Transparency New Zealand

Vivienne  You  have made my life hell for 12 years  and I have all but come to the end of my tether ,  12 years after phoning me and intimidating me you decide  that  the truth I  have spoken  is defamatory .  Vivienne truth is never defamatory .. if you don’t like the way your actions reflect on you, try acting  in a positive manner .

You have blocked all email communications and are using the court process to cause me stress and  duress and waste my time,  I am totally over it .

You filed an  unsigned  memorandum in court this week seeking  discovery of the documents which I have already sent you links to and  explained in a lengthy affidavit (which is  subject to the rules of perjury) . see it here  affidavit discovery signed

Because the links are no longer active after  scanning I took the  care to send  a copy to  your work email  Vivienne.Holm@fma.govt.nz and you immediately blocked my email 

the full version of the affidavit with active  hyperlinks is  here discovery affidavit

It surprises me that you  do not know  how to open hyperlinks  and that you  do  not know that  the hyperlinks give you access to the  documents which you now want to put me to more trouble  to  to produce .

I have already  worked out that  you took defamation action to have  your name removed from search engines  and that  legal action is an apparent  requirement for  google   if you do a search on Vivienne Holm you will see this at the bottom of the page

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 25 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

more details can be seen here  https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16567636#

A simple back ground to this all  and very important  questions  which remain unanswered are here.

On 2  June 2006 Vivienne Holm, claiming to be a lawyer  Phoned me late at night   and  simply told me that if I did not  change the name of the trust that I was a trustee of that  she would  go after my Private investigators licence .    I call this intimidation

Even thought I gave up My private investigators license this year  due to on going  apparently ” orchestrated ” complaints , Vivienne has continued to pursue me  and   took defamation action  because  I mentioned her part in the larger  corruption  which  I have experienced  has been covered up  at all levels.

This phone call  centred on a trust which  I  with others had incorporated  to prove that the law enforcement authority by the same name had no legal existence and was at the centre of serious corruption in new zealand .

We currently have  a  massive fuss over an immigration matter , but  this involved a man writing legislation for his own  business plan, advising on it and setting up  one of only two    private law enforcement authorities  ever.  The RNZSPCA  has statutory powers the same  Statutory powers were enjoyed by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand( AWINZ)   which did not exist  in any   capacity other than an alter ego of the person who wrote the legislation and pocketed the money  .

It was this action that  Vivienne Holm was up to her neck in  in concealing this  corruption  by attacking me  and 12 years later after having  contributed to breaking up my  family  , my marriage causing me over  $300,000  in losses and forcing the sale of  the family home  she is still  at it and wants   to take a chunk from my pension .

the purpose of this open letter is to supply  Vivienne with the  Hyperlinks yet again, they are all  on the  various posts which  she complains  of  , the are on the affidavit  and they are again on the  Schedule of documents  which again was  affirmed  in the courts

By making them public I hope that she may be able to talk to one or two of her colleagues at the  FMA  and they may be able to explain a few things  to her about trusts  the  things I wish them  to explain to her as it worries me that lawyer  working for the FMA  does not appear to know

 the difference between a group of people who came together without a trust deed and without any   legal evidence of a trust existing  and a legally constituted  incorporated trust .

1. we incorporated our trust  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand on 27 April 2006 . The register was hard to search in those days and this way we knew that if another trust by that name existed then we could not be successful in registering it .
2. we were duly incorporated under number 1809454, we  were forced to change our name in 2017 due to the court action which Vivienne had commenced by  drafting the statement of claim  and her  husband  at the time, Nick wright  of Brookfields Continuing.
3. In the defamation claim which  she brought  on  behalf of  Neil Wells  and  the passing off claims  of three people who had no  evidence of being a trust  and who had first come together on 10 May 2006.
4. she worked on the statement of claim despite  having  official correspondence  from the ministry of economic developments  which stated that we had the name legitimately .
5. the problem was  that in 1999  Neil Wells had lied to the minister  and  had told him that AWINZ existed , he had lied   for 7 years  and  risked being caught out , in my mind   Vivienne Holm is a party to   conspiring to  conceal corruption

It also worries me that a woman who called herself a lawyer at the time of intimidating me  did not have a practicing certificate at the time   and  is now  suing me for defamation for saying so.

It further worries me that the   former resource management lawyer  who now works for the financial markets authority  appears to have a problem comprehending   documents .  such as

1.  Ministry of economic developments  stating that we were legitimate and that Neil Wells  group was not
2. the  two trust deeds which emerged in 2006  being different http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/trust-deed.pdf  and http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdfhttp://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/awinz-deed-maf-copy.pdf
3. that the 2000 trust deed  states   that  trustees are due for re appointment after three years  and the  evidence shows that  the trust never met even at conception , never held assets, or passed resolutions There was one reference to an alleged meeting in 2004  but no evidence of it  and  again a IRD number and bank account were obtained in 2005 ..  How is that possible with  legal existence  .
4. Wyn hoadley was appointed as trustee when the trust deed was missing  ,  she was appointed on 10 may 2006 under a section number which did not appear in the original deed   when there was no  evidence of previous activity of a group of persons . Or any evidence of compliance with the   provisions of the charitable trust act for appointing trustees 
5. there was no  evidence of a resolution  appointing solicitors .

If  she can turn a blind eye to this  what is Vivienne Holm doing in the FMA ? Or is it that Vivienne holm who has  spent a lot of time as a resource management lawyer does not understand trusts and legal entities ?

Vivienne sent  me  some documents by way of discovery with holm affirmed file  one was a  law society dossier

Now one of the  things that Vivienne felt ” defamed over ” is  the statement that   at the time she phoned me in June 2006 she was not a lawyer despite claiming to be . So Vivienne  send me the evidence that I was right  But continues to ask me to jump through hoops  while she continues her defamation action .  The evidence  in the law society dossier   is right here

To any educated person  this  means that  on 2/6/2006 when  Vivienne posed as a lawyer   she was not one  she ceased being a member  13 February 2006  and again became a  member 15  August 2006 when she  became a barrister.

The questions  which I would also like to know the answer to are

1. why would two barristers  instruct a resource management  law clerk

2. why  did you say you were researching defamation and  rang me in error  that later friday night .. why not simply hang up  and say sorry wrong number  why say  if you don’t change the name of your trust I will go after your private investigators licence.  and why back it up with emails ?

I do hope that some one   in the FMA   can look  at the   matter as it appears serious to me that a lawyer  working for the FMA  can be so confused about  legal entities  and lack comprehension to a degree where by  she cannot even interpret document she has in her own possession .

I have found everything about Vivienne’s approach as intimidation she continues to intimidate  and name call in the latest court document.

This is a cover up of Gross corruption   Why  is it being ignored 

IN 2006  Vivienne Holm was working at home as a law clerk for  Brookfields , she was  allegedly approached by Two Barristers   Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley  who  were pretending to be trustees of a trust which had never existed .

They had a dilemma you see in 1999 Neil Wells   had written legislation for the animal welfare act   and  had been an advisor to the select committee . He then made a fraudulent application to the  minister claiming that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed , it was in reality  just a fancy name  that he had thrown about the  offices of  MPI  for a while so that those who did not check  got used to  the sound of the name .

In the application  Wells claimed that AWINZ was  formed by trust deed , but then in letters to the minister he avoided sending  a copy of  the deed .  he said that the one deed had been sent off to be registered.

The  lawyers for the MPI believed him  and never checked  and then  in 2006   some one had  registered a trust with the same name   which  embarrassingly showed that Neil wells had told a lie .

But rather than deal with the lie   and  hold Wells accountable to the law   it was far easier to instruct a law clerk to put some pressure on the woman involved.. One Grace Haden

Grace Haden is the villain in this piece , she questioned corruption , this threatened not only the  fraud that  was AWINZ but also  the ability of the  government to verify its facts  and uphold the  law.

So the heroine of the story   enters .  “I will fix this” she said   and  takes it upon her self to  ring the wicked witch of the west  late one friday night and threatens her PI licence if she does not change the name  of the trust which she and others had legally incorporated . ( blackmail in most peoples books )  The witch is not a push over   so our heroine sends some   emails to  drive her threats home .

The  witch   using her magic powers locates our heroines  home  and on arriving there on her japanese power driven  broom stick  is confronted by   two  children  who say ” mummy is not home’   and calls daddy.   Daddy  sees  to it that the police serve a trespass notice  on the witch , last thing you want is to   intimidate some one and them have them call at your house to see if they can resolve the problem.

Next step is a lawyers letter .. Lawyers letters don’t need to be factual , they  just have to threaten in a nice way  , leaving no options and the best thing is to get a lawyer who  does not check what he is signing so  the letter is put in front of Davis Neutze of Brookfields .

The  letter is  sent  by the lawyers  who claim to represent  the fictional organisation which cannot legally    contract to a lawyer , they effectively  claim that the trust formed in march 2000  made  the application for law enforcement powers  in 1999 . they   go   totally  off on  a tangent  about  AWINZ being a charity , the reality  is that  it was not a charity , it was not a trust  it was  a name  that Neil Wells used when he    took on the law enforcement role using the staff of waitakere city council .  He establishing a bogus Trust for personal profit.  As the UN call it   public office for private gain

But who cares  this Is NZ the land of opportunity and   the magic of being a barrister means that one can do what ever they like as they are trusted and believed  and no one must never say anything   bad  let alone the truth  .If you do  then you will be crucified in court..  yes that  is what happened to the  the witch and  years  later they are still trying to tie her to a dunking chair.. hard to  believe that this is  2018

The fact that Wyn Hoadley and Neil Wells   did not have a trust deed , nor any other documents which could show that they  were  trustees  was beside the point.. the fact that they were barristers   made it all leggit . A law degree makes people honest    Yeh!!!!!

So the  humble law clerk  dashes out and in August 2006  becomes a barrister too (She got a practicing certificate to be a barrister )    and prepares the statement of claim  which will force the  witch of the west to  give up the name so that  the two barristers  can  perform their magic and   make the problem  and the lies  Vanish

David Neutze signs the letter  he doesn’t even notice that the trust deed he refers to is not there  , had he seen the trust deed he may have asked questions  like why is Wyn Hoadleys name not on it  and how and when did she  become a   trustee (   Not by any legal process we can assure you .. pure magic .. poof one minute she is not on the trust the next   she is the chair woman )

This was not the only magic    the trust deed which was missing in 2000 see page 6 bottom , has miraculously  reappeared , been renumbered  to eliminate the clause referred to   and now has two versions   one  sent to the witch the other  to MPI .  MPI didn’t even notice that there were lots of pages on their one not signed.. but why should that matter  .. don’t want to look too close do we  its just a bit of paper that ticks the box  after all .

The real magic had been concealed as the people who  allegedly signed the  deed  had never met , never passed a resolution   and never held funds. AWINZ was a total fiction .

We were told that our heroine prepared the  statement of claim  which  was a wonderful piece of fiction

• The first plaintiffs are the current trustees of The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand,
  (‘AWINZ 2000), an unincorporated charitable trust which was formed pursuant to a trust
  deed executed on 1 March 2000.

the reality of the trust is recorded by Maf   by 2008 the trust had met three times   2004  2006  twice.  By its own terms the trust  ceased to exist in 2003  when no  trustees were reappointed .  Hoadley had become  a “ trustee on  10 may  when the deed was missing , by a clause that does not exist in the copy of the deed  and by no visible legal means , the  audit report records AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected . The lies in the application  Have been totally  condoned by MPI .

• In November 1999, the second plaintiff wrote to the Minister of Agriculture advising that he
  was seeking approval for AWINZ 2000, which was at that time not yet formally constituted
  by way of trust deed,

this from the application audit report

Question  which  statement is false  the SOC, the  application  or perhaps BOTH

• The third defendant is a trust formed pursuant to a trust deed executed in 2006 and
  incorporated pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act 1 957 on 27 April 2006.

Note that this was formed before Wyn Hoadley  came on board with Neil Wells, they also had this letter from the registrar of trusts  lawyer 

• Everything was twisted and contorted   we had set up a website   to  advertise the fact that AWINZ  was not  legitimate. It was using  waitakere city council dog control officers to collect revenue for its Boss Neil Wells .
• He had re branded the building to be  confusingly similar to   the fictional AWINZ 

Now  12 years  later  and  with Neil Wells dead  , our herone  is still at it  she decided to go after the witches  PI licence, because  she thought it gave the  witch powers of magic  like being able to find people .  She   ensured that  there was no point in the witch appealing the decision of the person  posing as the pspla( he was not a lawyer as required ) and his misguided belief   that the witch was a conspiracy theorist and  therefore should not be   an investigator .

Vivienne’s own words  in the complaint to the  Pspla  show that her aim was to discredit the  witch   the  new PSPLA  decided to have a hearing in Wellington before  she even considering  all the submissions  submissions   this is my response response to complaint_and the witches  submissions in response 

It is of note that  every time   our heroine contacted the witch  she  has made a threat   against the  witches professional licence, now that she has  have given up my licence she is  taking the witch  to court . for defamation . what does this woman want !!!! she doesn’t want to settle she doesn’t want to say  what  has been said that is wrong .But you guessed it she wants $$$$$$ about $30,0000   worth  $20,000  as compensation   ..  for what ?    because the  truth hurts .

She has proved  that you do need defamation papers to put in front of Google to have your name removed  from the web https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/16567636

Is this how the court is  going to  be  used in New Zealand ? is this  going to be condoned  by our judges..      I will keep you posted

So there you have it folked if the truth hurts and you want to remove it from  Google  you need to take defamation  action   and you can continue to ensure that  the bad spot light   fixes on  others  while you  conceal the truth about yourself .

mean  while we  continue to  live in the perception

don’t be fooled   The reality is no fairy  tale

It appears to me that the worst thing you an do in our society is to speak the truth .

I am not alone    I had the  video link  below sent to me today and it   simply goes to prove it

Just a few days ago two gentlemen came to my house and spoke most disapproving my of  Blogging   and frowned upon the fact that I fight  corruption .( as if that’s a bad thing to  do  )

I was told to leave it  to the proper authorities.  I explained that there appears to be a general covering up of corruption in New Zealand  and   that my experience was such that I don’t want to see any one   go through what I had to endure ( and am still enduring )

I was told that there are two Grace Haden’s  the one they  like and then there is  other , the one with  the  online presence the one who speaks about things  which apparently  are a tad embarrassing and conflict with the statistics .. heaven forbid that we upset the perception  or prove statistics  wrong .

They expressed their opinion that I should not express mine.

I was extremely upset with their visit  , I felt bullied by it  and it was totally unnecessary  additionally they had  no apparent mandate from any one, it was totally uncalled for an out of place .

Why  do we seek to silence those who are speaking up  about   the wrongs in our society . The cracks are starting to  show  in MPI and the SIS  . Thompson and clark  are members of the NZIPI https://www.nzipi.org.nz/nicholas-thompson/. The NZIPI is headed up by Ron McQuilter  who was behind  ensuring that I was discredited as a Private investigator .  I feel certain that these old boy connections  are  what is keeping New Zealand’s  perception of the least corrupt alive.   Stomp on any one  when they  speak up about corruption , crucify them and   make their lives hell so as to ensure that  the next person  will see nothing .

https://www.facebook.com/supportrickflori/videos/1950697488298231/

Has any one else noticed that the  New Zealand Law society appears to be   at the centre of every thing in New Zealand .

It has more power than government  as  its members are the advisers to government  and local bodies and the  judges are selected from the membership by  another  member or former member.  In the last government Christopher Francis Finlayson QC member of the NZ law society and Attorney-General  selected  fellow members   to be judges. His recommendations was accepted  by the governor_general

In all over the years he appointed the majority of our judges  this from Kiwi’s first 

this from the  Courts of New Zealand web  page  

it goes on to say that “Judges have been appointed whose career paths have not been those of the conventional court advocate.”

and ” The appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is not prescribed by any statute or regulation.”

Many years ago I heard  a presentation by Anthony Molloy QC  who hit the nail on the head when he said   ” nothing is going to change until  one day a judge, while playing golf  is hit on the head  by a golf ball. Requiring urgent  brain surgery he  arrives in theatre   to find that there are no  brain surgeons available , but the staff reassure him  that  the  surgeon a highly qualified and respected Gynecologist .  They are all doctors after all.”

A list of judges of the high court is shown  here   all those appointed after 2008 were recommended by Finlayson 30  out of a total of  39  justices

Of the 7 associate judges  four were recommended by Finlayson.

Appointment of judges in the UK 

the head of the court is of course the Queen  it is her court , in days of old the king/queen  would  be the ultimate decision maker and was advised by the knights templar and    secular .  Below crown  was the privy  council , the crowns closest advisors   and  this  has over the years become  this highest appellate court , but New zealand did away with this and the question therfor eis    are they still the queens court ehan the queen and her advisors have no role to play.

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

They effectively  did away with the system  that we  still hold on to . A system which   lacks transparency  and  independence.

The New Zealand Law society 

A judge   has to have held  a practicing certificate for at least 7 years   and generally  those appointed to the bench    leave the law society to  take on their   position and  if they leave  the bench  they will again become a member of the law society .

The New Zealand Law society has the conflicting roles of regulatory and nurturing for barristers and solicitors alike  .

In the UK  these duties are split between a regulatory  authority such as the solicitors regulatory authority   for regulatory matters  and the law society for   support assistance and nurturing of the  lawyers who are solicitors.  The lawyers who are  Barristers belong to  a bar council  or one of the four inns of court  and are regulated by the  bar standards Board 

why do we think  The New Zealand  justice system is open to corruption? well   this is a serial   you will have to drop back and read our stories  of the lack of transparency  and the   vast disparity between the ways lawyers are treated and  how others are treated

There appears to be an awful lot of confusion with the  Tamaki Regeneration  project

first of all  the web site is called http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/ but the web site is owned by Tamaki Redevelopment Co

Tamaki redevelopment company limited was set up in in 2012 following the signing of a heads of agreement between auckland council and    two ministers of  the crown

Tamaki Redevelopment company was set up with share holding from the crown and   council and the shareholders adopted a Constitution this 31 page document was  drafted and filed by the company secretary  Simpson Grierson . The comprehensive constitution was amended in 2014 to this version Amendment of Constitution a 27 page document , we are uncertain as to the input of the crown shareholders into that document , it was again filed by the undefined  trading name  simpson Grierson .On 14 March 2016 the  constitution is replaced by the 25 page document  Revocation and Adoption of Constitution what is of note   is that this constitution unlike the two former ones has no obligation to the heads of agreement .

on 11 November 2015  Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  became the sole  share holder of a new company called Tamaki Regeneration  Limited and of a company called THA GP  Limited .

THA Gp limited subsequently became   the  general partner in a limited partnership  called Tamaki Housing association  Limited partnership (  19 january 2016)  these bodies remain as  subsidiaries of Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  and we will just put them to one side for now

we  will now look at   the  government  web sites and   special announcements

9 FEBRUARY, 2016 John Key  Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament

 In March this year, 2,800 Housing New Zealand homes will be transferred to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company.This will result in at least 7,500 new homes in that area over the next 10 to 15 years, of which more than a third will be for social housing.The transfer of Housing New Zealand properties to community housing providers in Invercargill and Tauranga will happen later this year.

25 FEBRUARY, 2016  Bill English Speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University – State of the Economy

The Tamaki Redevelopment Company will become the owner of 2,800 former Housing New Zealand houses at the end of March, which the company plans to redevelop into around 7,500 houses.

Note that  up to this stage the   housing new zealand stock was going to be transferred to Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited  which has   been abbreviated in correspondence as TRC

then on

31 MARCH, 2016   Bill English, Nick Smith Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed

The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Note that he states that the houses will go to Tamaki regeneration Limited, but he called it Tamaki Regeneration company  TRC.   He goes on to say

The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.

But  Tamaki Housing is a subsidiary of  Tamaki redevelopment company  limited  TRC not of Tamaki regeneration limited TRL  he then adds to the confusion and states

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Yes Tamaki Redevelopment company limited was set up to  lead the regeneration  programme     not TRL  which at this date  was   a subsidiary of TRC .

On 14 April the shares of Tamaki regeneration limited are increased from 100  to   1631161218 and the shareholders are updated Particulars of Shareholding

What is of concern is that it appears that the ministers   believe that  the  properties are going to the company of which council and  crown are the share holders , the company which was set up for the transformation project  the company which is the ultimate holding company for Tamaki Housing Limited partnership . but..

The reality  is that the  assets have gone to an entirely different company one which  the  crown had no input in to the constitution, a company which is a stand alone . 

Now let us look at the  annual reports of tamaki redevelopment company  Limited   this is the 2015 report note that the company is referred to  as TRC .

The annual report states

page 5

The New Zealand Cabinet agreed that the ownership and management of approximately 2,800 social homes currently held by Housing NZ in
Tāmaki will be transferred to TRC by 31 March 2016

Page 6

On 1 April 2016, TRC will own and manage all current social homes of approximately 2,800 in the Tāmaki area.

We are respectful of the responsibility and mandate provided to us by Shareholders to look after the most vulnerable families in our rohe. At the same time, this will be an opportunity to catalyse community led action and move at pace to achieve our objective of making Tāmaki an awesome place to live. 

and

Whilst Housing NZ and TRC have different mandates, the commitment by both organisations to ensure a seamless transfer and prepare TRC for
1 April 2016 is unwavering. 

In the  2016   annual report  the  confusion continues the report is entitled TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT 2016  .

page 2

TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC) HAS BEEN MANDATED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND AUCKLAND
COUNCIL, TO REPLACE 2500 SOCIAL HOUSES WITH 7500 MIXED-TENURE HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.

There is no such company as tamaki regeneration company  limited.  There is Tamaki regeneration Limited  company number 5840214 

and Tamaki redevelopment company limited 3937662

The name Tamaki regeneration company is  used twice   and in both  instances it is tied to the  abbreviation TRC

page 9

Tāmaki Regeneration Company will bring about transformational change to achieve four equally important objectives – social transformation, economic development, placemaking and housing resources.

Through its shareholders, the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council,TRC will replace 2500 social houses in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt. England and
Panmure creating 7500 mixed-tenure homes over a period of 10-15 years.

Tamaki regeneration limited  the  owner of the properties  has no share holding  of council

to add to the confusion on page 18  a  TRC legal group is created. a legal group  has no statutory definition or legal existence   .

Tamaki regeneration Limited is referred to as TRL  .  Through the annual report  references are made to the transfer of the properties to  TRC ( pages 6,10,12,23)   this is incorrect they  were transferred to TRL

The confusion is such  that  courts have been misled  with regards to ownership   see  Open letter to Robert Gapes Simpson Grierson

this has resulted in  a fundamentally flawed decision  due to the court  basing the decision on the   lawyer’s flawed  submission.  The lawyer a member of simpson Grierson law firm, the  company secretary   told the court that  Tamaki regeneration limites was a subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment company limited.   we ask How can a lawyer  and the company secretary  get it so wrong and what does this say about the integrity of the  management of the company’s affairs  by the secretary .

Of even greater concern is that  it appears that the Ministers  and   treasury were not involved in the setting up of this new crown entity  and had no input into the constitution.

Considering the fact that 2800  houses were transferred into this company of mixed identity and dubious origins  it is something that  we the public need to be concerned about

we note that in the  2015  annual report Mr Holyoake page 6  states “TRC and its partners must also own the lapses or mistakes.”   we therefore hope that   full transparency is applied and that  this  mess is  corrected to remove  any   doubt as to  who had a mandate to receive the houses  and how they came to be in the possession of a company other than the one  Government intended the stock to go to .

We note that  several of the directors are property developments  and one states as his  interests ” Potential development opportunities in and around Glen Innes”  an other lists directorship in Tāmaki Investment Trust Company Ltd

To those who care about   crown assets  it would appear that  foxes are guarding the  hen house   we have to ensure that they   do not  get fat  and  accountability and transparency is how we wish to achieve that .

Further open letter to David Mc Neill  Corruption , Whistleblowers  and Transparency

David,

Since responding to your reply  to  my first open letter  a number of people have approached me and  have asked me to put questions to   you as a director of transparency  International .

Could you  any  one else from Transparency International NZ please respond  with your observations

You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you  ask  “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”

These statements indicate to me that  you  and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.

it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells

   it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed  and  about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when  issues of corruption are brought to their attention   .

Unfortunately  Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt  Public service in the world , if this was the case I would  still expect to  find corruption   but I would  expect that there were  policies and  methods  in place throughout  the  public sector which would ensure integrity   and  systems of accountability .

Jose Ugay  , your international president used an equation  which I have been fond of

Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .

If you were to apply this to our public sector  you would  quickly find that   accountability  is  almost totally absent and discretion being  the use of the  unreasonable complainant conduct manual  , totally out of hand

I have actually come across  items where it stated  that  due to the relatively  corruption free environment  such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be  the least corrupt .

Of the 2013 Integrity report  ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for  for  compiling,   she said

Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.

It was not  coincidence that TINZ was at the time   funded by  the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written.  see here  To me this appears to be a conflict of interest  which in itself is corrupt .

Now if  TINZ  had taken the trouble to  listen to the  issues which I and other  whistleblowers  had raised  rather than treating us as a villains then  the person  conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then    the results would not have  been so glowing .

In an impartial and thorough  evaluation of integrity in the public service an  important aspect would be   to monitor  public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to  whistleblowers and evaluating their  experience based on the evidence  that  they have to support their claim  .

The reality is that the public sector does not know  what  investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons  and not the issue. 

It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and  short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence  plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and  perception of integrity of persons  are  what is accepted and  considered. Of course if they want to get rid of  the person involved then   any complaint will do .

The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse  conclusion could of course be  implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator  becomes the whistleblower  and become  unpopular at work  .

So what does the public sector do they turn to   manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by   your gold  partner   the ombudsman’s office .

There  a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages   and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct  138 Pages Yes that’s  right there is no manual on how to investigate

What do you think the “Go to” resource  will  be , which one   allows them to  get the head ache off the desk  and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it  “the  unreasonable complaint manual”   its the thickest and  was copied from Australia minus the  essential resource  “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy”  .

In NZ  and our manual  simply refers  the user to locate the  model policy on  the Australian web site. This essential  part of the  document which is missing in NZ  stipulates that  each organisation  should rely   on their organisations own policies for  unreasonable complainants.

So with that part missing  so are the policies in our  public sector  and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call  on unreasonable complainants and   how they are defined.

While I accept that there are fruit loops out there  at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated.  and if a complaint is properly  and fairly  evaluated then people  don’t get cross if they are shown   why their complaint comes unstuck .

But we work  in terms of economy  and its not economic to look at ll complaints  so    throw up a brick wall and  very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person.  Problem solved

The essential  Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy  which is missing in New Zealand  specifies

3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.

So this is how the ” investigation  ” in our public sector  is conducted

1. Get complaint
2. go to the person  allegedly accused and run it past them
3. accept what they say about the person making the complaint who    after consulting the   alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person  and   go to the check list
4.  The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”.   the  perpetrator has already given a good  explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
5. The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”..  well how can there be a valid issue when the   complainant  is reportedly just a nasty person  the whole thing has to be a set up and we know  the  alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
6. The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.”  Substance  has already established from our trusted colleague and  based on what he/she tells us there is  no substance
7. For good measure   the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14  and the early warning  signs UCC? page 16   and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower  , on issues of genuine public interest  can tick  many of these boxes

So let us see how this applied to me

I had been on a trust  with Neil Wells  , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions   due to the trust being  in danger of becoming insolvent  .

He removed me from the trust  by telling lies .  I  sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control   to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .

Lyn Macdonald   who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer  saw that I was a private Investigator  , she too had been bullied by wells and he later   got her kicked out of her job for associating with me .  she asked me to find out  who or what AWINZ was  , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise  animal welfare  over her council paid duties.

I  searched for AWINZ but could  not find  any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council  I found that although both had a MOU  with  AWINZ( MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF) neither had a copy of  a trust deed .

I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated  that  AWINZ had to be a real  or legal person .  This was 2006 and  registers were not that easily searched  so with  others we formed and  incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .  we did not expect to  be successful  but we were, this proved  conclusively that   the entiy  which Neil wells claimed to  operate was fictional.

Here I have to explain something about names  and trusts

1. an unincorporated trust    can be a group of people  who are trustees in a trust which they  then give a name , the legal name for that trust is  (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
2. An incorporated trust    can use the name of the trust and  trade  in that name without referring to the  trustees  as the  trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had  previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these  were all legal persons  in their own name .

The application.  which Neil Wells  filed  with MAF  to obtain law enforcement  powers under the legislation  which he had  drafted and advised on  was fraudulent  it categorically stated

since the trust had not been   formed  but  was allegedly in the process  of being incorporated  the application should have been in the names of  the four people  shown  as trustees of AWINZ  and each should have  at least signed the trust deed  and  each would have to take  responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document  committing to that role.

The reality was that the  trust did not exist   as there was no trust deed .

Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister   In this short paragraph   he  tells the following lies 

1. Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
2. The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
3. the trust deed  which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier   only goes to 19

Just this little bit of information should make   the investigators look more closely  but Wells was  well connected to MAF and was  known to ministers  he was even able to write caucus papers .

When I   raised concerns  with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up   he selected the people wisely

Graeme Coutts  .. a non questioning JP  who worked in the office beside  Wells and beside the  RNZSPCA  his name had been on the original application .

Wyn Hoadley  QSM..    great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always  reputable

Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control  who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council  . Tom Didovich  was in this up to his neck  and went out to get the  signatures of the   alleged trustees when the deed was    missing.. probably  missing because hit had never been signed .

So  in my situation

I was  made out  by wells as some fruit loop  who  was disgruntled about her removal from a trust

Wells was a respected barrister  wrote legislation and  lots of friends in very high places

so  Maf and  Council threw up brick walls   and  I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and  also  his  desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to  Joanna Tuckwell  who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.

Wells took me to court for  defamation ,  his lawyers  Brookfields  did not check to see if there was a trust deed  before commencing proceedings  ,  Nick Wright a resource management lawyer  started the proceedings in a unethical  manner by making threats  , they  then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the   fed the court  a lot of BS  and Voila  a judgement which   they could wave around to   discredit me and  use to apparently legitimise  AWINZ .

every one happy  except that Wells  kept attacking me subversively  and saw to it that  I lost my ability to earn a living   through private investigations .

when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out  and  knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct  to   have the investigation into AWINZ opened.

Had the public sector   acted with integrity  they would have left people aside and investigated the  Very simple  issue

Did  AWINZ exist …No it did not   no one had a trust deed prior to 2006    By that stage  it had  been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years

Was the application  for approved status  fraudulent… Yes it  was

can you see   that we have a problem ?

If we conceal corruption and give  the public sectors resources  which help  conceal corruption  then we have no corruption  .

You report  that there is integrity in the public sector  and by   refusing to look  beyond the perception  which you help create . whistleblowers  and their families have their lives destroyed .

You don’t have to   support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate  integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that   proper  and fair complaint measures are available  and that    the issues are dealt with   .

I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up  are  easily Labeled  Uncooperative complainants  because that way we remain  the least corrupt  and after all ask any economist  .. that’s good for business.

so in the end the question is

are you going to look at the integrity of the public service  with regards to how they  deal with  complaints

Are you going to allow whistleblowers to  be members of transparency International New Zealand

will you monitor   the complaint making process ?

will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors

Where is the transparency in your accounts     you have $400,000 of your 500,000   expenses written off as  other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to  how much   and  why be conflicted   when  you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .

I received a reply from TINZ  director  David McNeill in response to my post Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand

the email can be found here response from TINZ director David McNeill

In the interest of transparency  I publish my response

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 11:37 a.m.
To: ‘David McNeill’ <dm@ti.org.nz>
Subject: RE: open letter to David Mc Neil

Thank you for your response David

I am sorry  that you don’t  agree  with the methods I use to pursue my case but after 11 years  I   think I have tried everything to bring this matter to  the attention of the authorities and misters .

Should bringing corruption to the attention of the government be this hard ?

If it is ignored  what does it say about our values?

The only reason I have kept on  with it is because it has cost me so much  it cost me my marriage and my family not to mention the obscene sum of money which  was  taken t from me through  the subsequent   fraud on the  court where Wyn Hoadley Barrister, Graeme courts  JP and Tom Didovich the  conflicted  former manager Waitakere city council dog control  along with Wells set up  a similarly named trust and passed themselves off as the   law enforcement authority  .. a total legal  nonsense  but the names were the same  so it  was OK

I acted in good faith on a matter of public interest which I raised with the purest of intentions after a council employee had come to me .

In becoming a vocal  whistle-blower I also became a go to person  for  those  with  issues of their own  . In  the 11 years at the coal face of corruption I have found why corruption is so prevalent in New Zealand    and I thought that this information would be of use to TINZ.

How can you  work on the  issues of integrity , change of policy and political attitude if you yourselves remain  uninformed of what is occurring and shun whistle-blowers.

You ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”   well the short answer is   that he  died  last week  but the legacy of what he  set in action lives on.

He has proved that  in New Zealand

1. writing legislation for your own business plan is condoned.

2. you can be an independent adviser to the select committee on matters in which you have a  personal  financial interest.

3.  you can make  a fraudulent application for  Law enforcement powers and influence the decision makers

4. Those investigating  an application for statutory powers do not check if the organisation exists or any alleged fact

5. Obtain your own legal opinion for government   and have input into it

6. You can draft your own documents for    the  government

7. You can  contract to  councils and government department using a fictional name MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF

8. That he can influence the government department   to such an extent that  the  Whistle-blower is discredited and  no one verifies   that  a fraud has occurred or not .

Simply put he has proved that   if you make it easy for the public servant  ,  have their trust and liaise with them frequently and meet with minister  then   you can get them to accept anything  and they   won’t check.  Rule number one  never verify . Being a barrister helps   after all   a man of the law  knows and would never be corrupt   .

Ironically today there is an article in the newspaper  “SPCA confiscates man’s dog based on ‘hearsay’, he claims “   this is very relevant  currently the RNZSPCA is  undertaking a very  dodgy “ amalgamation “  and will be focusing on the inspectorate  which   will see more personal properties raided by persons who are privately  employed.  But that is not for now

You say “We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing”    Please tell me the difference  . If I am screaming corruption now it’s probably because  after 11 years of hitting my head against a wall and having my reputation maligned  it’s the only thing left to do .

You state “Transparency International NZ “approaches corruption in a different way, attempting to give the whole system more tools & techniques for exposing and preventing corruption. ‘  How can you prevent corruption when  you   don’t know  what the symptoms are  ?

Cancer left untreated will kill you  corruption left untreated will   kill our country and indeed will have killed many  in its path . I know this  as at one stage I was suicidal .

My criticism  of  TINZ   has been that you   prefer not to know about corruption  and  appear  hell bent on  portraying New Zealand as the least corrupt  to enhance business interest.  When I heard Jose  Ugaz  speak  I was  heartened I would never have  thought that you belong to the same organisation .

You have no idea  how difficult it  is  to see transparency International run programmes such as WHISTLEBLOWING FOR CHANGE, etc  yet be shunned by  your local branch .

ON  https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/whistleblowing/ the following appears

This opens  up onto  https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblowing

“ Through our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres, located in nearly 50 countries, we advise whistleblowers in making their disclosures and work to make sure that their disclosures are duly addressed by appropriate authorities.”

The international body recognises the importance of Whistle-blowers

“ There is growing awareness of the important role whistleblowing plays in stopping corruption. “

yet TINZ say   this approach is wrong.”

“We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing.”

I did not wake up one day  and decide to become a whistle-blower.

I  was a mother   had a family of three teenagers thought I was happily married , I helped a lady at Waitakere city council and my  whole life  changed . this should not happen to any one  !

I found something that was  very wrong  and  raised questions with MAF and  Waitakere city council  which I thought  were the appropriate bodies

Rather than checking out my claims they colluded with the perpetrator  who then took me to court  for defamation, deceived the court  and  got a judgement  against  me by denying me  the statutory right of defence. That judgement has been waved about ever since  to discredit me.

My marriage was simultaneously attacked and my funds were frozen I could not fight back .Lawyers cost money  . when My  matrimonial property was settles I got a lawyer  he happened  to be Evgeny orlov  who fleeced me  and was himself embroiled in   matters relating to the panama papers . He  had no credibility with the court and was at one stage struck off , just my hard luck that he was my lawyer .

In 2007 Mr Wells wrote to  MAF   that   he intended to bankrupt me . over the years  he advised them as to what to and  was kept in the loop with every OIA  I made and allowed to make comment . see here for another example

The down side of publishing on transparency NZ has been that it allowed Wells and Hoadley to  engage a Private investigator who   then  assisted in muddying the waters. The intention was to  deny me  my PI licence .  five years later they have succeeded putting me out of  work at age 64  from a career which  is an extension of my police  career which commenced when I was 21

I was discredited  even to my own children . what I have been fighting for is  to get my  reputation back

While Neil Wells  was portrayed to be good I was made out to be a sinister person

Just prior to his  death I found a news item  on the  law society news  Censured lawyer gets name suppression , I recognised  the   events  and from this  have speculated that Mr Wells was  actually a corrupt barrister  . I was charged with  alleged  breach of  a suppression order   , the police didn’t need evidence to charge me , it took them 6 weeks to find  something that  could at a stretch be an order but in reality is vague .

Our biggest issue with corruption in New Zealand is that we  thrive on perception  , make someone out to be bad and they are bad forever and no one will ever look at  the evidence .

Evidence  is what   Jose Ugaz   felt  is essential in proving corruption  but  evidence  plays no part in our courts.

Barristers such as Neil Wells and their legal representatives have the ability to influence the court   without any evidence  this is reflected in a speech made in  2014 by : Justice Helen Winkelmann – Chief High Court Judge of New Zealand (Helen Winkelmann’s 2014 Address).

“There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006”

David  the process of   holding lawyers accountable to the rule of law   is long and  again the lawyers  word is preferred over  the   complainant.

I have lost my  PI licence , the matter is still under review by the LCRO,  I  was accused of harassing a lawyer  for telling him that he had an obligation   to the rule of law and could not use his office for fraud.

Such is  New Zealand  today   have not even touched on to another raft of issues.

I am sure that we could work well together    we would  both  like to see corruption contained  and by providing policies that work   much grief can be avoided.

I wonder if the  Joanne Harrison matter could have been  prevented if the lessons which could have been learned from AWINZ had been  implemented.

No one should have to go through what I have had to endure   there is only  one way forward and that is by providing transparency  .

I would like to join TI NZ   we can learn from each other .

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

When it comes to back ground screening I tell people that the corrupt  usually don’t do things by  half measures.  what is the point  of  inflating your  Cv just a bit when  you can be dynamic and give yourself a degree which will  take you to the top .

And so it is  with perception ratings.  If we acknowledge that there is fraud and corruption then the perception  of  being fraud and corruption free  is destroyed  .

“Our public-sector agencies have focused successfully on developing processes that prevent corruption and these contribute to New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector” says Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its low corruption reputation and we are increasingly finding how to transfer these behaviours from our public to our private sector to leverage off this enviable reputation for integrity.”

It is ironic however that Transparency International New Zealand    prepares the integrity    report  with funding from theses very sectors .partners / sponsors 

The reality was seen this week when the police    acknowledged that

White collar crime ‘rampant’ as nearly 900 fraud complaints go uninvestigated

It appears that  the investigation into Joanne Harrison has lifted the lid on corruption in New Zealand. within a few days  we got interesting head lines

Fuji Xerox NZ voluntarily suspends competing for government contracts

FujiXerox NZ corruption scandal grows in spite of New Zealand’s silence

Binnie: Bain case tarnished NZ’s reputation

Immigration NZ staff investigated for corruption and fraud after visas issued to family, friends

New Zealand: thousands of bottles of allegedly fraudulent wine exported

Patrick Gower: Metiria Turei’s political fraud is ripping off the New Zealand public

The hypocrisy of NZ’s approach to fraud

see SFO  press releases 

“A number of victims of these frauds suffer significant loss. Some of these people would have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings, a lot of these files aren’t minor files.”

And there is another side to it too  Victims  and whistleblowers are attacked  in an effort to ensure that the fraud  goes undetected.    In my experience it appears that  the fraudsters get far more  support from the police than the   person discovering/ reporting/ victim  the  crime does.  I often wonder how  lack of   action on fraud  impacts on our  overly high suicide ratings.

These are true stories  I know they are true because they happened to me , I know suicide is a factor  because there were times when it appealed to   me thanks to neil  Wells Wyn Hoadley , graeme Coutts and tom Didovich

I am ex police   and found myself  working as a private investigator  right in the line of fire

Lulled into the  false sense of security  that NZ  has no  tolerance for corruption   I raised the fraudulent application of AWINZ  to be a law enforcement authority  with   MPI and Waitakere city council . Neil Edward Wells a  barrister who  is now known to  have been  corrupt , had written legislation for his own business plan made an application for law enforcement powers for a fictional organisation  he then had the   council buildings re branded with the name of his  fictional organisation  and worked in a situation of severe conflict of interest using council resources infrastructure and  staff to operate his  own business.

11 years later  and this still has not been independently investigated by the authorities and in a move akin to Joanne Harrison neil edward Wells was able  influence the staff   at MPI  so that the matter was not investigated.  he took me to court  for defamation for claiming that the  trust was a sham ,  I was denied a defence of truth   and honest opinion  , my family was torn apart  and now 11 years later I have been taken to court by the police for speculating that Neil Wells was  the  lawyer  in a law society  news publication .

Not long after I had raised this  issue  I  assisted a lawyer in locating the director and Liquidator of  Fresh prepared Limited 

The  liquidator and  director were both fictional , they had been created by a   Hawaiian  business man  named Terry Hay  .  I found my self being harassed by him when he  posted three advertisements in the mandarin time to ensure that  half the chinese  population descended up on our house hold   to buy a super cheap car,  get  a great accommodation deal, get a   fabulous job .

Simultaneously   I had reported  fresh prepared to  MAF at the time as it  was a border control    facility  and they  had  now claimed to be  a different company . I found myself under investigation by Maf and warned for passing myself off as a Maf officer.  I was to learn that this was handy work of Neil Wells.

Hay  was charged by the National enforcement unit and took of to Honolulu  he remained there for  several years and the 22 charges were dropped

Next up   was fraudster Jonathon Mann and his   partner Dr Gerald Waters , Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims

His victims had to set up a blog site to deal with him,but it appears that fraudsters  don’t like having potential  victims warned

I came under attack by Gerald Waters  but eventually he was charged with companies act offences

Then  I was approached  by  a couple ,  the husband had had a former brief relationship with  a Parisa Hamedi  . Hamedi had gone to  Steven ZINDEL and engaged him on legal aid ,  after a  dozen or so  bonks Hamedi  thought she was entitled to the   mans house . I conducted the investigation and found that  she maintained her housing corp home in Nelson  where she and her children lived with  her former husband.

I committed a terrible crime by suggesting to  ZINDEL that he  should do some home work on the  de facto status as my investigations had proved that   they were a long way off  the  threshold. He came back and suggested that  if   $50,000  compensation was paid then it would all go away . This   wonderful hard working couple  spent some 6 years fighting  this through court   and  in the end the verdict was.. wait for it.. there was no   de facto relationship .  Yet Zindel took me to the Private security licencing authority   because i  told him to check his facts as he may otherwise be using his office for fraud.

Then there is the on going saga  of Muse on allen, where a young immigrant   invested money  in a restaurant o see it all taken away by Samuel North  who then claimed to be  the youngest chef to own his own restaurant.  this has gone through courts   for many years and simply proves that the   civil jurisdiction  cannot cope with fraud ,  on top of being  ripped off the   victim then gets a hiding to nowhere and loses even more funds.

Lawyer  David Abricossow  was acting for the company  and   when I told him that he had an obligation to the rule of law  and could not use his  practice to facilitate fraud  he   took me to court  for harassment and made false  claims that I had defamed him,  I was beautifully set up and lost my Pi licence because this lawyer   was at the start of his career and needed protection .

From what I can see is the  Fraud is left un addressed as it is a fabulous meal ticket for lawyers. Brookfields Lawyers certainly clipped the  ticket on the AWINZ matter .

If you are defrauded  or if you  discover fraud the best thing you can do is close your  eyes and walk away.  make that RUN     the courts appear to support fraudsters   evidence has no place  the ones with the   biggest lawyers  win and when you have been scalped and  the other side has the money  you don’t have much  of a chance at all  .

You have no  rights   there is no justice and in the civil jurisdiction there is actually not right to a fair trial .

But it all helps in   the concealment of  fraud  , if  we do not acknowledge that  fraud exists  then there is no fraud.

You cant find   something that you are not looking for  .. see no fraud problem in New Zealand.

In  2006 I  unwittingly became a whistleblower on  serious corruption .  I discovered that  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  did not exist  in any manner or form . Neil Wells  a barrister who is now known to be  corrupt   wrote  the legislation for  the animal welfare act to facilitate his own business plan, He made a totally fraudulent application   claiming  that  the application was being made by a trust.

for 11 years the Government  ( both National and Labour ) have failed to address she issue of  fake identities in trusts . I have long claimed that  identity fraud in companies and trusts is the greatest   corruption we face in NZ today.

So while all eyes are on Metiria for minor sins in the past  the large ones are still going on  , this week we learned that life line lost  the contract for suicide prevention and that it has gone to Le Va  where  Bills wife Mary  happens to be one  of the so called  board members of this fictional organisation

section 71 of our crimes act reads

71 Accessory after the fact

(1)An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

The state of corruption In New Zealand

Sir

I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Limited . My company  actively exposes corruption In New Zealand . It was formed after Transparency International New Zealand refused  me membership  because it  claims that

“the TINZ  Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases.”

Unfortunately I believe that  by looking at  corruption in New Zealand we can learn from it  and  prevent  it from growing.

Ignoring corruption is like ignoring cancer,  ignore it long enough and it will kill you

I was  very impressed with your presentation at  Massey University, Palmerston North  .

The views you promoted on Behalf of transparency International  resonated with me  and  I felt sad that  Transparency International New Zealand  does not hold the same values as  the  international body .

You   regarded whistleblowers as  essential to  uncovering corruption  but the  local professor   quickly added that   whistleblowers are  regarded as tell tales and then there were some comments   by him abut obtaining information   unlawfully.

I can assure you that the truck loads of information I have collated have  been acquired lawfully and it sets out a  major issue  which we have in New Zealand   and that is the use of trusts.

We use trusts to the extent that we invent trusts  and  although the invented trust is totally bogus   they appear to be able to act like   legal persons , no one checks.

In this example  a  fictional trust obtained an arrest warrant the full document is here 

more   about this is found in Anne’s book  available for download   at Annehunt.co.nz 

When  fictional  ” trusts” have a standing in court and  can  have an order  issued to infringe on the rights of a  natural person  then there is something   seriously out of wack

It shoudl be the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure that  such action does not  find itself in court and   he and he alone should be held accountable  to the full  force of the law.

In another matter A fictional trust   obtained law enforcement powers  the fraudulent application is here 

This application was made by a corrupt  Barrister   who has  advised Government and   was heavily involved in drafting the legislation  to facilitate this fraud

He had a business plan see here  and wrote the legislation and advised on it to facilitate this plan

He and his corrupt  lawyer took  action against me  for defamation  for saying that the trust was a sham.   I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion   and through the false allegation that a similarly named ” trusts ” created retrospectively   ws one and the  same  he misled the court   and  effectively the fiction became reality .

I see the courts reliance on the word of lawyers  as the   single largest contributor to corruption in New Zealand .  Things are sanitised and legitimised through the courts  by misleading the court .. no evidence is ever required.

Trusts in New Zealand are therefore the  no 1 vehicle of choice for fraud and money laundering  , if our courts and lawyers don’t check to see if a trust exists then  its open slather .  In the case of  animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)  I asked the solicitor general to investigate the trust  and the various  trusts that have been set up to    jump through time   and vacuums to give the illusion of reality.

If a trust does not have to have a legal structure which commences and  continues in any verifiable  form then   we are dealing with  fiction .

New Zealand is very much a Victorian colony  which is coming of age   through the use of computers . that is why   whistleblowers are silenced here.

You raised a question with regards to John Key  and asked why had no one investigated him.   The answer is simple   you just need to look at what I have suffered  and you  soon realise that  if you even ask one question out of place you will be discredited   and your life will be in tatters . Your comment and my  research on Key since  leaving the meeting  has made me realise why no action has ever been taken with regards to AWINZ,  for 11 years I have said it is a blue print    and sure  enough  it has been . If a fictional trust  can be a law enforcement authority then it can be anything.

In 2014  , Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption to Parliament  , I was the lead petitioner . I was asked to present evidence as to why we needed such a commission and   I supplied my evidence   it is at this link   you will see that I touched on panama, I was taken to court with regards to my discoveries of these panamanian companies and  Hungarian alcoholic directors , I was silenced .

I provided evidence of  fake liquidators  fake directors  and showed that the  crown  solicitor’s dropped 22 charges of fraud of  Terry Hay a well connected   american  for   fraud under the companies act

items 56  in that report relate to TINZ role in  corruption today

Transparency International New Zealand in my opinion serves only to ensure that New Zealand status as least corrupt is preserved.  To do this  they actively ignore   corruption  and pretend that   it does not occur.

Transparency International New Zealand  gets funding  from the key public service agencies to do the integrity reports on the public sector.

Quite personally I think that that is a conflict of interest and corrupt .

The reality is that New Zealand is in my experience rotten to the core  we have cheated on  our exam cards (  the  perception index)  and that makes us  among the most corrupt of  them all .

When simple corruption  is covered up  at high levels  and they have to go as far as to discredit you  then you know that the corruption is deeper than any one imagined.

I  look forward to a response from you and look forward to being able to work with transparency International to  address corruption in New Zealand and not be part of the   problem by concealing it.

• items on  John Keys trust  Panama papers John Doe statement 

Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands.

7 May 2016  Why was John Key singled out by Panama Papers hacker?

7 May 2016 Panama Papers whistleblower confused – John Key

8 May 2016  Taxing times: The ghosts of wineboxes past 

5 october 2016 John Key keeps lid on hidden billions

21 march 2014  John Key dismisses rumours surrounding resignation

READ MORE:
* Panama Papers source breaks silence, denies being a spy
* The Panama Papers New Zealand link revealed
* New measures to combat cybercrime outlined by Government
* Prime Minister John Key’s lawyer asked about foreign trusts
* NZ trusts at the centre of Malta money scandal
* Government now says NZ trust examination likely
* More NZ links to Panama Papers to come
* Q&A: Panama Papers’ fallout has only just begun

Documents obtained by the Australian Financial Review show:

• Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantu, who built his fortune from billions of dollars in Mexican government contracts, was investigated for lavish housing deals with Mexican political figures.
• On July 1 last year, Cantu’s Miami lawyer said his client had “circa $US100 million” to put into three New Zealand trusts.
• Maltese investors who had been turned away from nine banks in the Caribbean, Miami and Panama eventually found a home for their money in New Zealand trusts.
• Demand for New Zealand trusts went into overdrive late last year with Mossack Fonseca staff in Panama urging New Zealand staff to “chase the money”.