trusts and societies

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.

 

News Flash EQUITY TRUST solicits new clients

equity trustThe internet certainly brings people together  and brings information out on a global front.   Yesterdays article was  sent to us by a man in Majorca and today  we have been sent a copy of an email which Equity  Trust International has sent out  far and wide.

EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (2136248) previously known as Star  chambers  26 May 2008  directors     Greg Roderick STEWART Lawyer Stewart and associates lawyers Limited and one other  who is also the  share holder

As  mentioned in the earlier article  the shareholder is a  former barrister  wife  while she didn’t  use her own address  initially it now appears that the companies office has  caught up with her   and her address  was updated on  10 June 2014

Greg  Roderick Stewart   also has a collection of companies under his name  he is   shown as a practicing lawyer at Stewart & Associates Lawyers Limited  PO Box 438  Alexandra 9340, he now appears to be the instructing  solicitor for  Equity law (*updated 14 July 2014 see statement of claim )

Steven James GREEN appears to be doing the  filing at the companies office    , some of   the companies which Green  operates have been swung over into foreign ownership,  these could well be the model to  circumvent the new legislation .

Mr Green has  quite a connection with equity  he has been listed as the very first testimonial on the equity web site obviously so impressed he joined the company. see his testimonial here  Note that Steve Green states  that he is executive director  of the  citizens  Commission of Human rights of New Zealand , CCHR  is the  church of Scientology  whose  book shop and offices are also located at 44 Khyber pass Road on the ground floor.

Steve Green is also a director of  companies which he manages himself on behalf of equity trust international  Director Consent Form  and he also administers the company trust holdings   which in turn owned many of the  companies which have come to  notice internationally . see the companies list as at  2013

The  dynamite email we received is  below.  We  also have a new  email which was sent out in June 2014   the  web site is  http://www.equitytrust.co.nz/ see the promotion  Equity Trust International  

It costs less than   $200  to set up a company in New Zealand,   there appears to be quite a mark up  and then there is also the association with    bad press see New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia  

and http://www.for.kg/news-194079-ru.html which through google translate states

On the firms in which Inta Bilder was or is a director, you can define other names:
The main shareholder Interhold Ltd Genhold is 100% owned by the Trust (NZ) Holdings Ltd, which
has the same legal address as Genhold. Director of Trust Holdings is Lily Sobolev (she is the director
of 15 more New Zealand companies); in Metalwest Limited operates Tatiana Borisova; Director of
Equity Law Barristers and 7 New Zealand companies is Evgeny Orlov; Director of NZ Evolution Trade
Limited is Olga Belchikova etc.. etc..
Falcona Systems in New Zealand accused of fraud in the amount of $ 150 million and the connections
with the Russian criminal groups. In particular, the representative of the Ministry of Finance of Latvia
stated that “in the course of an international investigation found that money laundering Falcona
Systems Ltd attended by representatives of Russian organized crime, money falling into the hands of
Russian citizens in the illegal transactions conducted through Riga (Latvia ).

For the record Olga Belchikova  is also a former employee of Equity law

This  particular story relates to Inter hold  another one of equity’s  companies and also to

Falcona Systems main shareholder is Interhold Ltd, of Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland… the directorship changed from Inter Bilda , Stacijas Laukums 2, Ak 555, Riga Lv-1050, Latvia  to Manti EFFROSYNI 11 Stavrou Stylianidi Street, Nicosia, CY-2023 , Cyprus the director consent  was completed by Equity trust.  Mr Manti EFFROSYNI, was  very busy at about that time  having registered some 88  New Zealand companies  .

the office location appears on the register in various forms

Level 4 Outsource It Tower, Grafton, Auckland 1150, New Zealand 3 companies
Level 4 Newcall Tower, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland , New Zealand 2 companies of which one may be the travel agent next door
Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland  more than 200 , we already know that  this  figure is some where  about 1500 companies companies

Below is a copy of the  email we received  the  only deletion is my informants details

 see International fraud connection with Equity law

We do  know that the  receptionist was paid $300 per company to front  it  , nothing else required.

It would appear that Alex Bushe is one and the same as  Alexander BUSHUEV who operates  several businesses  being

DRAGON GROUP LIMITED (5433581) Registered Company
— appointed as a director on 25 Aug 2014
STEIGEN MAKLER LIMITED (5170404) Registered Company
— holding 100 shares
BLACKLIST DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED (4361899) Registered Company
— appointed as a director on 18 Apr 2013
FIDELIS INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED (5318101) Registered Company
— appointed as a director on 19 Jun 2014
GLOBAL WEALTH GROUP LIMITED (5433544) Registered Company
— appointed as a director on 25 Aug 2014
SEDLEX LIMITED (5058320) Registered Company
— holding 40 shares

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Equity Law LTD Alex <alex.bushe@equitylaw.co.nz>
Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Subject: New Zealand Trust, LTD, LTC, FSP Registration Special Prices
To:
Hello partners,

 Only till the end of JUNE Equity Trust International offers these SPECIAL PRICES to our agents and clients:

 New Zealand Limited Corporation – $649 USD

– Offshore Director(s)

– Offshore Shareholder(s)

– NZ Registered Office Address

– IRD Registration

– Standard Constitution, Opening Minutes

– Apostilled Certificate of Incorporation, couriered delivery

 

New Zealand Look-Through Company – $799 USD

– Offshore Director(s)

– Offshore Shareholder(s)

– NZ Registered Office Address

– New Zealand IRD Registration & Look-Through Registration (from incorporation date)

– Standard Constitution, Opening Minutes

– Apostilled Certificate of Incorporation, couriered delivery

 

New Zealand Limited Partnership – $1.299 USD

– Offshore General Partner(s)

– Offshore Limited Partner(s)

– NZ Registered Office Address

– New Zealand IRD Registration(from incorporation date)

– Partnership Agreement (template supplied), Opening Minutes

– Apostilled Certificate of Registration, couriered delivery

 

New Zealand Non-Resident Trust – $1.999 USD

– Non-Resident Trust Formation

– Offshore Trustee – your non-resident Trustee (if required)

– New Zealand (Corporate) Private Trustee incorporation

– NZ Registered Office Address

– New Zealand IRD Registration (from formation date)

– Trust Deed, Minutes, Registers etc

– 3 hours of free legal / documentation support per Trust

 

New Zealand Financial Service Provider Registration – $10,999 USD

all documentation, coordination, AML policy and manual, and filing through to liaising with Companies Office to registration + more

Please, use our order form to express your interest in our services.

Kind Regards,

Management of

Equity Trust International Limited

equity trust

Level 4, OutSource IT Tower | 44 Khyber Pass Road | Grafton |
Auckland 1150 | New Zealand
Telephone: +64 (9) 303 3001
Fax: +64 (9) 303 2018
Email
info@trust-nz.com

————————————————————————————————–

You have received this email message because you have previously contacted us about our services. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain material which is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering to the addressee, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use of it is strictly prohibited.

I have removed the link to the order form    but  you can  see copy of order form here  New Zealand Offshore Trust Asset Protection Tax Solutions Immigration

trust-nz.com is registered to Whois Lookup _ Domain Availability – Registration Information trust.nz.com

Admin Name:
Admin Organization: Equitylaw ltd
Admin Street: +64.93032008
Admin City:
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code: ax:
Admin Country: Level 4, New Call Tower
Admin Phone:
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: equitylaw@equitylaw.co.nz

updated  14 July 2014

International fraud connection with Equity law

Erik VanagelsEquity law is  situated at Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Rd, Grafton, Auckland, its  sole director and shareholder is  available through the  companies office

It would appear that Equity trust  is involved in the maintenance of registration   of  several  companies,  which  have been reported in the international press, as being  involved with  international fraud and corruption . such companies are  Falcona sustems  , Unihold , Maxhold   see naked Capitalism ”  New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia

These companies came to the attention of the international press   in 2012   Unihold  Limited  was involved in an international money laundering  scam see story  ” Behind the Proxies”  here

When you  look up  the register  you will see that   the  director at the time was a Mr Erik Vanagels from Panama and that the company is  registered to Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road. Vanagels reputedly a Latvian alcoholic had well over 200 New Zealand companies  under his belt  the majority of  which have now been stuck off  however 2 companies remain  on the resister Being Bergstone  and Eurozone Corporation  . While Bergstone is about to be struck off due to  no annual return being filed, Steven Green , director of Equity trust International has  filed an annual return for Eurozone there by keeping the  company directed by this renowned proxy director alive.

Erik Vanangels,  international man of mystery ,  is actually a Latvian  who according to a news item  is a ” hard-drinking pensioner in Latvia “ is simply amazing that his address should also be “Buzon 1987, Zone 9a, Carrasquilla & Via Espana, Panama City, Panama”  (is that Buzon or BOOZE ON )  see also Fraud trail leads to OAP’s tiny flat

One would  expect  that if  a  company  with  integrity  had been caught out by  a bad deal such as the 150 million dollar money laundering  incident  that they would steer well clear  of Mr  Vanagels instead we find  that a number of other companies are registered to  him  courtesy of Equity law  . These companies include  GRANDWEST LIMITED   , DARTHOLM CAPITAL LIMITED ,WOODPORT LIMITED ,INTRANS LIMITED,FAIRPORT LIMITED,BRANDGOLD BUSINESS LIMITED and more  all owned by Unihold.  (It has to be noted that  by  January 2014 these companies had all been struck off by the registrar of companies.)

This address is  also the registered office for  other  companies such as ENTROFIELD LIMITED owned by SWEDHOLD LIMITED owned by  GENHOLD LIMITED owned by TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED owned by the occupants of  Flat 8a, 4 Short Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand  .

The shareholder  is the   wife of  a former lawyer the address  is the one which  he   also used as his own address, this property is owned  by her  and is currently up for sale.The real estate agent has advertised the unit as “Owners Moving Overseas”  Update :it has been sold to LSE limited a company owned and directed  by lawyer george  Bogiatto

Last year we  found that the lawters wife held some 1500  companies some of these were transferred to Grigori CHELOUDIAKOV of Beach road Te Atatu  , we failed to locate him until we realized that he  is one and the same as Greg Shelton   who  appears to be yet another of  equities proxy directors  .

It appears that he has been using his name  Gregory Shelton  for many  years  but in 2013 Steven James GREEN ( EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ) records  him as Grigori CHELOUDIAKOV   for several companies formerly under the   directorship of Inta Bilder  and owned by Unihold . The same side ways shuffle also occurred  with  Crestpoint trade   where  shelton briefly became a shareholder  and was  removed again placing Maxhold back  on the register .   Maxhold and Unihold are both ultimately owned by    as per this flow diagram click for enlargement

The full spread sheet can be seen here  companies.  We have done our best  but  due to many changes   errors  could exist  so please check all information .

Staff members at Equity are frequently asked to be  directors and  shareholders, the  recent receptionist  was a   proxy   director for several companies  one of  which was 4-way Logistics limited   when she resigned the directorship was taken over  by Leah TOURELEO  who according to   open corporates  holds directorships in a raft of international companies and is yet another Proxy director.

We were  told that  the remuneration for this is  $300.00 per year  .

An immigration service also operates from this address  http://www.immigrationnz.co.nz/index.php/our-people  and  actively  solicits investors into New Zealand  to gain residency .the  web site is owned by  Equity law Ltd Whois Search _ immigrationnz.co.nz

Perhaps MR Erik Vanagels   should apply .

* this article was updated 14/7/2014 to address issues  of alleged defamation by  and associates . Everything in this post  and others is factual   it is truth and honest opinion  . The  complaint came  just  five days after the LCRO ( law complaints review office ) confirmed  a date for the lawyers hearing .  The  court papers are  located here   statement of claim , since then he  has also taken Bankruptcy action against our director ,  originally on  false documents, the law society had decided that he owed her nearly $30,000 something he has appealed.

We have written  to lawyer Greg Stewart who is the    solicitor on record ,  there have been many opportunities given for amendment by the Plaintiffs  but hey choose to be vague.  There have now been no less than  four offers to correct amend   adjust the content.   Everything published here is   truth and honest opinion and  published in the public interest.

Greg Stewart is also a director of  Equity trust International yet he has not declared this to the court.

The law  firm , now  apparently operated  by Greg Stewart  of Alexandra  through Joo Yeon ( julia ) Leenoh is  behind  many other companies  which also have  their  address  at 4, 44 Khyber Pass Rd, Grafton, Auckland, one such company is equity trust International Limited  whose  sole   shale holder is his wife and the directors are Lawyer Greg Stewart   and  a Mr Steven Green  of Manurewa .

 

Ministers misinformed by MAF

I have been working on a chronology whereby I am collating documents in my possession.

In doing so I revisited the   questions which were answered in parliament.

I always suspected that the answers to these questions had been provided by Neil Wells himself and now have even more cause to suspect that I was right in view of this document .

With this in mind and having seen more recent communications with MAF asking Wells for advice and guidance I have addressed the questions asked in parliament   to show how the minister was misled by is staff. In Particular Joanna Tuckwell   who stated “I may have forwarded one or two of her very early emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response…… I do recall sending Mr Wells one draft ministerial response relating to the audit, on which we offered him the opportunity to comment, earlier this year”.

 In view of the documents I have seen it appears to me that MAF was totally out of its depth with regards to anything to do with the animal legislation and relied upon advice from Neil Wells regularly.

Also the persons who were in control of MAF at this time   were the very people who had been working with Neil Wells when he was setting up the concept.

My chronology shows that Wells had connections with may key players including Bob Harvey, Barry O’Neil and David Bayvel.

The latter two played significant roles in the release of information   since 2006; Mr Wells had significant connection with these two for many years and served on various animal welfare committees and such like with them.  There are references in documents such as “accept that any informal discussions we have are off the record and will not be brought back to haunt either of us later”

There are documents which I   had released to me under OIA from MAF with extracts withheld .For some of these documents I had another copy which I had obtained from the Waitakere city  files  and it is only in revisiting theses documents  that  the  extracts  were  identified and the significance of what was removed from the documents  provided to me  was revealed.

I believe that had the issues been mitigated there would have been no reason to have removed the extracts. The removed items state  Items in blue are hyperlinked and open the  documents referred to )

  1. 30 may 2000 uncut  “MAF believes that, as a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate for you to approve a proposal which is contrary to the law.”
  2. 30 may 2000 uncut MAF considers, following advice from Crown Law Office.” that the  proposed funding arrangements between AWINZ and the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils are ultra vires the Local Government Act 1974 resulting in financial arrangements that are such that having regard to the interests of the public AWINZ is not suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;”.

 

  1. 30 may annexure The WCC obtained a” legal opinion” however this legal opinion was obtained by dog control and not the council and Mr wells appears to have had significant input into this  “ opinion “  The  extract reads  “  MAF also notes that should AWINZ’s application be successful, AWINZ expects to take over the animal control activities and facilities of the WCC. Longer term, AWINZ intends to compete for local authority animal control contracts anywhere in New Zealand but only if the contracts include animal welfare. MAF considers that this strategy is not appropriate given the concerns about the legality of TA funding.”
    1. Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation. I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.12 june Maf copy  and the uncut version showing what MAF  removed when they sent the document to me  12 June Wells copy .
    2. 28 Aug. 2000.pdfMaf state “Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit
    3. 8 Sept 2000.pdf.If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of he crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.”
    4. 13 October 2000.pdf “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court.  should the minister agree to approve AWINZ or decide fi the risk is too high MAF believes regulatory clarity should be sought to remove any doubt”
    5. A schedule showing all material that has been withheld is available at the link.  It would appear therefore   that what has been withheld is that which will  sort this matter for once and for all .

From what I have uncovered it would appear that Mr Wells has had the benefit of many legal opinions paid for by the public and many opportunities to discuss matters on and off the record with both ministers and MAF staff, he has also been consulted on replies   to ministers and  has acted in general in situations of  conflict of interest, therefore precluding an independent and unbiased investigation into this matter.

One document which MAF withheld is a KPMG legal opinion paid for by the people of Waitakere city through the council dog control section.   This legal opinion was provided after a draft had been sent to Tom Didovich the then manager the draft can be located here

The final version  contains  more detail and information  which  would probably only be within Neil wells knowledge because he was on the select committee, this indicates to me  that he possibly   had significant in put into this pivotal legal opinion which  in essence is his own.

While there are many documents  which were withheld due to the fact that this related to Mr Frittmanns cat,  there are  other very  relevant  documents which  should be considered by the in an independent and thorough review  of the of approval of AWINZ .

I have here with the written answers which were put  to Parliament  and have been responded to I have for each  added my comments and he evidence which impacts on  the  reply.

Questions for written answers.

3013 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What investigations did the Minister undertake before approving the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) as an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Minister at the time, through his officials at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, undertook detailed investigations before declaring the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to be an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. This included consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury and the Crown Law Office.

My comment:

While extensive  legal  opinions were  sought as  to  the ability  of AWINZ to provide  animal welfare services for council , Crown Law office  said that it was  not legal  for this to occur, however Neil Wells obtained  two legal opinions  circumventing the   council lawyers  and   apparently had significant in put into these opinions especially the latter which was the only opinion  to persuade the minister that it  was legal.

There were however  no  investigations as to  the existence  and operations of AWINZ  itself.

Crown law office  MAF and treasury  opposed the application .

It was a legal opinion  obtained by the council (Kensington Swan final version)  into  which  Neil Wells  appears to have had  an input,  which   was used to persuade  MAF  to allow the  document  to go forward to  caucus. This happened after Mr Wells had met with the then president of the  Labour party his colleague and  Mayor  Bob Harvey.

My evidence is:

The legal opinions are as follows

  1. 24 march 2000. Wells writes to MAF “while that could have been answered immediately by the council legal section , council decided to obtain  independent legal opinion from  Kensington Swann that opinion has  now come to hand this week and  confirms  the  previous legal opinion  sent to MAF policy in past years ” “Waitakere City are awaiting your directions as to where the Kensington Swann letter should be sent.”
    1. The reality was that Waitakere city was not involved in this request and the  council lawyers  were being circumvented,  , the request was made by Didovich  at  Wells Direction.
  2. The Crown Law opinion which was obtained  supplied to Neil Wells via Didovich
  3. Kensington Swan Draft  can be located here
  4. Kensington Swan final version   which  successfully over turns the  intent of the legislation  that is should not be used for animal welfare though councils.  Wells had written and advised on the Legislation for   which he had written the business plan many years before and had set the precedent by setting up  the pilot programme

Connections  Bob Harvey and Wells

  1. Bob Harvey   owned Mac Harman Ayer  advertising  1962-1992 Harvey CV
  2. Neil Wells was general manger there Neil Wells C.V.
  3. Bob Harvey in welcoming Wells to Waitakere stated “Neil is an old colleague of mine from advertising days and takes over from Tom Didovich.”appointment  wells.pdf
  4. 4.     Wells briefed Harvey when MAF objected to AWINZ becoming approved   Harvey briefed.pdf
  5. 5.     a paper was prepared for caucus  which wells  had had the ability  to have input into  commentary-from-Wells-on-caucus-papers.pdf

The applications are considered by caucus and the minister approves the application despite the following comments   most of which were  removed from  documents released under OIA

  1. MAF believes that, as a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate for you to approve a proposal which is contrary to the law.  30 may 2000 uncut
  2. MAF considers, following advice from Crown Law Office. that the  proposed funding arrangements between AWINZ and the Waitakere and North Shore City Councils are ultra vires the Local Government Act 1974.resulting in financial arrangements that are such that having regard to the interests of the public AWINZ is not suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;.  30 may 2000 uncut
  3. The WCC obtained a legal opinion” the legal opinion was obtained by dog control and not the council. Maf also notes that should  AWINZ’s application be successful, AWINZ expects to take over  the animal control activities and facilities of the WCC. Longer term, AWINZ intends to compete  for local authority animal control contracts “anywhere in New Zealand but only if the contracts include animal welfare. MAF considers that this strategy is not appropriate given the concerns about the legality of TA funding.30 may annexure some missing sections
  4. Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors. A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute. Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation. I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.12 June MAF copy  and the uncut version showing what MAF  removed when they sent the document to me  12 june wells copy
  5. MAF state “Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “28 Aug. 2000.pdf
  6. ” If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of he crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.”8 Sept 2000.pdf
  7. A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court.  should the minister agree to approve AWINZ or decide fi the risk is too high MAF believes regulatory clarity should be sought to remove any doubt13 October 2000.pdf
  8. Bayvel to Neeson  ” although Neil has drafted the documents himself  they will need to be closely scrutinised by you and legal  to ensure that the crowns interest are protected12 Dec 2000.pdf
  9. 9.     From treasury : Our overall advice is that you do not send this paper to Cabinet. The paper has not clearly argued what the benefits and costs( economic, social, fiscal) of approving AWINZ are and why these benefits outweigh the costs.treasury.pdf

 

3014 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What procedures did the Minister undertake in approving the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) as an  approved organisation pursuant to section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

On receiving an application for the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to be declared an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the then Minister of Agriculture considered the application, took advice from his officials at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and from the Crown Law Office, and consulted with his colleagues, the Minister of Local Government, the Department of Internal Affairs, Treasury and Cabinet.

My comment:

No consideration was ever given to the effect of incorporation, as shown in  3013 above , the minister acted against the advice of his advisors.

Despite the INC being shown behind AWINZ name , AWINZ was never incorporated under any legislation  and  has not been dealt with   in  the appropriate legal manner for a trading name.

 

3015 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

What procedures does the Ministry have in place to determine whether an organisation shall remain an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

Section 123 of the Animal welfare Act 1999 permits the Minister of Agriculture to revoke the declaration of an organisation as an approved organisation under the Act, if he or she is satisfied that the organisation no longer meets the criteria for an approved organisation or has failed to comply with any condition relating to the establishment of performance and/or technical standards for its inspectors and auxiliary officers. There are two approved organisations in New Zealand, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand. Both have established performance and technical standards as required by the Minister, and operate under a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). MAF audits both organisations annually, to ensure their continued compliance with the provisions of the relevant memorandum of understanding, adherence to the performance and technical standards for inspectors and auxiliary officers, and compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment: the MAF Audit of 2008  records .

  1. Since the MOU was signed in 2003 , AWINZ has not been providing the two  annual reports to MAF as required by section 17 and 22 of the MOU . this was  an issue  identified in  the previous 2006 audit  and continues to be an area of concern
  2. Only  one of the bi annual meeting s  has taken place
  3. The MOU which should be reviewed annually had not been reviewed… ( it should be noted that Animal welfare institute of new Zealand is just a name and cannot enter into a MOU as  its not defined as to who it is. )
    1. Inspectors are not being formally notified of amendments to AWA
    2. The current AWINZ Administrative and Operating Procedures, for Animal Welfare had not been approved by MAF

With regards to the RNZSPCA MAF does not check out each individual organisation it treats all of the societies (nearly 60 of them)   as being one and the same.

The question with regards to AWINZ has to be how could it be held accountable as AWINZ itself had no legal existence.

MAF did not get the required documents from AWINZ in many years and no one considers how you can enter into a MOU with a trading name.

We have a further anomaly that the inspectors, Waitakere city council employees   signed a performance contract with a person called Rochelle dean who is not  associated with AWINZ in  any apparent manner or form. See this response from Minister

 

3016 (2006). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Mar 2006):

How many, if any, animal welfare officers/inspectors has the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (Inc) approved?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture: auxiliary officers are appointed by the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Seventeen inspectors recommended by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand have been appointed by the Minister under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Ten of these appointments are current. There are no auxiliary officers appointed under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 on the recommendation of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.

MY comment:  

Each and every inspector was an employee of council  under a contract which Mr Wells had  effectively with himself   MOU waitakere.pdf  (Wells  took over the  position  and responsibilities of  Tom Didovich there by   now  being both parties to this MOU. )

The AWINZ inspectors are recorded as being council employees final draft audit 2008

Page 2  it was at times  difficult during the audit  to distinguish where the structure  of AWINZ finished  and where WCC began  hence it was  at times difficult  to separate the AWINZ organisation  from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC

page 9   all personnel  ( including the AWINZ  inspectors ) based at the WCC animal accommodation  facility (48 the concourse ) are employees of WCC It must be noted that AWINZ does not have any employees as such , apart from when they contract to the film industry  to monitor AW issues, this did  lead to some confusion regarding he demarcation between the two organisations . Page 10 Since 2003 no written report has been provided to MAF ,

Page 13 AWINZ inspectors use WCC database.

Page 14 the inspectors vehicle was inspected. This would have been a council owed vehicle.

Page 18 Location of audit WCC animal accommodation   the concourse

 

7723 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (07 May 2007):

Was any verification undertaken to determine whether the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was a bona fide organisation with a proper legal structure and accountability before Barry O’Neil, Group Director, of the Biosecurity Authority signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Mr Neil Wells, signing as a Trustee of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, on 4 December 2003; if so, what was the result; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand is an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Before the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was declared to be an approved organisation under the Act, its application was carefully considered in relation to the relevant statutory criteria. These include, inter alia, the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements and management of the organisation. There was no statutory requirement that these matters be re-considered for the purposes of signature of the Memorandum of Understanding, which defines the requirements to be met by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand in the selection and appointment of, and other matters relating to, Inspectors and Auxiliary Officers appointment under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the enforcement of the provisions of the Act.

My comment:

Acceptance as an approved organisation   does not   give any one body corporate status.

The information which I have shown that Mr Wells was the only person acting for “AWINZ “   an apparently everything he said was accepted without verification, he gave a number of assurances that AWINZ existed these are

  1. 28 January 2000  MAF requests could you please provide documentary evidence confirming that the Trust has been legally registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.17 March 2000 Wells responds and asks for the registration criteria to be reconsidered. He concludes by stating AWINZ can produce evidence that the trust is in being by providing a signed copy of the trust deed and will give an undertaking that it will be registered with the Ministry of Commerce.
  2. 25 March 2000  Wells writes to minister and   advises him that a signed copy of the deed will follow  -claims that the original is being submitted to Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed
    1. – originals are never sent certified copies are
    2. b.    There is no section 20 in the deed. trust deed.pdf
    3. In 1998 Wells put a proposal to the council for a trust called the national animal welfare trust  this trust was registered by him in 1999 as was another trust called the ark angel trust.  This registration process that he knew the process and if AWINZ had existed by way of trust deed on 22 November when the application was made it would have been well registered by Christmas.
    4. The evidence from the chronology appears to be that MAF was out of their depth with the legislation as they continually asked Wells for advice on it. The advice given appears to have been self-serving and in giving this evidence Wells was  very much  acting in a situation of  gross conflict of interest.

 

9240 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (31 May 2007):

Further to the answer to question for written answer 07723 (2007), was a copy of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s (AWINZ) trust deed received by the Minister, and was incorporation of the trust confirmed prior to the Trust becoming an approved Organisation under Section 121 Animal Welfare Act; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

A draft deed of trust was submitted as part of the application by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Incorporation of a trust is not a requirement under the Act.

Prior to declaring AWINZ to be an approved organisation for the purposes of the Act, the Minister received detailed advice on the application from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and confirmation that the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied.

My comment:

If there was relevant statutory criteria considered in the application, it certainly was not with regard to the registration of a trust.

Mr Wells gave assurances of registration and therefore the consideration that the trust was not registered was not questioned, nor was the   fact that a trust existed or not considered. No one else was spoken to in the process. No one determined if the persons who were to be this law enforcement authority were fit and proper persons and if they were actually real persons and willing to take on such responsibility.

A draft trust deed is a valueless bit of paper it has not been accepted by any one and is therefore not a trust deed.

MAF eventually ( 2006 after I had raised the issue ) received a copy of a trust deed  this however was different to the   draft examined and different to the copy which I had been sent

Incorporation of a trust may not be necessary for the legislation but you still have to know who the legal persons are you are dealing with and if they  give consent to being responsible for  the law enforcement venture.

 

9241 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (31 May 2007):

Further to the answer to question for written answer 07723(2007), was the Minister aware of the unincorporated status of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, before approving it as an approved organisation; if so, were the implications of an unincorporated trust becoming an approved organisation considered with regards to section 122 (1) b, c and d of the Animal Welfare Act; and why was it considered appropriate for an unincorporated trust to be an approved organisation.

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

As advised in the answer to written question no. 09240 (2007), incorporation of a trust is not required for a declaration of approved organisation status to be made under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. A draft deed of trust was submitted as part of the application by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) to become an approved organisation under the Act. The proposed structure of AWINZ was included in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s consideration of whether the criteria in section 122(1) (b), (c) and (d) of the Act were satisfied, prior to advice being given to the Minister that the declaration of approved organisation status should be made.

My comment:

 It may be correct that incorporation is not necessary but it would have been essential for a signed trust deed to have been presented with the application and all those who were named as trustees to give their consent in the application.

The name of the organisation making the application in that case would be the full names of all of the trustees as trustees in the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand.

For legal reasons and perpetuity, an unincorporated trust would probably not be an ideal format for a law enforcement authority and I note that there was never a legal opinion on that aspect.  This is probably due to the fact that Mr Wells gave repeated assurances of registration even telling the minister that the deed had been sent for registration. 25 March 2000

In light of two trust deed having been presented in court and   evidence being sworn in affidavits

  1. a.     affidavits supplied may 2007 didovich.pdf
  2. Graeme Coutts affidavit 31 .pdf
  3. affidavits supplied may 2007 wells

and that we also now have  two trust deeds  allegedly dated the same date but the MAF one  is not  signed on  every page and differs from the copy sent to me.

  1.  trust deed MAF version which was different to  both the deed MAF  considered  as part of the application
  2.  And the deed which I had been given a copy of. trust deed

We therefore have to question what truth is and what is deception?

If there had been only one trust deed the statement to the minister in saying that the original is not available could be acceptable (except that certified copies are sent).

But in view of there being two deeds you have to wonder why didn’t Wells just send a copy of the other original?

And then why were both copies missing   when the   so called trust met in  2006    and why was it referred to as being a  singular deed   when they knew there were two?

And how do you appoint a trustee when the deed is missing how the trustee would know what the rules of the trust are?

 

19741 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Nov 2007)

Further to the answer to question for written answer 9241 (2007), did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in consideration of the structure of the trust, verify the claims made by the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand, in its application dated 22 November 1999 to become an approved organisation, that “the institute will be registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957” and “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust … It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trust Act 1957”, before advising the Minister that the declaration of approved organisation status should be made; if not, why not?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s (MAF) consideration of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s application to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 included the question whether the Minister needed to be assured that the trust had indeed been registered as a charitable trust.

MAF concluded that registration of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand under the Charitable Trust Act 1957 would not add anything to the criteria which the Minister must consider under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment: MAF’s own document provided to me show that this statement is wrong and was probably drafted by Mr Wells himself.   

My evidence is:

  1. In the 22 November 1999 application. Neil Wells claims that a trust has been formed by way of trust deed and is in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.

What registration under that act does is set out in section 13 Effect of incorporation .

MAF accepted an unsigned application from an applicant named the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

This applicant did not exist at the time. In effect even if   it was registered later it is like a baby making an application before it is born.

The animal Institute of New Zealand could only have made the application if it had been registered prior to 22 November 1999, which it was not.

Therefore the application was not made by the Animal welfare institute of new Zealand  it was  made  by Mr Wells  , the reason the application was not  signed was that it did not exist.

  1. The minister is quite correct in saying that the animal welfare act does not say that the applicant needs to be incorporated, but in the case of accepting an application from unincorporated persons MAF should have accepted the application from the individuals who together wished to be considered as an organisation.

MAF did not have any dealings or applications from any other persons and therefore no   other individuals were   considered for approved organisation only a fictitious organisation.

This did not happen and as such no other persons are applicants.

  1. A lawyer for MAF  Gets things terribly wrong with regards to incorporation  and this  gives the basis for this statement  . She does not address the  risks   and the   process for dealing with an unincorporated    applicant  who cannot be identified.

19742 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture (29 Nov 2007):F

further to the answer to question for written answer 9241 (2007), did the Ministry, in considering the application from the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand to become an approved organisation, determine whether a signed trust deed existed at the time and were they aware of any untrue statements that had been made in the application?

Hon Jim Anderton (Minister of Agriculture) replied:

A draft deed of trust was considered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as part of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand’s application to become an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. While the application stated that a charitable trust had been formed, the deed of trust included with the application had not been executed. As stated in the answer to written question no. 9240, incorporation of a trust is not required for a declaration of approved organisation status to be made under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

My comment:

The application.Made a number of false statements

The criteria for approved organisation had been published

Under section I21 the information that an application must contain is

  1.  the full name of the applicant:

This was a pseudonym, trading name, undefined as whose name it was, it was not a legal name for a legal person or any group of legal persons.

  1. A contact  address:

A registered office was given;   AWINZ was not registered and therefore did not have a registered office

  1. The area in  which the applicant proposes to operate as an approved organisation and

The intent was stated as nationally, however something which does not exit cannot have intent. A trust can have intent only after meetings and after a quorum has voted on an issue.

  1. Information which will enable the minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 121.
    1. Evidence of the purpose of the organisation such as rules deed of trust memorandum and articles of association. It must be possible to verify the legal status of the organisation including a clear statement that its principle purpose is to promote animal welfare.

The organisation did not exist and could not be verified as the evidence is overwhelmingly that the application made on 22 November 1999 predated the existence of a trust deed.

The trustees didn’t even meet   and did not meet to sign the deed and probably did not meet until 10 may 2006 when the trust deed was missing.

  1. Evidence of a quality management  system together  with associated policies and procedures

Wells produced the management system a document   was sufficient.

  1. Procedures for selection of persons to be recommended for appointment as inspectors and auxiliary officers

They had to be council employees .The council paid for the training of the animal welfare officers. Wells provided the training.

  1. Copy of employment contract or other written agreement or arrangement between  the organisation  and inspectors and  auxiliary officers

Agreements were signed with unknown persons  acting as  AWINZ,

  1. The wiliness of the organisation to enter into a memorandum of understanding  with MAF

The MOU was signed but it was not enforceable.

  1. All information  should be clearly written  be comprehendible  and credible

The   application was a piece of fiction, it was not even signed.

 

Section 122 criteria are

Criteria

  • (1) The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—
    • (a) the principal purpose of the organisation is to promote the welfare of animals;
      • This is what it said but if his organisation did not exist how this could be a purpose?
    • (b) the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and
      • The public needs to be able to   locate and identify the organisation, this was not possible.
    • (c) the functions and powers of the organisation are not such that the organisation could face a conflict of interest if it were to have both those functions and powers and the functions and powers of an approved organisation; and
      • The organisation could not have a conflict it simply did not exist.
    • (d) the employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and
      • The council officers were required to give their council paid time voluntarily  , the time was not theirs to give. Wells explains to MAF  how this was to work  However  council did not  give approval for this  only  Didovich who was later to assist in the cover up  gave this consent.  He was not the employer, he was only a manager.
    • (e) the persons who may be recommended for appointment as inspectors or auxiliary officers—

(i) will have the relevant technical expertise and experience to be able to exercise competently the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on inspectors and auxiliary officers under this Act; and

(ii) Subject to section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.

  • No one can be answerable to a non-existent organisation

(2) The Minister may, in making a declaration under section 121, impose, as conditions of the Minister’s approval, conditions relating to the establishment by the organisation of performance standards and technical standards for inspectors and auxiliary officers.

There were further items in the   application which were simply not true, that is the financial statements and the   intent of later taking over the council dog and stock control division.

The intent of the application fits perfectly with the intent of Wells expressed in the   business plan for the territorial animal welfare authority   but the act precluded an individual being an approved organisation.

It would appear that MAF never considered the implications of considering a draft deed.  They  did not receive a signed trust deed until  2006  and they sent me a copy of this trust deed trust deed MAF version which was different to  both the deed they considered and the deed which I had been given a copy of. trust deed

The fact that the deed was unsigned has nothing to do with incorporation, it has everything to do with a trust existing or not. In effect the   application was not made by   any organisation and it generally appears that MAF does not know how trusts are formed, what constitutes a trust and what constitutes a legal person.

The audit and the minutes of the MAF meeting with AWINZ  both show that the intention was for AWINZ to have been registered so as to be a body corporate.

The reality is that in 2006 a cover up occurred to make it appear as though AWINZ had exited all along.

The law enforcement abilities under the act require accountability to the public. How can there be accountability to the public if the law enforcement authority cannot be identified as to being a real or legal person.

The documents for AWINZ were such that no bank would have given them a $5 loan on their lack of existence yet the Government gave   it Law enforcement authority.

Talking Works Tom Didovich!

Talking works Tom Didovich    perhaps you need to admit to the corruption you are involved  with  , corruption which is bringing about  a  rise in  dog registration fees …  See Council to hike dog fees   

I have been talking for years but  you who  claims that  talking works ,have remained silent  and now I find that you are a counselor for talking works. Which quite frankly I find quite hypocritical.

You see the real issue is that dog owners have been paying for a great deal more than   dog control  they have also been  paying for   animal welfare.And you  are right in on this scam up to your neck , in fact it would not have got of the ground if it wasn’t for your involvement.

To  differentiate between the two.. Dog control is a council responsibility  and Animal welfare is  carried out by the RNZSPCA, police and MAF.

Tom Didovich is a trustee of a trust called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand , he became a trustee in 2006  but  while he was the manager of dog and stock control at Waitakere city council actively campaigned to set up  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )  and  approved payments   from the public purse to facilitate  the origins of this trust  ( full back ground can be found here with  supporting documents )

When Tom  Didovich left Waitakere  his associate Neil wells took over and quickly  changed the  branding on the building , vehicle  and gate

This coincided with   a  public fund raising  campaign sent out with the   dog  registration papers  the  logo   that  Mr Wells  used   are shown on the  top of the  flyer  which  was printed in green .donation request    The letterhead was  adjusted after I complained to the council    and became

Do  you  not think  that  this logo and the signage  on the buildings  and vehicles  are deceptively similar?

One is a council the other is a private enterprise run by the  council manager.  Who would guess that there were two entities being  run   “symbiotically” close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. And true to form there was no benefit to the public/ratepayers/dog owners   just to you and Mr Wells.  refer  this letter to you  from Neil Wells

It just so happened that Mr Wells had written the  bill  leading up to the animal welfare act  and had been independent adviser to the select committee.  When the  law passed  he  made an application   for AWINZ to become an approved organization with the ability to appoint inspectors  who had  statutory powers  .

While Tom was manager he  had ensured that all the  dog and stock control officers had received training  through Mr Wells  who was paid  By Mr Didovich from the  councils   dog   control  budget through his discretionary spending.

The  dog control officers were required to  Volunteer their time   to  the approved organization   and prioritize the  work  to the approved organization. Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. So when you  saw the van driving about Waitakere  the staff and  vehicle were not necessarily on council business they were on private business paid by  you the  rate payer and  dog owners .

Problems arose in 2006 when  Lyn Macdonald  asked me to find out  who or what the animal welfare institute of new Zealand was   and   I discovered that there were no trust deeds or anyone associated with AWINZ except Neil wells  officially and Tom Didovich as support person.

On 27 April 2006  With two others we categorically proved   that AWINZ did not exist by legally  registering an identically named   organization .

On 10 May 2006 Neil Wells  claims to have had a meeting  at which  Wyn Hoadley is appointed trustee to the animal welfare institute of new Zealand, a   trust which has not met, had lost its trust deed ( if it had ever  had one before then ) and  by a section which does not appear in a deed which is eventually produced .

WYN Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme courts to legal action which started with  a legal  executive , now lawyer harassing  me to force us to give up the name of the   incorporated entity in which I was a trustee.

Her husband at the  time Nick Wright then became involved and   harassed our  web host, he then prepared a letter which David Neutze of Brookfileds signed without checking the accuracy of it . How could they ever have claimed passing off?  when they didn’t even get together before we had legitimately formed .

And so 6 years of court action which   relied on words and NLP  and not on evidence  began. ( Neil wells through the proceedings referred to AWINZ as having legitimate business dealings  when the reality was that  it was no more than a leach off council services.

Tom Didovich  turned up in court more often than any of the so called trustees   and    became a trustee  by signing a deed in December 2006 when    Neil Wells tried to get AWINZ charitable status but  failed to do so due to  lack of documentation.

This is a complex matter   a perfect fraud    more can be found on this  at http://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com, some of the documents no longer open   but we are  going through and fixing that, if you  are interested in a particular docuemtn please let me know and I will update the link   or send you a copy.

More recent articles   are on  the anticorruption web site ANIMAL LAW MATTERS

But getting back to  rise in dog registration , this is due  to  persons such as Tom Didovich and Neil Wells   using council resources facility and staff for their own income.

Stop corruption and our costs will decrease.

Ask the question  why  is the dog control division of council  adopting out pets  , who is funding it and why?

 

why Have I not been able to expose this corruption of  Public office for private  gain

Tom  its time to  talk   talking works !

Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields

David Neutze specialises in the area of commercial litigation and dispute resolution. He filed the Statement of Claim for Neil Wells and the fictitious AWINZ without  checking the  facts and he has  again  signed  a statutory demand  without checking for accuracy .

The Brookfields web site states that “He is a LEADR accredited mediator and is an expert in alternative dispute resolution techniques”

As a  lawyer his duty  is first and foremost to the court  as an  officer of the court and this  accreditation with Leadr  would indicate that he  supports alternative dispute resolution  and the  associated ethics .

The following is my open letter to Mr Neutze.

Happy New Year Mr Neutze I trust that the festive season has been relaxing for you .

My festive season began with a statutory demand  being served on my companies registered office just two days before Christmas, attached to the front door right under the   Christmas wreath .

This is the second time   where you have signed a statutory declaration and  not checked to see if the contents of the document  was accurate.   The first was in 2007  when you claimed  funds from my company on behalf  of an  incorporated AWINZ when no such entity existed. 

This time too you failed to check your facts and for that reason the debt is disputed, something I have already raised with your client Mr Neil Wells of Te Kuiti.( who is  now using the  company name Animal law matters. )

As a private Investigator and former police officer I am “fact focused” and I do not expect any one to make a claim when they do not  rightfully have one.  You represented Neil Wells ,Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   who together claimed to be trustees of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

Evidence which has now been produced by Mr wells clearly prove  that at the time  of commencing litigation  these three people  had no documented evidence or any evidence at all for that  matter a being  the trustees  of AWINZ.Wells letter to the law societyAWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06

These people took action against myself  and as a trustee of a incorporated trust and legal charity  by the identical name  and claimed passing off and breach of fair trade.  The evidence which has been provided  by Mr Wells for the law society   ( and  had not made available to the court)  proves that these people first came together  on 10 may 2006  when the entity I was a trustee of was legally incorporated on the 27th April 2006. Therefore without  prior existence and no proof of legal existence how could these three people  possibly have  hoped to succeed in  the case . Significantly they withdrew after racking up nearly 20,000 in  costs , costs which were used to strike out my  claim of truth and honest opinion on the alleged defamation .

The defamation case was somewhat unusual, there  was absolutely no evidence , no proof of publication ,no proof that any person  had received the alleged documents  but significantly the alleged statements  were later  proved true through an independent audit conducted by MAF  which Mr Wells then fought long and hard for to have withheld.

Now that I have  the new evidence  and have the documents before the court seeking a review you emerge   and have the  judgment  of judge Joyce sealed while the matter for review is still before a high court judge.

Emblazoned on  the documents  are  the words “judgement on trial by  judge”.  Could you please be so kind as to advise me  when the  trial was, I recall  that there was a direction for you to file a new statement of claim and from there you   ignored the directions of the court and took the matter straight to  Quantum.  Thus I was found guilty without there ever being any determination as to the facts in the statement of claim in any way.

When I tried to appeal you prevented   the appeals by misleading the court   with regards to AWINZ and  by  attacking character.

I tried to   produce new evidence which would show that your client had committed perjury at the  quantum hearing but you sought to have my evidence disallowed  claiming that the evidence was not relevant to the statement of claim, which it was not ,but it was relevant to the  only evidence which  was  given.

The questions I had raised with regards to the law enforcement authority AWIINZ  had nothing to do with your alleged clients , it transpires that  the law enforcement authority at all times was just Mr Wells who wrote the legitimation for his business plan    and when  I raised questions   which would expose his otherwise perfect  fraud  he  had to create  the fiction being  that  the  AWINZ trust  allegedly established in 2000  , but whose deeds had never seen the light of  day ,was the approved organization  and thus the  logic which was applied  was a fallacy  and can be recorded as follows

This was later  improved on

  • We have produced some papers  in 2011 to show that Wyn Hoadley was a trustee in 2006 if you  right click on this document you will note under properties that this document was created  in 2011
  • In the  audit report Mr wells had claimed that all documents prior to 2008 were lost , therefore these minutes are   very suspect.
  • according to the   minutes the trust deed was missing at the time  and Hoadley  was appointed without any documentary evidence  under a  section which did not  exist in the  deed which was eventually produced/reproduced  but  her appointment  without signatures or any formal documents except a suspect minute entry alleges  that she became a trustee  on 10  may 2006
  • The trust  deed dated 1.3.2000  by its own conditions terminated 1.3.2003 but without any evidence  and  without  adhering to the trust deeds conditions  we just pretended that this  trust continued to exist, It was missing in any case and we still have to question  how we had none  then had two  , which is an issue I have previously raised.. Please if you are going to tell lies  be consistent Mr wells and watch the maths.
  •  fallacy   =therefore Wyn Hoadley  was not only a trustee  of the trust  established 1.3.2000 but she was also   the chair person of the approved organisation.

But wait there is more

When  the  litigants tried to   claim charitable status  they found that  they needed a trust deed.  So they signed a new deed  together with  Tom Didovich who had been the former Waitakere city council manager  who had allowed AWINZ to be established  on council premises  and use the staff and infrastructure ,  without the  knowledge and approval of   council.

This new trust became a charity and posed as the litigants ( which it was not )   and used the charitable funds  to pay the lawyers bills.  These are the same  funds which Mr Wells through this latest  statutory demand is claiming as his own. AR002   AR003 AR004   AR005

Not any of this  would have occurred if you  had taken the time to check the facts before you acted, you have never made resolution available except through  intimidation, there has never been a lets meet and discuss. , it appears that you have relied upon mr Wells word and have not sought to  validate any of the claims.  Even with the demand for money  they were not due  then you seal them and your first approach is with a sledge hammer .  Are these the tactics of Leadr negotiations?

I am asking you now as an officer of the court and  a Leadr accredited mediator  to go through the facts. I have previously  requested you to check your facts,  and I have  tried to contact you  with view of meeting with you and discussing  the issue  so that you  who instigated the proceedings but has otherwise remained at a distance  could be  fully informed with facts rather than   hearsay.

You may wish to refer to the Rules of conduct and client care for lawyers they  state quite clearly that your role is to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

Chapter 2 states

 A lawyer is obliged to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice.

  • 2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.

2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

Proper purpose

  • 2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.1

Assisting in fraud or crime

  • 2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.
  • 2.4.1 A lawyer may assist a client in seeking to avoid or minimise any penalty or adverse effects that flow from fraud or crime.

Chapter 11 Prevention of crime or fraud

Prevention of crime or fraud

  • 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.

Mr Neutze  If I have  my facts wrong  could you please provide me the evidence which shows that I  am wrong and how I am wrong.

What I am seeking from you is   documentary and verifiable evidence  that

  1. The approved organisation AWINZ was the trust  and conversely that the   trustees Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts and Neil wells  were each aware  of their role in the approved organization  and had proper accountability to the   obligations of  the law enforcement authority
  2. That  Wyn Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts   together were trustees of the  approved organization  and   traded prior to  27 April 2006  using the name AWINZ so as to  validate their claims  of breach of fair trade and passing off.
  3. That  the  Charity AWINZ  pursuant to the  charities act  was the approved organisation
  4. Evidence  as to how the members of  the charity had obligations  to the provisions and law enforcement   responsibilities of   the  approved organisation
  5. That  the  Charity AWINZ  were the litigants  and the obligations  they had to pay the accounts to brookfields.
  6. the Brookfields invoices to AWINZ  which AWINZ  was the  client? Neil Wells  as sole trader   and  law enforcement authority, The trust established in 2000, the litigants  or the  trust set up after litigation began.
  7. An explanation as to why the charity   which according to its  annual returns AR002 AR003 AR004  AR005   paid for the litigation  and was allegedly part of the litigation , did not  file the  statutory demand   and why instead  it was filed in Mr Wells own name – does this not indicate that he is seeking to privately benefit from the  costs incurred by the  charity?  And How is that not fraud?
  8. The copies of all the alleged  defamatory statements attributed to me  and allegedly sent out by me ( they must be on your files surely? )   and proof  in view of the audit report  which shows that my statements were defamatory  or known to be false.
  9. Copies of the  authorities referred to in  Mr Wells letter to the law society
  10. The date of the trial  referred to in the statutory demand notice  and an explanation why the  quantum hearing  has now become a trial. ( I am using  the definition of trial  as being the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue )
  11.  Please  also advise  what definition of the word Trial   you are using.

If I do not hear from you   by Friday 13 January  2012 4 pm , I will presume that there is  nothing wrong with my facts  and reasoning. and that you cannot provide answers.  I am seeking this information  by way of discovery  which you have always prevented.

If you do not have any of this evidence  then you should be asking yourself   some serious questions  about how  this has gone on for so long without evidence.  You are the officer of the court  your reputation is at stake  and you are the one who can rectify the matter.

You have an obligation to justice   or is your obligation to   facilitating fraud and assisting in  assisting fraud and corruption

If you cannot find the evidence which should be there  and you  do noting  then  it proves that the  case against me has been malicious  and that  your pursuit  of me  or my company for the  sums claimed is  not  legitimate  and that you   are knowingly using your office   to facilitate fraud.

I request the information as  described above  from you  pursuant to section 8.4. (b)  rules of conduct – the information relates to the anticipated commission of a crime or fraud and If you only do a little bit  of   diligent inquiry it should become evident to you that  your services have been used to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud  then you can release the information  to me   by virtue of section  8.4(d) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer’s services have been used by the client to perpetrate or conceal a crime or fraud and disclosure is required to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the interests, property, or reputation of another person that is reasonably likely to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of the crime or fraud

I look forward to hearing  from you   2012 will resolve this issue    either you are a straight lawyer or a crooked one,  If you are straight  you will take action now  and   turn this mess around.

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden

 

open letter to Graeme Coutts ,cc Sarah Giltrap & Nuala Grove

Open letter   to Graeme Coutts JP of Graeme Coutts and associates     and cc  for  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap to note  as some of this applies to them as well

 

In the past week I have received  some interesting  documents from the law society, sent to them By Neil Wells   with regards to the trust  that you claim to be part of.

Since then I  have spoken to you and suggested that you  should be seeing your own lawyer  as   the  legal action which you instigated against me was in  your own name   and this will hold you personally liable  for the outcome.

I note that Your “trust” has used  some $130,000  of charitable funds to pursue me through the courts  . These funds were obtained  from Beauty with compassion and   this is misappropriation of charitable  funds .

My crime  was to question   the existence of  an approved organisation, set up pursuant to section 122 of  the animal welfare  act 2000   which operated from Waitakere city council through the attached document –  mou waitakere .  That meant that   it had law enforcement authority and public responsibility .

There has been considerable confusion brought about   by Mr Wells as to  who or what AWINZ is  . AWINZ happens to be the name of the approved organisation   and it also happens to  be the name of a trust which was set up later as a cover up using you  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap

The biggest issue with the  2000 AWINZ trust is that   it had Mr Wells on it  and three   people  who  had no idea what was going on  , but their position and status in the community coupled with their impressive sounding names ( not my words  But Mr Didovich’s ) leant an air of legitimacy to the farce.

I raised concerns with you  and with Mrs grove and Sarah Gltrap ,  But you have all  followed  blindly and unquestioningly  so I have a few questions to ask you .

I have linked  a number of documents   so let’s start with the first two. You will notice that  two of  your  fellow trustees on the trustees deed 5 dec 2006  together are  the  only signatories  to  the    agreement   mou waitakere.which  was  between   AWINZ and  the dog and stock control at Waitakere city council and facilitated the use of  Waitakere  city council  staff    to volunteer their  council paid time   to derive an income for the trust which you claim to  belong to.

Strangely enough Mr Wells   who signed on behalf of AWINZ then went on to take over  the  council role of Mr Didovich   and Mr Didovich went on to become a trustee .Many  would say that this is a gross conflict of interest.

Mr Didovich  had supported Mr Wells  in the application for approved status   by writing to the minister  as though he was in depended from the matter didovich to maf north shore   and didovich to maf waitakere  and   then went out and collected the signatures of the  alleged trustees of this  trust deed .

If you now  look at the document mou MAF,  you will see that it places  legal obligations on AWINZ.    Had you not thought that it is strange that   all these obligations were fulfilled  By Mr Wells alone  without you , Sarah or Nuala playing a supporting role.

When I  questioned you in court with regards to the animal welfare officers  you didn’t even know what I was talking about. Nuala Grove is adamant that the  trust  did not have law enforcement powers  yet  Mr Wells  was busily prosecuting the public and banking the  funds which  came   back to AWINZ through   section 171 of the act,  into the bank account  which only he administered

Strange to that the income from prosecution does not show in the AWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06   and it is also strange that a supposed  law enforcement  trust had not met for nearly 2 years prior to this and by  its own statement on the minutes did not intend to meet again  until  nearly  18 months later .

I have to  question why a  trust meeting  was not called  when the  only person who was doing all the work  for AWINZ took on  the role  of manager dog and stock control.. why was the trust not worried about  this apparent   conflict  of interest from your own point of view? .  You being a JP and all should have ensured that there was some transparency and that would have  begun by   raising the issue in a meeting.

Too late now  can’t create the documents   Mr Wells has set things in concrete besides I am a bit over the retrospective creation of documents  by you lot.

Don’t you find that the AWINZ MEETING MINUTES 10-05-06   read rather  like a briefing ?  strange too that the  secretary Nula Grove  was  unaware that she had been   secretary  and now cant remember.  I note that the  minute were also typed by Waitakere council staff.. great way to keep your  trusts outgoings   down get the public to pay for  it .

I was on  a trust  with Neil Wells   in 2005 , the trust I was on  the Auckland air cadet trust (AACT ) ran  a building   , Mr Wells was  the chairman and  ran  things  very differently.   The trust was incorporated,  Trustees were  appointed according to the deed after they had been selected by the other trustees and voted on   which is very different to  the appointment of Wyn Hoadley  who was  chair designate a month and a half  before  the meeting.   a   and was appointed  pursuant to section  7.2(b) which is  section which does not appear in the original  trust deed, but  then the deed was missing was  found and went  missing again in 2007  but in    2008    by some miracle  we had two copies of the deed. Praise the Lord ! or  is that  praise modern reproductive technology ?

The  AACT  trust met  monthly, the trustees were signatories to the bank account and no one person had control, I was treasurer and could not  even have a pre signed cheque   yet in 2007 Neil Wells was still the only person operating the AWINZ bank accounts.

The AACT did not have  legislative powers or responsibilities  such as those shown in the mou MAF  which  wells signed as trustee.

If you signed the deed   why did  you not have a copy of it?   on the AACT Mr Wells ensured that all trustees had a copy of  the deed   and we  all ensured that the trust ran  according to the deed. – on that point why did  you say to me that there was no need to meet you were  not  that type of trust ? did  you not read the deed?   what do you think  ” shall meet no less than 4 times” per year means how  bad can some ones maths be  ?Every 2 years is a long way off!

Graeme  did you really know what you were doing?  Did Sarah and Nuala know  which way was up?  or was  it just nice to have your name associated with little furry things?. Did you know that ignorance of the law is no excuse  and that by your ignorance you may well have facilitated  a crime?

Why did you not question  the lack of correspondence in  the 2 years  since the trust last met?  seems like I knew more about your trust than you do . Of particular is of interest is the  lord dowding  document.    Over $100,000  was obtained between the meetings,  I know the exact sum that was received do you ? surely the reference to the bank account in 2005 would have had some involvement of trustees?

Graeme   You are the only one who is connected with the old trust  deed and the new one, you play a pivotal role  , and I wonder how you had a quorum  for the decision to   take legal action against me  , there appears to be no consensus or discussion from the trustees.. I guess you were just obedient and  nodded  when Neil Wells told you to and you kept your  eyes closed .

All three of you  Sarah Giltrap, Nuala Grove and You Graeme Coutts  were prepared to tell lies to the world  by giving a false end title to the   Lord of the rings trilogy   in the name of AWINZ  s reported by the aha  what did you and your trustees  do when you saw the aha letter or is this the first time you are seeing it?

Did you not  think it strange that Tom Didovich  and Neil wells  were  joined at the hip on this venture, did you not think it strange that  Didovich  the manager you were going to contract to  was collecting  and witnessing the signatures  to the deed?didovich affidavit may 07

But what amuses me most of all is that you are a JP  and  you have not  got the slightest clue of   matters  which pertain to your own trust. It appears to me  (and this is my honest opinion many would agree)  that the three of you  were selected because apparently  you don’t think  and  could be led by the nose.

Through your lawyer you  held out  that your trust  was the approved organisation, you instructed him   , apparently  you signed a document   which he had before he commenced  the proceedings.. surely  you must have had all the facts  before you  took me to court  and devastated my life and family?

Did you ever  ask your  lawyer Nick Wright  how  your trust came to be an approved organisation and exactly what that entailed? Statement of Claim

It is wake up time for you now   please  read the attached  documents   be aware of the damage you have caused  and   start acting responsibly  it may be your last chance  cant remain ignorant  for ever.

Ask  Neil  if you can look at the  minute book and see where you authorised   the use of the charitable funds  for the litigation and  ask him where you are indemnified. You may be in for a shock.

Graeme, this is mop up time    let’s  see what we can do to sort out the damage.. I am sure you don’t want to go through what I have had to go through  for the next 5 years .

The price I have had to pay  for blowing the whistle has been  far too high.  If you, a JP  had been  astute,   this would never have happened . You facilitated this   with your wilful blindness, your total neglect and ignorance of what it means to be a trustee  and an approved organisation.

You are a JP  you have obligations to the law   and to the public funds which   you have  misappropriated.( that is  a criminal matter )

You can no longer plead ignorance .  I have blind carbon copied    a significant number of people  who can bear witness to the fact that you are now fully informed , the same goes for Sarah Giltrap and Barrister Daniel Grove  who is  protecting his mother .

If you would  like  to meet  with me to discuss resolution  I would be willing to make that available to you even though you denied me the opportunity.

The same invitation is open to Sarah Giltrap and Nuala grove.

I will be posting this open letter on  www.Transparency.net.nz

Regards

Grace Haden