PRESS RELEASE: Epsom Independent candidate ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden
“I have decided to stand as an ‘Independent’ candidate in my home electorate of Epsom. I am seeking accountability from government and to achieve this I will be campaigning for an Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)”), says ‘anti-Corruption whistle-blower’ Grace Haden. (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/)
“I believe that a by-election in Epsom is essential to keep the public spotlight on the corrupt practices surrounding the resignation of ACT MP John Banks, but also shine it on the reality of the widespread corruption which is becoming more and more evident in New Zealand.
“The harsh reality is that New Zealand’s “least corrupt country in the world “tag line is not reality but a perception and as such ,the perception is a false illusion a façade . The perception index (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/) is frequently misquoted and does not correlate with the fact that we are one of a small handful of countries which have not ratified the United Nations convention against corruption. “(https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html)
“Despite New Zealand claiming to be “the least corrupt “ , I , a former long-serving Police officer, (and Police prosecutor), now a licensed Private Investigator, have found it impossible to get corruption investigated in New Zealand by any of the so called public watch dogs. I have discovered that we do not have corruption because we do not define it and turn a wilful blind eye to it, as occurred in the John Banks case. “
“8 years ago, I questioned serious public corruption, provided facts and evidence to support my allegations, but so far, to no avail.” I have discovered that Corruption does ruin lives – It tore my family apart.”
“Enough is enough. No one else should have to go through what I have had to endure. Lessons need to be learned from the past and solutions found for the future. Cancer cannot be treated without a diagnosis and this is also true with corruption. Ignore corruption and like cancer it will consume us.
“New Zealand desperately needs an Independent Commission Against Corruption, and I am pleased to report that I now have an MP who will present a petition which I initiated, seeking
“That the House legislate to set up an independent Commission against Corruption, tasked with the prevention, education, detection and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.”
I have a well-established background in fighting and exposing corruption in New Zealand, these are documented on the following web sites http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/, http://www.transparency.net.nz/, http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Convict 1. Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.
Convict 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:
con•vict verb (used with object)
1.to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial: to convict a prisoner of a felony.
2. to impress with a sense of guilt.
Why it matters
Electoral Act 1993 55 How vacancies created
The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice;
The offence with which Banks was charged is an offence punishable with imprisonment of 2 years .
It is interesting that currently our legislation does not have a definition for convicted but up until 1 July 2013 the crimes act 1961 carried such a definition which was repealed on that date this definition read.
3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment’‘—For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—
(a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
(b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
(c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44 or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
(d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation
The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.
Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced.. Yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this.
The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty.
Since our legislation no longer defines Convicted we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning
There are many examples in legislation which point to the fact that convicted still means guilty e.g.
Criminal Procedure Act 2011 section 147
4) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—
• (a) the prosecutor has not offered evidence at trial; or
• (b) in relation to a charge for which the trial procedure is the Judge-alone procedure, the court is satisfied that there is no case to answer; or
• (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.
So how could a jury convict any one if this is something that is only in the realm of a judge and done after being found guilty?
The reality is that this makes sense only if to convict and to find guilty are one and the same thing.
The plot thickens when you read the judgement R v BANKS  Paragraph 6
 The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.
The crimes act definition of convicted still existed at that time as it was not repealed until 1.July 2013
The criteria for section 3 crimes act Print/Download PDF (5.5MB)or see it on it own Crimes Act 1961 S 3 are therefore the criteria which apply to this decision and he question is was he found guilty on indictment.
The answers to that are again in the decision
 The indictment reads as follows…
 I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge
The only possible outcome in that case is that John Archibald banks is convicted
We have brought this to the attention of the court by way of memorandum, this was filed at about 3.15 pm Friday 6 June 2006
memorandum for registrar.
We will keep you posted.
Perhaps the government in the meantime would like to attend to the definition of Convicted.
Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand
This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.
In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.
The charities commission directed my complaint to you .
This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.
I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .
I have just taken time to look at submissions for the animal welfare bill and within the multitude of pages I find a submission by Neil Wells . Neil Wells evidence text [PDF 258k] and Neil Wells supp [PDF 141k]
In the submission he starts off stating
I agree with the general policy statement that the Bill will “improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.”
Transparency ? run that past me gain ? wasn’t it Mr Wells who made an application to the minister for approved status using a false name ?
Did he then not run this enterprise himself using the councils staff and resources while not disclosing that there was no one else involved ?
So why does he not list his experience of 10 years running an approved organization? and why did he not even mention the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand? ( AWINZ ) .
I rather suspect that he has not mentioned AWINZ because it would not read well saying
I was the author of a Private Member’s Bill presented to Parliament by Hon Pete Hodgson in 1998, which was later joined with the government’s Animal Welfare Bill (No. 2).
I served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills.
I applied for approved status for an organization which did not exist and which was actually me using a pseudonym.
I ran the approved organization for 10 years using the Waitakere city council staff and resources , prosecuted and banked the proceeds into a bank account which I operated in the name of AWINZ .
I suspect that if he had written that some one might have said.. there is something wrong here.. perhaps conflict or interest even and some one might say “hey is it OK to write legislation for your own business plan and advise on it and implement it under a false name then cover up using the court. ? ”
At Point three of his main submission Wells states
A statute is only as good as the procedures available for enforcement of its provisions, the detection of offences, and the prosecution of offenders.
3.1 Enforcement and prosecuting authorities
There are three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations.
3.2 The Police
While every member of the Police is deemed to be an inspector the Police rarely take complaints related to animal welfare breaches and instead refer the complainant to the SPCA.
MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.
3.4 Approved organisations
It appears odd to me that Neil Wells does not mention his own first hand experience with running an approved organization . but for once I find myself agreeing with Mr Wells he states
MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.
It transpires the MPI could not even discern the difference between a legal person and a fiction, a truth and a falsehood . The falsehoods from Mr Wells as to the existence of AWINZ were swallowed hook line and sinker and each obstacle was overcome with another tall tale . he goes on to say
There is currently one approved organisation that is authorised to recommend the appointment of Inspectors and through those appointments, to enforce the Act and prosecute offenders — the Royal New Zealand SPCA.
But he doesn’t mention AWINZ Mr Wells using council staff which had been offered for use by his associate Tom Didovich without apparent authority from the council hierarchy . Wells points out how rare it is to have private law enforcement authorities
There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of animal welfare law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.
Mr Wells using the council staff and resources prosecuted under the guise of the fictional AWINZ and pocketed the money into an account only he had access too, funds which he has since used to haul me through court so as to cover up the criminal activity associated with AWINZ.
If we were to adapt the model which Mr Wells had set up there would be no need for funding as it ensured that public assets were used for private pecuniary gain. I am sure that any accountant would tell you that there were serious flaws with Mr Wells model and to prosecute through an authority which has no legal existence ensures that there is no accountability to the public and no one can hold you accountable as there is no identifiable and sue able person to take on. the dangers of this relationship are expressed by Mr Wells in this comment
Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.
I could not agree more , when an organization can increase its income through prosecution and incidentally giving people a criminal conviction it becomes very serious , take that one step further and if there is no organization and the law enforcement authority is in reality just one person who has obtained law enforcement powers using a false identity then it has to be SERIOUS , especially when council, MPI, ministers, OAG all go out of their way to cover this up or turn a blind eye to it.
The statements he made in his submisson shows just how serious the matter with regards to the fictional AWINZ was
The Law Commission in its paper Delivering Justice For All (2004) commented that “the operation of the criminal justice system is the responsibility of the state.” Judge Garland in R v Balfour said that “the SPCA was effectively standing in the shoes of the government.”
In reality therefore Neil Wells was one person standing in the shoes of the government , so when I asked the question why AWINZ did not exist, it was far easier to crucify me than it was for any government department to say Oops we gave law enforcement authority to a fictional organisation.
AWINZ has proved that there was a lack of accountability , we still do not know who was regarded to be the organisation no one can identify the real people actually involved. we know that Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil wells and Tom Didovich posed as the organsiation and claimed the law enforcement powers as their own but there is not one document which can be produced from any legitimate source which supports that claim.
Incidentally it Was Tom Didovich who supported Wells application on behalf of Waitakere city council
When the application for approved status was made there was no trust deed, there was no group of people who had decided to apply for approved organization status, there was just Neil Wells and his own business plan for making money . In 2006 when I discovered that AWINZ did not exist , Neil Wells tried to contact four people who he had spoken to in 1998 who had been recruited by Didovich for the possibility of forming a trust with council to facilitate the delivery of animal welfare services.
Council paid for this through Didovich , but the persons never met as a trust. In 2006 there was not a trust deed ( it was claimed to be missing ) and I have conclusively proved that these persons did not form a trust until three months after the application for approved status was made and that they were not the approved organisation .
Graeme Coutts , Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap were all recruited because of their station in life or perceived station in life , they never met as a trust and never applied for approved status , they were not the law enforcement authority .
Under Item 17 clause 35 Mr Wells describes the pilot scheme set up by him to trial animal welfare in councils , he again fails to mention that it was set up at his instigation and that this led on to the fictitious AWINZ being created.
While I commend Mr Wells concern for little furry things he has had no such compassion for Humans especially when it came to me and my family. Wells has totally destroyed my family and financially stripped me. Mr Wells in my opinion is nothing but a criminal at large who has used the courts to pervert the course of justice so as to conceal his criminal offending.
I do not believe that any one can treat humans and animals differently , to be cruel to a human ( yes I have suffered at Mr Wells hands for 8 Years ) makes a mockery of the perception of being humanitarian .
If AWINZ had been legitimate ( it was not ) I would have expected Mr Wells to have made mention of it. His manner of dealing with AWINZ , or should I say avoiding it in his submission , to me at least proves his guilt .
I think that it is about time some one dealt with the reality that AWINZ was nothing more than a name Mr Wells had given himself, he had used others to cover up , when they realized how serious things had become ,they could not back out for they too had committed offences through him by being party to a raft of offences from being accessory after the fact to parties tothe the offence of using the court to pervert the course of justice.
this was done through a tactic called
DARVO – Acronym of “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”.
I was the whistle blower and was made out to be the villain Wells became the Victim picked on by this deranged woman . It is a powerful strategy and it works in New Zealand especially when you can show that you are kind to animals.
Well I am kind to animals and to humans.. hasn’t helped me.
The victim stance is a powerful one . the victim is always morally right neither responsible nor accountable and forever entitled to sympathy
I can prove everything I say and I am speaking the truth , I will again send this to Mr Wells and draw this to his attention so that corrections can be made .
Again I will ask him to provide evidence.. that is the one thing that those who make things up always lack. If you want evidence from my side all you need to do is ask I have truckloads of the stuff.
Recently Steve Hart Interviewed Suzanne Snively on his show , which we believe require clarification we may have to spread the load over several posts as we do not wish to go into overload.
the Interview can be listened to here we will respond in order starting with the elevator speech
The elevator speech
Suzanne’s Elevator speech was far more in line with her own objectives than that of the objectives formally adopted by the incorporated society , her response proves that she has no idea what the objectives of the society are shown at point 4 on the latest rules
The registered objectives are principally “to promote transparency, good governance and ethical practices in all sectors of society in New Zealand”
There is nothing in the rules which says anything about focusing on building stronger integrity systems or praising a society for being “already trusting “by deliberately ignoring corruption which is occurring.
I really have to wonder where the assumption of the already trusting society comes from Susan Snively is an economist and I have learned that assumptions are a very good starting point for economists.
“A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One can only imagine what sort of play date went awry to land them there. Anyway, they’re hungry. Like, desert island hungry. And then a can of soup washes ashore, Campbells Chicken Noodle, let’s say. Which is perfect, because the physicist can’t have much salt, and the chemist doesn’t eat red meat.
But, famished as they are, our three professionals have no way to open the can. So they put their brains to the problem. The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” And the chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.”
Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”
While on the subject of assumptions it has become apparent to me that Suzanne Snively may not be familiar with the legislation which governs the incorporated society , as will be noted later in the interview she said that she was unsure of the structure of Transparency International and thought that it was a company.
The overriding feeling of the interview was that Suzanne wanted to recruit more members so as to increase revenue but Incorporated societies do not exist for pecuniary gain.
Suzanne claims that there are about 100 members , if you look at the web site you will see that the vast majority of the members are connected with either the large audit companies who contract to the office of the auditor general or are Government departments or past employees of these departments.
The perception which can be gained from the membership list is that the vast majority of the members have a vested interest in keeping the lid on corruption In New Zealand. This becomes obvious when you visit the partners/ sponsors page
There is one golden rule which pertains to impartiality and that is you cannot be impartial if you comprised of and paid for by the people whose integrity you are judging.
This in itself means that there is a lack of integrity.
Any good economist will tell you that if you get your wages paid by a group of people and or organisations that they will no doubt employ you again in the future if you do a favourable job.
So in this instance TINZ did an integrity study on 13 pillars this is who worked on them and how they were funded, note that I have paired up the funders to the pillar which they would most naturally be associated with . The researchers are as mentioned in the integrity report . You can see who funded and researched the various pillars here Who funded and worked on the various pillars
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”
Suzanne’s perception of the TINZ chapter
- only 5% of the population knows it exists.
My comment: Yes but they sure get the false message out that there is no corruption in New Zealand
- The group that was initially involved was focused on building a chapter but not necessarily on how to get the message out to the wider community
My comment: They were and still are Government servants dressed up as a watchdog to tell the country how well they are concealing corruption.
- I knew nothing about TI until I became a director
My comment: I am so impressed that Susan Has learnt so much about corruption in New Zealand in three short years especially since she has never examined corruption and does not wish to know it is there, In typical Economist style she has carefully studied everything except the reality
Three economists went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first economists fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second economists fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third economists didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”
- At about the same time a colleague became executive chairman of the Cambodian branch he got funding and got over a million dollars.
My comment: My own suspicion is that Susan saw the possibility of becoming the CEO and getting funding to pay her wages , I have sen this tactic used in many incorporated societies, most of the members dont care a toss and leave one person to run the joint and let them find a way to get their own wages . Incorporated societies are not supposed to work that way but when you can be part of an organization which protects you from scrutiny in your day job then its a great trade of for some.
- we do have some govt members at the moment they became members to support the work of the TI integrity systems assessment
My comment: there is no integrity in getting people to fund the independent research which affects them , its like paying for advertising and a lot more efficient when a government department e.g. the office of the auditor general can pay some one to show how effective they are being. That is far more economic than actually doing a good job
Q:Why did God create economists ?
A:In order to make weather forecasters look good
- very few people are aware of how well we score internationally and that international perceptions of our lack of corruption are not as widely understood across NZ as it could be , if it is true that we can be proud of as because it makes a difference to us as a trading nation in terms of how we trade and do business
My comment:it is all about boosting business not about the reality
Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.
Experienced economist: “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!”
Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating it so he does and collects money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit.
Not so experienced economist: “Now, if YOU eat this shit I’ll give YOU $20,000.”
After evaluating the proposal experienced economist eats shit getting the money.
They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”
Experienced economist: “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve been just involved in $40,000 of trade.”
- the international perception is that we have the least or amongst the least corrupt public sector in the world
My comment: Yes that perception is kept alive by the members of transparency International New Zealand who are those very same govt departments and also fund the work to make themselves look great.
- It means that you can get up in the morning and go about your business without paying a backhander without paying facilitation or a bribe.
My comment: I agree there are very few bribes or backhanders in New Zealand but on the other hand every one has some dirt on every one else and although the monitary transactions dont come into it , there are often winks and nods involved… same thing- corruption
- we focus on systemic issues around corruption to ensure that there are systems in place that deal with corruption
My comment: but TINZ deal with the hypothetical only and refuse to look at the corruption which is occurring to learn from it to see how it occurs. You cannot combat something which you dont understand.
Q: What is a recent economics graduate’s usual question in his first job?
A: What would you like to have with your french fries sir?
to be continued …..
If all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion.
– George Bernard Shaw
I have the petition calling for a commission against corruption
I asked to circulate it at the certified fraud examiners meeting and was declined, have approached political parties for support and was declined. I took to the streets and got support .
I now have a petition ready to go its done signed and all it needs is a minister to present it .. therein lies the rub .
have tried a few who site conflict of interest ( what the hec ??? ) but I obviously have not yet asked those who have stated that they support the call for a commission against corruption so lets see who will be true to their cause.
Today I was sent a link to Lauda Finem , really good read and right on the button .
Guess the difference between Australia is chalk and cheese .. or if you like Wine and Milk .
New Zealand can be likened to the small cute child who thinks they can get away with murder, there is a story to cover every scenario and we dont look at facts for the basis of our research instead we look at statistics and other ( carefully selected ) peoples opinions.
This mode of is evident in the research which Transparency International New Zealand does . The shinning light of Transparency International New Zealand is Susan Snively..In fact I rather suspect that she is the only person involved an that the others are just there as window dressing .( hence no minutes )
Susan is an economist Wikipedia defines an economist as a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy.
In a recent radio interview Play now Susan identifies her sources of information , it clearly puts her in the “apply theories and concepts from economics” category, she speaks of working from statistics and no where is there any real evidence of actually having spoken to the people who would be involved i.e. the women who she claims are the victims of domestic abuse or the employers who she alleges are losing out because of it. In other words her study research and outcomes are derived from second hand information and delivered as” fact”
It is significant to note that she refers to the funding , ( the funders are shown here ), the corner stone platinum funder is the office of the auditor general the same auditor general who has refused to investigate the misappropriation and misuse of council resources and the fraudulent application to the minister for law enforcement powers and the subsequent issuing of coercive law enforcement powers to an organization which does not exist in any legal manner or form.
The ministry itself plays cat and mouse and is actively involved in concealment of corruption see MPI conceals corruption by playing cat and mouse and MPI apparently condone Neil Wells deception with regards to the fictional AWINZ
Compare that to the resignation of the Australian state leader over a $3200 bottle of wine, while Len Brown is still in office despite having received $750,000 from an unidentifiable un locatable private secret trust .. I am told Police investigations are continuing, since the police are not really conversant with trusts dont hold your breath .
I think that the call for a commission agaisnt corruption cannot be soon enough and it should be an election issue .
In the mean time any MP wishing to make a stand agaisnt corruption in New Zealand, I have a petition ready to go .
Transparency International ( New Zealand) has recently undertaken a national integrity survey.
A quick look at their web site http://www.transparency.org.nz/ flashes up messages such as” Least corrupt public sector in the world “.“New Zealand’s high trust public sector is its greatest competitive advantage”
The integrity survey cost $174,320 , the accounts do not reveal who the recipients of that payment was but I do believe that a sizable chunk of it went to the chair person Susan Snively .
the survey was funded in the following manner
National Integrity Systems Assessment
Donation: Gama Foundation $15,000
Office of the Auditor General $30.000
The Treasury $30.000
Ministry of Justice $30.000
Statistics New Zealand $15.000
States Services Commission $10.000
Ministry of Social Development $10.000
now look at the pillars of the integrity system they are
Legislature (pillar 1)
Political executive – Cabinet (pillar 2)
Judiciary (pillar 3)
Public sector (pillar 4)
Law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies (pillars 5 and 9)
Electoral management body (pillar 6)
Ombudsman (pillar 7)
Supreme audit institution (pillar 8)
Political parties (pillar 10)
Media (pillar 11)
Civil society (pillar 12)
Business (pillar 13)
looking in particular at the Supreme audit institution you will note that the $15,000 donation in 2012 and the $30,000 donation 2013 have not been wasted.
When you see high scores like that you could be mistaken in thinking that this is the reality . The reality is that Here in New Zealand we are very good at manipulating data .
Three pages worth looking at at the auditor generals we site
Fist of all How fraud was detected
Internal control systems were deemed to be the most effective method of detecting fraud . This is best assessed in conjunction with the Price Water House coopers publication prepared on behalf of the auditor general page 85 is particularly interesting in that it shows a very low percentage of entities having a whistle-blowers hotline.
But internationally Whistleblowers are Still the Best at Detecting Fraud.
It is no surprise that this is not the case in New Zealand as the systems are not in place for whistle blowers according to the auditor generals own figures .
What I notice here is that all the frauds are $$ based. In true auditor style we need figures. but not all frauds occur in such a way that good book keeping can pick them up – there is a very large field called Identity fraud which is not represented in the tables and I wonder if it is at all considered.
Again we have the word theft occurring repeatedly , Theft generally implies that you have something and next it is gone without your permission.
The frauds which are very prevalent in New Zealand are identity frauds perpetrated through fictitious organizations and secret trusts.
Money is moved from one entity into a seemingly legitimate trust and then the trust is split off and dissolved in a very non transparent manner
The fraud which has impacted on my life is one where a person pretended to be a trust. a fictitious trust obtained law enforcement powers and the one person carried out the duties of this fictional trust using the staff and resources of a council . This type of fraud is apparently condoned by the auditor general as shown by this correspondence.correspondence with the auditor general
The office of the auditor general claims to be Parliaments watch dog it would appear that this watch dog is asleep as the office of the auditor General in New Zealand condones fraud as follows
- 1. Making a false application to the minister 22 November 1999 this document in itself is a fraud on the government .. using a document for a pecuniary advantage. AWINZ does not exist it is not a legal person in any manner or form. condoning a criminal act.
- 2. Central government giving coercive law enforcement powers to an entity which does not exist and no one checks for its exists, even when they know it does not exist they continue to pretend that it does. condoning a criminal act.
- 3. MPI not having the slightest idea of what a trust is and how a trust should function, and allowing the false application to be justified because 6 years later they received a trust deed which was signed 3 months after the application was made. The fact that the people who had signed that deed had never met or made a valid decision between, was totally beside the point. condoning incompetence .
- 4. MAF ( now MPI) not being in possession of a trust deed with the party to whom law enforcement powers had been given and then getting a trust deed which was altered or fabricated, and ignoring this despite having this pointed out to them. Deed provide June 2006 this is the deed MAF have on file condoning incompetence .
- 5. Using fictions names for contracts to local and central government. Mou Waitakere & MOU MAF condoning a criminal act.
- 6. Council employees contracting to themselves Mou Waitakere ( Mr Wells became both parties to this contract). condoning a criminal act.
- 7. Employees obtaining employment at council without declaring a conflict of interest condoning corrupt actions .
- 8. Council manager writing to the crown consenting to the use of staff and resources to fictional third parties North shore city and Waitakere city condoning this corrupt action.
- 9. Council managers using council resources in a manner so that the premises take on a look and feel of a private enterprise , even MAf was confused as to where the fictional AWINZ finished and the council property began . condoning a criminal act.
- 10. Use of council resources to solicit donations the funds of which are then misappropriated ( you were there when I did my presentation) condoning a criminal act.
- 11. Allowing a trust set up in 2006 to pretend to be the law enforcement authority . This trust became a charity and has used its charitable funds, obtained from the public to conceal corruption condoning a criminal act.
- 12. The processes within the government department and councils are such that they serve to conceal fraud as the very persons involved and implicated for their lack of diligence are put in charge of the release of information, additionally Mr Wells was consulted on what was released to me and what was not there was no impartiality between the department/ council and third parties condoning this incompetent practice .
Why do we have to pretend to be the least corrupt why cant we deal with the reality , Corruption happens, dont condone it deal with it that will ensure that corruption does not ruin lives .
By outsourcing your services to private enterprise teh office of the auditor general has lost control over the process , but in the end its the perception that is worth preserving and that is why the office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International New Zealand , that is as good as any watch dog being a member of the local gang.
so much for the rules of independence
Open letter to Murray Sheard
I work as a licensed private Investigator, I was a former Police prosecuting Sergeant. The corruption I see on a daily basis appalls me.
I see our courts being used to perpetrate and conceal criminal actions. Evidence and truth have no apparent place in our courts and lawyers who are officers of the court can lie their teeth out without fear of repercussion and are believed over physical evidence to the contrary.
I tried to join TI-NZ three times each time I have been declined , Susan now says that it is because of the name of my company,.. For the record I set that up after I was declined the first time. I set up Transparency New Zealand because someone has to take corruption in New Zealand seriously and TI-NZ does not.
I appreciate that TINZ does not look at individual cases but TI-NZ goes further than that and totally ignores what is going on and is compounding to the corruption issue in New Zealand by attempting to discredit those of us who are saying that the alleged low level of corruption is a device for entrapment.
For the record currently I am dealing with a woman who has not had one cent of her matrimonial property settlement , she has been left millions down despite being married to a wealthy man for over 30 years such cases are frequent, wives are cheaper than prostitutes and housekeepers you can swindle a wife and spit her out at the other end all done using the court to deny her, her legal rights. ( unfortunately she is not the first and she won’t be the last it is a trend amongst those married to the very rich or to lawyers .
A wealthy American was charged with 22 counts for fraud. His co offender was convicted , he skipped the county for 5 years did a deal with the crown law office and his charges were dropped, he had fabricated a director and liquidator for a company to avoid paying a $65,000 bill
I am dealing with a man who had a call from the bailiff demanding $15,000 , it appears that a claim went through disputes tribunal where an insurance broker simply said his boat was hit by another then named someone in the neighbourhood who had recently moved. No evidence not even the name of his boat he is suddenly liable for a ridiculous sum, the court should never have found any one liable when there is not one photograph of alleged damage or any evidence of their involvement.
Secret trusts are our weapon of deceit , they are so secret no one sees them and the mention of such a trust is sufficient to win any court case because our lawyers all use them to conceal their assets and hide reality.
We regularly have proceedings commenced without a party being served papers, My own company was put into liquidation that way the first I knew was when the official assignee called. This also happened to a lady whose child is being legally abducted by the sperm donors parent .. all done through the court all done through deception , the grand parents of this youngest of 5 children want to replace their druggy son who killed himself on a motor bike , they now want to pull a family apart and our courts facilitate this through not punishing persons for false affidavits.
My personal crime in life was to ask MPI why law enforcement powers had been given to the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) . AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form it is merely identity fraud condoned at very high levels. The only man hiding behind that name was the man who had written the animal welfare act and facilitated the issuing of such law enforcement powers , he also advised on the legislation as independent adviser and further to that he ran the operation from Waitakere city council premises using council resources infrastructure and staff for personal enrichment ( he had a bank account in the name of AWINZ which only he administered. )My second crime in life was to ask council why a council manager could use council facilities for his own use ( public office private gain—all sanctioned in NZ )
We do not have an avenue for keeping any one ,least of all lawyers accountable to the law. The law is used for the furtherance of corruption and Government departments are paying T-INZ handsomely to give good reports to show how well we are doing . Keeping the perception alive
When we pretend there is no corruption more people get hurt.. corruption does ruin lives it destroyed my family yet TI-NZ stands by protects the very people who help conceal corruption.
As a besides. I am a member of the certified fraud examiners association , It would appear that Susan Snively has reported me to the association to have me removed from the membership based on a court judgement for defamation in which I had my rights to a defence removed and the other party committed perjury. In New Zealand we do not prosecute perjury so without an obligation to truth in the courts our courts have become excessively unsafe.
Murray if you are truly interested in corruption in New Zealand and not in the perception , then you may wish to meet with me, I have lots of hard evidence, it is not just the fact that these things occur but when we conceal and cover up these matters that is a true indication that corruption is out of control. A country which is truly anti-corruption would deal with corruption and its perpetrators.
It would be nice for Transparency New Zealand and transparency International to work together to truly make New Zealand the least corrupt by ensuring that corruption is viewed seriously and dealt with harshly .
But that is not going to happen there are simply too many who enjoy this false pretence as it paves their way to riches.
I look forward to hearing from you , but I won’t hold my breath
This will be published on Transparency NZ web site
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 ?