I ran into David Cunliffe last week in New Lynn. I had spoken to him about the fictional law enforcement AWINZ a number of times. In the past he has asked me to send details which I have done and all I have achieved is wasting more time.
Last week David had to dash off for an ” urgent conference call” and left me talking to Sue Hagan his office lady who assured me that the AWINZ matter had never got off the ground.. Looks like you are talking through a hole in you head Susan they were a law enforcement authority for 10 years. But with today’s revelations Cunliffe used agent to take donations for campaign it becomes clear all you have been doing is protecting the secret trust which you rely on to circumvent the intention of the law , to reveal the fraud behind AWINZ would expose a number of politicians who rely on these phantom or trisect trusts. They are New Zealands greatest vehicle for fraud and the secret behind the least corrupt status.
Len Brown uses one , Cunliffe use one and AWINZ was one for many years and enforced the law through it. The secret trust. The magic behid the lack of transparency.. blink and you will have missed it it is an illusion a deception.
“But he( Cunliffe) confirmed his campaign was run through an “agent arrangement” rather than taking donations directly. He sought a legal opinion before filing his return and defended the use of trusts.”
“In the event donations are made to a trust, the trustee will have information about donations which a candidate or campaign team won’t have. So [if] there is a trust involved, it will be the donations of the trust to the campaign that are declared, as per the rules. If there is a trust, trustees owe obligations of confidentiality.”
Yesterday I was able to address the audit and risk committee ( although not uninterrupted)
I produced a power point the PDF of which is attached Nothing trivial
With that of the signage on the council facility and vehicles
I had also wanted to point out that Mr Wells had an intention of taking over the entire complex and had expressed this to the then minister ( AWS animal welfare services )
You will not find any discussion papers on council documents regarding this and I believe that AWINZ is an example of how council business units are being groomed for take over , using council funds to set them up and then go into private hands.
There is nothing to stop this as Councillors appear to be ignorant of corruption and I totally expect that you will do nothing about my presentation yesterday except file it. You will no doubt have moved a motion that my documents are not appended to the minutes and that is why I will publish them myself on my Transparency web site along with this email. Transparency.net.nz Nothing trivial
While residents are asked to mow berms and have traffic tickets enforced on them for genuine mistakes and have historic debts enforced at great cost to the rate payers you appear to do nothing with regards to proven corruption within council.
Mr Singh who appears to be a little out of his depth on this issue in referring me to a Wendy Brandon email with regards to email censoring , could do well to meet with me , that way he might understand that there were five different entities who called themselves AWINZ only one of them was a legal person in its own right. There were also 3 AWINZ trusts , so he has to be particularly careful by saying that there is an injunction when I was not talking about the three people who took me to court but was in fact talking about a deceptively similarly named law enforcement authority which was operated only by Mr Wells your council manager from council premises. Any two year old can see the conflict of interest why are you blind to it ? I have to ask if it is willful blindness or plain ignorance ?
Please advise by way of LGOIMA what resolutions you passed with regards to my submission and what plans you have for investigation
Documents pertaining to this matter are available on the post Does Auckland council not know what corruption is ?
Neil Wells at the time was running a law enforcement authority called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand from council premises using the staff and infrastructure to enforce the animal welfare law.. legislation which he had assisted in writing and advised on.
Just prior to the act passing into law Mr Wells made an application to the then minister of agriculture and bio-security for the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) to become a law enforcement authority under the legislation which he had played a pivotal role in.
The not at all minor issue which Mr Wells overlooked in the application was that AWINZ had not formed in any manner or means and because it did not exist as a trust as he claimed and therefore could not become a legal person as Maf had required it and expected it to be.
So in other words Mr Wells pulled the wool over the ministers eyes, and any other lesser mortal would have been charged with the very serious offence of using a document for pecuniary advantage or false statement by promoter ( 10 years ) .
Mr Wells worked with his associate Tom Didovich the then manager of Waitakere city dog and stock control. Didovich gave consents to the minister for Neil wells to use his fictional trust in the then Waitakere city and in North shore city , in so doing cutting out the the very inconvenient requirement to get consent of the Councillors.
Now many of you will be jumping up and down and screaming conflict of interest by now but for our Councillors it doesn’t appear to matter , they are quite happy to consent to rate rises to cover this sort of thing.
Any way Tom Didovich had to leave council because affairs of the heart ( or so I believe ) is something the council sees as a conflict of interest so Mr Wells has to apply for the position to keep the set up of AWINZ going.
With Wells ( a barrister ) at the helm the council premises are re branded.. could it be to to fulfill the intention he stated in the application to the minister under point 7 where he states that in the short term Animal welfare services (AWS ) will continue to be a business unit of Waitakere city council … it will be a linked organisation to AWINZ and its inspectors will interface with AWINZ .. in the medium term the business unit of AWS will be vested in AWINZ . All the assets of the AWS ( the animal refuge , plant and equipment ) will be transferred or leased to AWINZ….
So with this PPP idea in mind Mr Wells set about changing the signage of the council premises so that they were confusingly similar to that of AWINZ .( council are refusing to look at this they ignore it )
In 2006 Neil Wells through Wyn Hoadley (who posed as the chair person of the fictitious trust AWINZ )solicited donations for the Waitakere animal welfare fund there was also a collection box on the counter
the donation form states ” YES, I WILL HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND … here’s my donation” MY CHEQUE (made out to AWINZ) IS ENCLOSED OR PLEASE CHARGE BY CREDIT CARD
The issue is that AWINZ at this point in time did not exist in any legal manner or form and only Mr Wells administered the bank accounts. .
I complained to council with regards to the logo being so close to that of the council buildings and the following year the same donation letter was produced with an amended logo and minus the council logo .
In December 2006 , that is after the first donation drive and before the second , Hoadley, Coutts Wells and Didovich ( yes the same one as before ) formed a trust which became a charity .
This charity is registered as
|The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand||CC11235||Registered||28/09/2007|
Each year the charity is required to file an annual report and in 2009 the Waitakere account was identified as the no 2 account
This year the annual return shows the no 2 account being closed and fed into the general accounts .
I know a lot more about this money and have previous correspondence from council which acknowledges that Council is aware that a third party is dealing with council funds. So on seeing council funds being apparently misappropriated I do a Lgoima request
Today I receive a letter from council lawyer Jazz Singh which refuses the information I have asked for Auckland council Waitakere welfare response
Jazz refers to an email from Wendy Brandon. dated 13 February 2013 and it simply makes no sense that this email from Wendy has any relevance to this request .Brandon email 13 feb 2013
Jazz also quotes refusal by virtue of section 17 ( h) LGOIMA section 17 LGOIMA,
Now my question is why is it important to take residents and rate payers to court for historic unpaid metro water accounts using false documentation and why is it frivolous or vexatious or trivial to raise the issue of corruption , use of council premises for private pecuniary gain and misappropriation of charitable funds which were being held for council?
With regards to the metro water claims. Water care is taking a number of persons to court on Tuesday the 18th to enforce 7 year old debts to Metro water, these debts are not to water care and water care through its solicitors have sworn false affidavits ..
I have the evidence .. but Council just plods on and makes us accountable for things we are not accountable for and they ignore the criminal of fences which are going on around them.
Jazz we would love to have a response from you
No doubt the Councillors they will as usual ignore this .
open letter to Suzanne Snively this will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz in response to your email to Vince Siemer
Please stop defaming me. I do Not trade under the TI name or under the TINZ name (or a fictitious version) in any way.
Nor does the New Zealand government or any government agency fund me or my personal activities.
Executive Chair, TINZ
Please find here with your linked in page from last year which I saved and is attached . You will note that it states
Transparency International New Zealand Ltd
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand
As a country with low corruption, New Zealand has the potential to be an examplar to others,
demonstrating how this can improve business profitability through lower cost of doing business in
overseas countries, better access, lower cost of capital and for those listed companies, a higher
yeilding share price.
I notice that you have now changed it http://www.linkedin.com/pub/suzanne-snively-onzm/27/92b/56b
and you who defend no corruption in NZ now accuse Vince of defamation .. isn’t that under hand ????
As to the funding You may wish to refer to your own correspondence which shows who your sponsors are. They look suspiciously like Government departments . I have taken the liberty of saving those documents as well .
Unlike transparency international Inc , Transparency New Zealand is totally self-funded and receives no funds from any one
We are totally independent and do not have connections with international banks such as credit Suisse ( previously Jarden & Co) or large audit companies who promote NZ as an investment centre.
I have for years tried to tell you about corruption in New Zealand but you deliberately turn a blind eye/ Deaf ear. The instance I have is that of identity fraud ,Funny then that you should change the identity of the company you claimed to represent ( by the way who or what is New Zealand Army Leadership Board)
I see identity fraud in companies all the time I know how corruption is perpetrated in New Zealand through our slack controls and systems , it must be heaven for money launders.
New Zealand keeps its “ least corrupt” status through your hard work -as an economist you must be aware that an unblemished reputation is vital to business growth so let’s encourage some growth .
As a former Police officer and now Private Investigator I find that honesty is the best policy and I would rather be in a corrupt country knowing it is corrupt than a country which uses smoke screens and mirrors to hide corruption.
I have conclusive evidence of a person writing legislation for his own business plan .. advising on the legislation and then applying for law enforcement powers under a fictitious name .. and getting it due to deceiving the minister.
He then ran this operation from council premises using council resources and infrastructure .
He covered up using a fictional trust which I can prove is fictional but I can’t get the court to comprehend this overwhelming evidence.
This is all apparently condoned in New Zealand its not corrupt therefore there is no corruption .
When Vince questioned the ethics of Stiassny, he promptly had his arse sued off .. can’t have any one questioning our business practices.. what will the world think ?
Suzanne when we have to lose your home , marriage , go to jail and/or substantial sums of money as a result of being a whistle-blower on serious government corruption then NZ cannot claim to be the least corrupt.
The least corrupt country would have procedures in place to investigate such claims and would take notice of the evidence placed before the court. Instead we allow the civil court to be used to pervert the course of justice .
The least corrupt country would not facilitate a business man paying crown law office to drop 22 fraud charges , they would make him face the court and let the judge decide.
Suzanne you can’t keep your head in the sand and plead ignorance , you are deliberately portraying New Zealand to be corruption free by ignoring stories of real corruption which are being ignored by the very government departments who support your organisation and pay your wages for the so called integrity study.
You must know that if you do an honest integrity study your funders will not support you next time round, and you will find yourself like me doing it all for NIX , I can tell you it’s not easy.
Suzanne You claim to be the director of Transparency International New Zealand Ltd when there is no such company , you apparently don’t know the difference between an incorporated society and a limited liability company.
You probably wouldn’t recognise corruption if you fell across it.. it’s not just bribery , it goes deeper than that and if you were truly interested you would sit down and talk to persons such as Vince and myself instead of threatening defamation.. we have both been there done that .. boring.
When you take time to look at actual case studies of corruption in New Zealand and report your finding from both sides then you would be giving a fair picture, but when you totally exclude people from your organisation because they have a corruption story to tell then you are showing bias which in a situation such as your is in my opinion- a corrupt practice.
I have asked to join many times but You have told me that my company name is too close and that is why I can’t join.. for the record I tried to join about three times before I set up the company .. Transparency New Zealand is a limited liability company you are transparency International ( New Zealand ) Inc .. quite different.
Any house wife will tell you that you can sweep dirt under the rug for so long but sooner or later it is will start to smell. In Auckland we can smell it , we can see it and we are just waiting for the government to cover it up and tell us that we were all wrong about our Mayor …. see no corruption.
See no evil speak no evil let’s keep those foreign investments rolling in keep the share prices up . Good for economy.
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Many New Zeallanders don’t grasp the concept that there are two types of person , there are the living breathing people ( and I guess those who no longer breath ) who are called natural persons and then there are the “legal persons” which are companies , trusts , societies & organization which have had body corporate status assigned to them through statute.
Only legal and natural people can sue or be sued. In a nut shell Legal & natural people can be identified and held accountable .
There is a trend in NZ to use trading names , it is always a good idea to know and to have it in writing just who is using a particular trading name because you cannot sue the trading name or recover a debt from it or seek accountability for statements made as this has to be done through the legal person who uses that name.
The independent EY report into Len Brown is located at this link , (which reportedly cost $200,000 to produce ) is unsigned and does not disclose any real or natural persons who take responsibility for the accuracy of the document .WE presume that it comes from Ernst & Young Ltd Show Details as this is the only company registered under the Private security and personnel act. but then it does not disclose who the investigator /s were. – wish I had their job I certainly cant charge sums like that .
EY in this document is defined as ( emphasis mine )
“EY refers to the global organisation and may refer to one or more of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.”
It is important for an investigator to be identifiable and if Ernst and young Limited are the investigators why not say so.. or are they ashamed to put their name to the document?
So who was the legal person who compiled the report with no one identifiable and the page of disclaimers the document could easily be totally fictional as there is no way that any one can be held accountable for the accuracy of its content. The investigation could have been completed by one of the many other EY companies who have no licence to investigater.. its all open to speculation and assumption which must reflect on the accuracy of the content.
Based on the content however the council has acted and censured the mayor.. What is the reality what does the report not reveal ?
EY had just finished compiling a report commissioned by the mayor on PPPS Access the report here . If a 19 page document cost $200,000 we can only speculate what the 67 page document was worth , so EY had a vested interest in remaining loyal to the had which pays them.. Len Brown . In all fairness you cannot say that the EY report is ” independent “ as 1. we don’t know who conducted the inquiry and 2. EY companies had a vested interest in preserving a working relationship with the mayor.
Current EY companies in NZ are
ERNST & YOUNG NOMINEES (20067) Registered NZ Unlimited Company 7-Jul-67
ERNST & YOUNG LIMITED (437730) Incorporated 30-Nov-89
ERNST & YOUNG CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED (955165) Incorporated 15-Apr-99
ERNST & YOUNG TRANSACTION ADVISORY SERVICES LIMITED (953248) Incorporated 20-May-99
ERNST & YOUNG GROUP LIMITED (1221939) Incorporated 28-Jun-02
ERNST & YOUNG LAW LIMITED (2494153) Incorporated 20-May-10
so which one did the investigation ?
Can you rely on an entity which hides behind an undefined trading name ? It is great to advise and consult from a point of anonymity .. all care no responsibility .
smoke screens and mirrors watch this space for more on EY. clue TOP SECRET INVITATION LIST WIDENS BUSINESS- GOVERNMENT CHASM
Dear Wyn (with copies to Wells and Coutts)
Bogus trusts are very much the issue in the news with Mr Brown receiving vast sums by way of donation through the invisible “New Auckland council trust”.
The “New Auckland council trust” and the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) appear to have a lot in common – both are unincorporated trusts and both play a public role but do so through the interface of invisibility and fiction so as to conceal the truth.
When you look at the chronology which the court has created based on the uncorroborated evidence of Wells and the strength of your support by pretending to be AWIINZ the law enforcement authority and the 2000 trust.
22 November 1999 “AWINZ” made an application for Approved status ( law enforcement powers equivalent to those held by the RNZSPCA )- an unsigned deed is provided
1.3.2000 the alleged date that the trust which made the above application was formed despite the fact that not one of the trustees signatures appears on the application form trust deed
January 2001 Minister grants approval based on the application made december 1999application
1.3.2003 By the terms of the deed this trust ceased to exist trust deed ( trustees never met held no assets were not reappointed as required )
April 2006 we prove conclusively that AWINZ does not exist
10 May 2006 you come onto the picture and become trustee of the defunct trust through no visible or legal means and under a section which does not show in the trust deed supplied to me by Wells in June 2006 see minutes and at a time when the deed was missing.. surpise surprise
June 2006 Maf supplied with a different copy of the trust deed by Neil Wells.
18 July 2006 despite the fact that you have never traded as AWINZ you take action ( along with Wells and Coutts ) for passing off and breach of fair trade against myself and the legally incorporated trust whose existence proved categorically that AWINZ did not exist. In the Statement of claim you falsely claim to be a trustee of the defunct .2000 trust You also claim to be a law enforcement authority which made an application three months before this trust was formed and through an application which the parties to the 2000 deed were not part of in any legal manner or form.
5 December 2006 a third trust deed claiming to be continuation of the defunct trust, this becomes a charity and uses charitable funds obtained in 2005 by Mr Wells for the litigation .
For 7 ½ years you have kept up the lies in court and you have sought to keep vital information from me. When the information was released to me I took the matter back to court for obtaining a judgment by fraud, the 700 plus government documents however mean nothing as your lawyers reputation is enough to refute everything with nothing more than his unsupported say so. (Old boy’s network strikes again)
I realise now the lengths that lawyers go to to protect these secret trusts. I have discovered that the real secret is that they are a fictional creature which lawyers have created to circumvent the law.
Breathing life into something which did not exist certainly fooled the courts and the only conclusion I can come to is that the courts rely on the integrity of the lawyers and when the lawyers have no integrity people like myself lose out.
In my opinion and based on the evidence which I have Neil Wells, lied to the court and the court was confused as to who or what AWINZ was and because you and Graeme Coutts played a role in this deception I now have to pay you Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts $15,074.25 to reward your lies and deceit .
But as if that is not enough you are being paid personally for funds which are due to the trust which you set up in December 2006 some 5 months after you pretended to be a trustee and commenced legal action against myself and Verisure .In my book this is money laundering .
This 2006 trust is now a charity, it has yet to carry out any charitable deeds but has done plenty of not so charitable things. Despite the objectives of the trust being to promote humane attitudes to animals and people, you have spent the last 7 ½ beating me up in court with lies to conceal the fact that AWINZ the law enforcement authority was a total fiction.
As a lawyer and officer of the court you are now complicit in having used the civil court to pervert the course of justice and having used the charitable funds which Mr Wells obtained from Beauty with compassion in 2005 to fund this deceit. (misappropriation of charitable funds see charity web site )
2014 is going to be a year of change, you will be held accountable for your deceit, it is well documented. But before we come to the accountability phase you need to be paid for the lies you have perpetrated, the decision is binding and I have to fork out yet another sum to liars and cheats if I don’t you will take bankruptcy action despite knowing that I am solvent .
I am aware that the fictional AWINZ has a bank account at the national bank but that account is only administered by Neil Wells in a manner which conceals his identity ,this account was set up after the 2000 trust expired and before the 2006 trust came into existence. But it appears that if something has a similar name it is one and the same. - We now have case law on it.
So with money to be paid I am therefore requesting that you advise me as to how this money should be paid and whom will not pay it to your lawyers, I find them most unethical and I will not give them another cent. I want payment to be made in an open and transparent manner as your lawyers refuse to disclose who is being paid and who has demanded the sums.
As I do not have a personal cheque book I will transfer it into a nominated bank account.
Wyn you are a lawyer, you must be painfully aware of the consequences of obtaining a pecuniary advantage through deceit and that is why I want to know who is getting the money it is after all an ingredient of the charge.
Being a lawyer does not mean you can be ignorant to the law? You contort business practices to such an extent that they are nonsense, the court has been used to pervert the course of justice and I have been ordered to pay so the payment offer is here and will be made as soon as you give me a bank account number.
Wyn I have spelt things out to you often enough and placed you on notice, you cannot pretend to be ignorant when you rip up the very documents which I give to you to prove my allegations . You are in so deep that there is no saving you, you are a corrupt lawyer a willing player in this deceit . I want to put the final nail in so please give me your bank account number and I will pay you the judgement sum in full .
I am serving this document on you, sending it by email and posting it on transparency so that there is a public record of the offer.
If I do not hear from you , Wells or Coutts by 4 pm Monday 23 December 2013 I will presume that you prefer not to receive the money and that you will not be making any demand on me for payment.
All the best for Christmas
Regards Grace Haden
From Grace Haden
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 11:08 a.m.
To: Bruce Thomas (Bruce.Thomas@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Cc: Councillor Christine Fletcher (email@example.com); ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)
Subject: Complaint with regards to receipt of donations
Good morning Bruce.
I hereby make a request for investigation into the New Auckland Council trust in accordance with section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001
The local electoral act in its interpretation section 103 a states
anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation, means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate who receives the donation—
- (a) does not know the identity of the donor; and
- (b) could not, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor
The “New Auckland Council trust” is not identifiable , it is not a person in the legal or natural sense , it is like Santa clause. How do we know it exists ? How do we know it is not just a made up name to conceal the identity of the persons behind it .
Without proper identification or proof of existence the new Auckland council trust is just another name for anonymous yet it is being treated as though it is a ( legal ) person
If it is a trust Various possibilities exist , Mr Brown could be the settlor, the trustee and the beneficiary/ how is the trust set up? Is he being honest with us he wasn’t honest with his wife ?
Are the provisions of the deed legal in any sense? or is it just an excuse to hide money ? How would anyone know to make a donation to it, by what means do these people make donations to it ? blank envelopes ??
The New Auckland council trust is not registered under any legislation which would make it a legal person in its own right or gives it legal existence separate from the people who the trading name or act as its trustees .The name needs to be clarified to use the name as though it is a real person is identity fraud.
In many aspects the new Auckland council trust is like Santa and while we sometimes don’t know who “ Santa” is we generally know with a high degree of certainty who is posing as such.
In the case of secret Santa we generally know what group this secret Santa belongs to and we can show our gratefulness to that group .
Therefore what evidence is there that Mr Brown doesn’t know who is represented by the new Auckland council trust and how do we know that he does not feel obliged to them.
As a private Investigator I have done substantial work on a group called the committee for Auckland , a recent LGOIMA request revealed that 63 out of the 72 members of the committee for Auckland hold contracts with council . This group of contractors play a vital role in the running of council and even advise council, their future and their existence depends on a mayor accommodating them, -could they be the new Auckland council trust, the name certainly fits their intent as they were the very people who promoted the super city and pushed for it.
Intuitively I believe that this “ new Auckland Council trust “ could well be a cover name for the committee for Auckland so as to lend its support to Mr Brown and I believe that Mr Brown would know that the money came from them for his continued support .
Mr Brown appears to condone the use of fictional trusts and believe that he point blank dismissed investigation into a similar “ trust” the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )which operated from council premises and used council resources for the personal pecuniary gain of the manager of the dog and stock division because investigation into AWINZ would also bring about questions into the fictional “new Auckland Council trust” both have a lot in common they are both fictional and are a cover for corruption .
There is a requirement for transparency and by using a name of something which cannot be proved to exist Mr Brown has not made an accurate declaration on his return .Fiction has no place in election returns Mr Bron is a lawyer he knows the principles behind the existence of a legal person and as a lawyer he also knows how to circumvent the law.
Section 112 A requires the name of a donor .. something which does not exist cannot donate , neither can it have an address. I further request that an investigation be conducted as to why 112A was not complied with
Unincorporated trusts only exist through their respective trustees and there is therefore a need for the trustees to be identified on the return as the persons who gave the donation and if it is from a trust there is a need to show that this trust deed is legal and intended the recipient to be Mr Brown and not others . (how do we know that the deed has been lawfully executed if the deed exists.. other beneficiaries i.e. mayoral candidates could well have missed out )
I there for request that urgent investigations are undertaken into the New Auckland council trust to establish, its legal existence, the identity of the settlor, the trustees and identify the beneficiaries and have this information disclosed publicly in a transparent manner 103C Donations to be transmitted to candidate- makes it clear that the donations are transmitted through a person.. the new Auckland trust is not a person it is a bunch of words strung together to give the illusion of the existence of a ( legal ) person
I also request that in accordance with section 103F Identity of donor to be disclosed by transmitter, if known is complied with it requires accountability on the transmitter, where the donation is made through a phantom trust or a fictional being there can be no accountability or obligation , one has to question how something which does not exist can transmit a donation.. who is the person who acted and why are they hiding ?
I also request this matter to be passed on to the Police for an investigation into whether or not this trust which I believe is run by the committee for Auckland is being used to influence contracts and governance of Auckland.
Should the trust not be identifiable and the deed not forthcoming I ask that a declaration is made that the money was received anonymously and treated in accordance with section section 103j for transfer into the general account .
I request this investigation in terms of section 15 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 for both the 2010 and 2013 mayoral campaigns
In the interest of transparency I am publishing this request on the transparency NZ blog
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Earlier this year I posted an article entitled Wendy Brandon strikes to silence me again In this post I referred to two comments left on my blog these comments came from 220.127.116.11, gb-g01-c03-c.student.vuw.ac.nz E-mail: Wendyhouse@aliceinwonderland.co.nz and IP: 18.104.22.168,cable.telstraclear.net E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ( respectively ) these posts were left on the anticorruption web site .
In July two comments were left on my verisure web site by “You friend (IP: 22.214.171.124 , 203-97-216-112.cable.telstraclear.net) E-mail : Wb@councilania.com the comment was “Are you a lezza?” ” Crazy coot, what a hoot, court then jail then the loony bin!”
a few days latter a friend of mine had a post left on his site IP: 126.96.36.199, cable.telstraclear.net email Poo@gmail.com stating ” Stop lying, Grace” , a week later a friend of mine was shocked to find an absolute crass statement on her web site, Ip address was IP: 188.8.131.52
In september IP: , 191-98-132-193-dynamic.callplus.net.nz was used by yourlesbiandesire@gmail revering to themselves ms W
I had no idea who was responsible I suspected two persons and made a complaint to the police who would not intervene
I November I went overseas I came back on 7 December after nearly 24 hours of travel and transit I hit the sack and was woken at 6 am in the morning by a phone call , the caller would not identify himself and claimed that there was a mentally disturbed flat mate who had been sending the messages and it was now some how urgent that the mention of the Ip address in this document now necessitate the removal of that document from the web site. ,
This is how it went down initial conversation with Will Robertson
I phoned the caller, he was using phone number still didn’t know who he was at this stage but he said that Mark was Mark Tighe , I had received emails from a junior Tighe sent the night before but which I had not seen.
these are the emails Will Robertson sends emails posing as Junior Tighe
I ran the emails from Junior through the IP locator and guess what 184.108.40.206 crops up again .
I contact Will and the texts continue later texts Will Robertson I wont bore you with all of them but some where along the way I Google the phone number and find that the number comes up on the
the face book page for Bahasa Indonesia Studies Association, Wellington – BISA _ Facebook, Wills details are at the bottom right of the page
William Robertson or Will Robertson 6 Telford Tce, Oriental Bay 0220445287.
I also established that he is on the executive for the NZIA (New Zealand Indonesia Association)
I later received a phone call from a girl claiming to be Jane Robertson who asked ME to stop intimidating this stalker brother of hers because he was not well .. Hello?????? he stalked me for 6 months and I am the aggressor? she used the phone number 4 385 3244, I have established that a Jane Elizabeth ROBERTSON the partner of Mike THOMPSON lives at 6/262 Oriental Parade, Oriental Bay, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand
I would love to have any information from any one who has been similarly stalked by William Robertson , I am fully convinced that his actions are not random. If they were then he is a very sick boy and I am not his only victim.
Is the Will Robertson Pictured the guy at Telford terrace? the Bash indonesian person ? Jane Robertsons Brother ? ever since I phoned this guy at the embassy theater ( he sounded a lot like the Will I had spoken to ) things have gone quite .. not so funny when stalkers are stalked .
When we amalgamated into Auckland Council we were told things would get even better and when we merged into super city it was to be better still. So now we pay close on $5,000 per year in rates and all our services have been cut back . SO where is the money going ?? Have we merged so that we can provide services for others while they claim that we who earn probably less than them pay more rates ?
Comparing figures from the old councils annual report (Auckland City Council Annual Report 2009/2010 – summary) with the new super city annual report there are several things which become obvious
if you go through the annual reports of the legacy councils and focus on the rates income you will note that there is a vast difference between the rates income for Auckland city and the others councils. Then if you add up all the incomes divide by 16 multiply by 12 ( because it is a 16 month report for some reason ) you will see that the actual rates take for Auckland council is no where near the sum which the combined councils received. My rough calculations showed a deficit of over 100 million. Would love to know why there is such a difference!
We talk about millions like they $$ in the audit reports but when it comes to expenses we make a big thing out of millions of dollars. The reality is that we are not shown a per head rateable $ per income earner that would give us a true indication of who is paying what .
While Councillors claim that it would cost 15 million for lawns to be mowed and therefore generate a saving is commendable but why have they not questioned the 42 million which has been paid out to ” other employee benefits “ and 108 million in grants contribution and sponsorship.
At least in providing a lets keep the city looking like a park rather than a hay paddock provides something for everyone we cant see the employee benefits or the grants and then there are the consultant and the corruption which don’t even get consideration
Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought that we paid our rates for the maintenance and development of the infrastructure and common assets of the council of which the road verges are one. I look upon the council being like a big body corporate we all pay towards the upkeep its like paying body corp fees and the body corporate decides to give the fees away to a charity or set up a private business venture which has noting to do with the running of the body corporate.. bit like councils running a film studio… which of course they do
I do have to wonder how the $15,000,000 for verges was obtained I am sure if they got quotes from individual contractors who work in each area then this work would be tied in with lawns they mowed commercially by individual contractors they may even be able to take on some unemployed persons and give them some work, now there is a radical thought. All it would take from councils end is liaison point to co ordinate contracts,complaints and feed back All this for the price less than a consultant.
What was done particularly badly was the communication Lawns were just left we did not know what was happening .
I do so hope that I get the numbers I am looking forward to getting a breakdown on these massive undefined figures so that we can all see where the money is going. would love to see some $ pay for up keep of our city next we will be asked to sweep the streets and clean out the gutters outside our homes.
My response is as follows
You have raised an issue close to my heart.
I have been a residential land lord for 25 years and cannot get my head around why land lords are responsible for an amenity used by tenants.
I have a well-documented background on raising issues with Metrowater and Watercare with regards to the responsibilities of Land lords with regards to water.
The legislation provides that Auckland council supply water to its residents, somehow the land lords have become piggy in the middle , I was told that this was because it’s easier to get money from Land lords than from tenants who move on and use different names.
Water should be exactly the same as Power, gas and telephone except that it should be the land lords responsibility to ensure that the house is connected to the water mains ( this comes under different statute )
Since landlords are generally not at the property how can they possibly undertake that no one will interfere with the water pipes or meters?
Why are Landlords water on sellers by default ? how does that affect the consumers rights with the supplier or does that make the lad lord the supplier?
Fixed costs were part of our rates in the past and they should again be part of the rates leaving only one bill which is for consumption and this should go to the consumer.. the land lord is NOT the consumer.
So in short my reply is a. and if elected I propose to simplifying water supply to cut out the middlemen ( ie Landlords )
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz