors
  • BDO Spicers
  • Russell McVeigh
  • Chapman Tripp
  • Gibson Sheat
  • Susan Gluck-Hornsby
  • Chen Palmer
  • Juliet McKee
  • Claudia Orange
  • Te Papa

4. the objectives  of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth  and a very dangerous claim is made  that  “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing with New Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”

Transparency  New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment   as first you  are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about  it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about  saying I see nothing.

Transparency New Zealand  advocates  the  ” trust but Verify ”  approach  to any dealings with any company or person  anywhere .

5.  TI-NZ claims to be  “A caretaker of New Zealand’s high trust, high integrity society” But  apparently as mentioned before they do not lead  by example.  We question  what High integrity is  when   by our experience you simply cannot  report corruption .

There is also a difference in what  our definitions are of certain terms as  illustrated in the FAQ  section of  the transparency international NZ  web site

How do you define corruption?   click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.

 It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization  either directly or indirectly.

 Corrupt conduct can take many forms including:

 conflicts of interest ( government departments paying for   ” integrity” reports )

  • taking or offering bribes
  • dishonestly using influence ( promoting business in New Zealand  though claims that there  is no corruption )
  • blackmail
  • fraud
  • theft
  • embezzlement
  • tax evasion
  • forgery
  • nepotism and favouritism( this includes having a relative   designing a web site through a fictitious company )

 NOTE: Corruption does not include mistakes or unintentional acts, but  investigations are   required to determine intent.

What is “transparency”?click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand : Being open  , truthful  and   lacking  concealment .

What is bribery?   click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand : Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

What is fraud?  click link for TINZ,s  definition

Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud  and the use of    ” organizations” which do not exist.   In New Zealand  one of the largest vehicles for fraud  are trusts .

Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the  reins to just one person  an economist who  misunderstands  the importance  of  corruption prevention . We suspect that   her objectives are to assist  business development and growth rather than  combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business  woman  with an objective of  bringing in money  rather than an objective of independence.

True corruption prevention  comes from Accountability  , I gave this  example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently  with regards to Suzanne Snively  LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited

We  believe that Susan Snively wished to  create a false perception of her abilities , she   was blowing her trumpet  too vigorously and duplicated   some  of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.

 Because no one checks in New Zealand  when may have believed that   she could get away with it.. this is often  the case.

 Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability

 Susan had control over her    Linked in account ..   Monopoly

 She and she alone  had discretion of what was presented.

 We are holding her accountable

 =   Linked in profile changed.  and no corruption

I also gave an example of perception

When I was on Police patrol  in Rotorua   , I saw a decapitated cat on the road,  I made a comment   to the driver   about the grizzly  find.

 He disagreed with me   and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.   

 Because our views were so different we  went back   and  on close inspection found that we were  both right, it was a cat  with its head stuck in a  plastic  bag.  

 The reality was that he cat lived to see another  day .  Happy ending  !!!!

 When  you  deal with perceptions   you cannot  just look  from one side. You have to   look at the  facts and consider the views of   many and not just a few.

 You cannot  promote   the lack of corruption by will fully being blind   and  intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.

 To  examine  the corruption  which is occurring and to call for accountability  for those  involved is what  will  prevent corruption from  blowing out of control.

 What good are laws which are not enforced,  codes of conduct which are ignored  , and processes which are  flawed.

 ACCOUNTABILITY   is what   we should be insisting  on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is  doing  fantastic work  , when they are openly ignoring corruption  and fraud,  does not serve NZ .

 A report which has been funded  by the party concerned   is not an impartial report.

 The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International  and  has given $15,000   and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond  that ) when you get $30,000  from someone  and want to get $30,000  again next year you will give them a favourable report.    This process is akin to  reverse bribery   where the state is paying  someone to give a glowing report .

  Being no partisan and  apolitical  is not enough  TI NZ should be totally Neutral   and not be acting   for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.

I  look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to  truly  strive to make New Zealand Transparent  by focusing on  ACCOUNTABILITY  .  I would  like to start by making   Transparency International Accountable to  their code of ethics and the definitions of  fraud and corruption  which I have provided  above.

We look forward to hearing  from the directors  of TI-NZ   and we undertake to  publish their response .

The Ranfurly Home for War veterans .. what does the furture hold?

ranfurlyLast 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.

Both the trust and Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited became charities in 2008. Their charity records can be seen on the charities web site Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited  and The Ranfurly Trust.

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.

Chronology

16/07/1999

Ranfurly trust formed  

17/8/1999

Trust incorporated charitable trust act

2/10/1999

Soldiers’ home launches $10m funding drive

3/02/2001

web capture  Ranfurly trust web site

4/03/2002

Property transferred from Patriotic and canteen fund to the trust for administration. title trust

2003-2004

Provincial Patriotic Councils audit

7/01/2004

Tour of duty nears an end

30/03/2005

Old soldiers’ homes are fading away

mid 2005

Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board ceased to exist

22/04/2006

In the company of battlefield brothers

14/12/2006

EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED incorporated  director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Graham Ross WILKINSON  & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

16/03/2007

RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED changes name to RETIREMENT ASSETS LIMITED

27/08/2007

RANFURLY VETERAN CARE LIMITED  formed  directors 
Graeme Mackenzie MCKAY  Peter Jon SKOGSTAD shareholder THE RANFURLY TRUST

24/12/2007

Ranfurly veteran care constitution filed with  companies office

9/01/2008

Retirement village opposed

14/05/2008

The Ranfurly Trust became a charity officers listed as ………… David McGregor  01/04/2001
Graeme McKay  16/07/1999
John McGuire  01/07/2003
Gregory Moyle  01/06/2002
David Turner  01/11/2006  states the purpose of  the trust is Older people  this is not in accordance to the deed

30/06/2008

Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited registers as charity  lists officers as  Graeme McKay  27/08/2007
Anthony Hay  22/07/2010
Rebecca Macky  22/07/2010
Christopher Mullane  22/07/2010
John Mcguire  22/07/2010
Peter Skogstad  22/07/2010  past officer Marilynne Wakefield resigned   12/07/2011  lists their  beneficiaries as
    (Older people), People with disabilities, General public    , this  is in direct conflict with the trust deed  which specifies  war Veterans . this is not in accordance to the deed which they   rely on

23/01/2009

Objectors call in mediators on Ranfurly redevelopment

30/09/2009

 The Ranfurly Trust 30 Sept 2009 accounts

21/10/2009

 RANFURLY VILLAGE LIMITED created through name change of EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED 

30/09/2010

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.

30/09/2011

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
facility will be completed approximately 1 year after construction commences. The operational assets of 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.

1/10/2011

date of commencement of lease  to Ranfurly Village Limited

22/08/2011

web capture Ranfurly trust web site

16/03/2012

Big plans for vets’ home “A $100 million project to improve care at the Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital is under way. “

7/08/2012

RANFURLY CARE LIMITED (3943501) – Director& shareholder director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Graham Ross WILKINSON  & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

9/08/2012

lease hold title  100 years   for entire complex to  Ranfurly Village Limited 

30/09/2012

Ranfurly trust  accounts 20124. Ground Rental
The Trust has granted Ranfurly Village Ltd a lease of the the land at Mt Albert Road. The initial ground rental per the lease agreement for year 1 is $101,562. Ground rental commenced 1 October 2011. Ground rental for year 2 is set at $152,344, and annual rental until the first review date is set at  $203,125 pa. The first review date is the seventh anniversary of the commencement date, 1 October  2011. The term of the lease is 100 years.
5. Ranfurly Veterans’ Home and Hospital
Ranfurly Care Limited purchased the Ranfurly Veterans’ Home and Hospital business and took    possession on 30 September 2012.

30/09/2012

Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited   assets sold to  Ranfurly Care Limited

28/03/2013

RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED incorporated   director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Nathaniel Tolleth CRAIG   & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

4/06/2013

RANFURLY VILLAGE registered as  a retirement village

3/08/2013

RANFURLY VILLAGE HOSPITAL LIMITED created through name change of RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED   

15/08/2013

Staff protest

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.

The AWINZ story exposing corruption in council

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

David Neutze of Brookflields has lousy Bookkeeping and logic skills

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

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

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

Today I received his  submissions  for the recall of  judgement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically it  goes like this

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

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

The David Neutze version is

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Flash : Accounts  as explained by Lisa Walsh

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

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

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

Regards

Lisa Walsh

Associate

Senior Registered Legal Executive

 

Brookfields Lawyers

DDI: +64 9 979 2219

Fax: +64 9 379 3224

Email: walsh@brookfields.co.nz

Web: www.brookfields.co.nz

19 Victoria Street West

P O Box 240, Auckland 1140

NEW ZEALAND

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

The world as seen By Brookfileds Lawyers -Turning fiction into fact

funnypictures96 Need some one to do the impossible  ? turn fiction into Fact     well look no further than  David Neutze of Brookfields lawyers .

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

  1. Wells Lied to the minister
  2. there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
  3. Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority  which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
  4. 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

  1. Hike up the costs on false  claims
  2. Make a demand for payment and seek to have  the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
  3. withdraw the false claims
  4. Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say  the statement of claim is true
  5. 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.
  6. 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

NB: the Neil Wells who wrote the letter  had  recently successfully registered two trusts with the ministry of economic developments. ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD.

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

To supply a different copy of the alleged trust deed to MAF   and claim it to be one and the same as this one

 

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 
become  charity 

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.

  1. 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
  2. and  at least had some evidence  that they were  a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???

And

  1.   By  claiming to be   a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley  wells and Coutts  suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
  2. 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.
  1. 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

  1. CIV 2012-004-696   was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   each in their own capacity as individuals .
    1. The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on  accounts made out to AWINZ
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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.
    1. 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.
  3. 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” .
  4.     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 .
  5.     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.
  6.     There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
  7.      Further the affidavit  in  support of  the strike out  which consisted of nothing  but  judgments which were readily available  was charged out  at $1805.
  8.  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
  9. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.