Transparency New Zealand

IN late 2019 when I started working with Janine and Barbara I encouraged them to ask questions and got them to file a police complaint.

The 5 dogs which were taken on the 4th August 2017 were not mentioned or acknowledged but extensively used for SPCA donation drives.

There was another raid on the 13th October 2017 and 15 dogs were taken two of which were in whelp.

Plowright interviewed Janine two weeks later, his interview did not raise any questions with regards to the care of the animals but was more about coercing the “voluntary” surrender of these dogs.

When this tactic failed, Plowright produced his first Inspectors Report on 8th December 2017.

His co-inspector Laurie Jane Davis who also acts under the name Lori Davis then served Production Orders on the Vets which Janine and Barbara had used and also one on the New Zealand Kennel Club to obtain the pedigree papers.

This was followed up by the execution of Kevin Richard Plowright’s Search Warrant on the 27th March 2018, the Search Warrant was dated 26th March 2017 a year earlier and therefore not valid.(they have to be issued within a defined period of time which is much shorter than one year)

Significantly the search warrant lacked any evidence that it was issued through any court or by any registrar

The first thing that Plowright did was to disconnect and disable the security camera, the hard drive went and has never been seen again, the claim by Plowright was that there was nothing on it.

The personal computers were cloned and documents which were in the house which recorded the events and notes for their defence were seized as were communications with their lawyer.

On 29th March 2017 Kevin Plowright returns some documents and a puppy.

1st May 2018 there was a TV campaign and photos of the dogs appear on the SPCA Facebook pages, the dogs displayed at their worst, the photos show very scared and very uncomfortable dogs at the SPCA.

At the same time the SPCA does a massive appeal and this all coincides with a Court action to dispose of the dogs.

18th May 2018 a further raid took place, Janine had taken 6 dogs to the middle of the farm for a swim and a run, as they were trained like athletes upon completion they were fed, watered and rested.  She tied them up on 2m chains and soft collars under a canopy of trees, while she returned to clean the kennels.  The Inspectors arrived and drove to the back of the farm and took all six dogs falsely alleging that these dogs had been housed out there for a week.

All this occurred while the Court was dealing with the disposal of the original 15 dogs, two of which have given birth to 10 and 11 puppies each during this time.

It is of note that the 20 puppies were disposed of unlawfully, I will deal with this later, but basically there was no provision in law which allowed for these pups to be subject to a Section 136A application.

Significantly the dogs were disposed of to the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so the question is… who got them? where did they go?

Charges were not filed until 2 November 2018 and Plowright “threw the book” at Janine and Barbara.  The charges are totally unfair and lack detail.

e.g.        1.            The Prosecutor is a fictional organisation.

                2.            While some dogs are named others are identified as 

All the dogs were microchipped, so how can someone file a defence for a dog which is not identified and not seized and allegedly committed an undisclosed offence in July to October 2017 and had the charges brought a year later.   This is not in line with the Bill of Rights, where they have the right to be fully and fairly informed of the charges.

Significantly the unidentified dogs were not seized so one dog tied to the fence when Plowright arrived was worth seizing ( Monty ) and disposing of through the court but others (e.g. last one on the list )which was in identical condition and circumstances was left . The only difference with these dogs was their blood line .The seized dog had recent imported blood lines .

The ladies made their first appearance in Court on 17 December 2018.   Merry Christmas but that was not the end of it.

24.01.2019 Plowright returned and took Champion Xena, who was having a break from her 7 week old puppies.  He returned on 31. January 2019 and took Champion Hobby, Alex and Emma before returning and taking Champion Fenta on 21.02.2019.

I got Janine to make a Police Complaint about these dogs and they were miraculously returned on the 16th December 2019, a week after the second lot of seized animals were disposed of by the Court based on evidence by Plowright starting that Janine and Barbara were not suitable to have dogs returned to them.

I find it strange the contradiction ironic and I have to wonder why the RNZSPCA has condoned the unlawful action of Plowright in taking dogs without any apparent paperwork.

And I also have to question why there has been no apparent oversight of the prosecution by the SPCA , you would think that an organisation that is overseeing the prosecution would get their own name right. But I guess its been a very worthwhile exercise for fundraising and I fear that this is all the SPCA is interested .

Question for Tracey Phillips

Could you please provide information for Barbara and Janine that will identify the un named dogs and identify what the alleged offence is for each and every charge .

Currently the charges are typical of the one below given that the charges were filed in court some 14 months later with regards to dogs which were not sized how would they know which dogs these were?

what did they do , what didn’t they do so as to have ( in the opinion of the inspector ) not ensured their physical and behavioral care ?

I have gone through the file and found no evidence which would support this charge ( and many others )

Criminal Procedure Act 2011

A charge must contain sufficient particulars to fully and fairly inform the defendant of the substance of the offence that it is alleged that the defendant has committed.

The above charge dos not disclose who the prosecution agency is and if you do not respond then this will be prima facie evidence that the RNZSPCA , its member societies or branches are not involved in the prosecution .

If the prosecution has been taken by The RNZSPCA then I like others reading this post would hope that you act responsibly and provide the evidence required to Barbara and Janine as they need to file a defence Section section 13 animal welfare act

Good afternoon Tracy 

I am writing to you in connection with the prosecution of Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace as reported in the Herald today 

I am a former police prosecuting Sergeant and am a retired Private investigator. I have done a lot of work with the Animal Welfare Act and I was contacted by Janine last year and was asked to look at the prosecution for the Volkerson dogs. 

I did not know Janine or Barbara and my first step was to visit their farm and see what was going on. I never intended to become involved to any great extent but what I have seen with regards to this prosecution has struck me as very very wrong and there is so much that simply does not stack up.

Because of the multitude of issues and the need for accountability and transparency I have decided to ask the questions which the lawyers are not asking. It is easy for people to make the assumption that an organisation like the SPCA would not take a prosecution unless it is serious but I certainly have not seen any evidence of any animal neglect or mistreatment and would not be sticking my neck out if what I had seen had supported the actions of your inspectors.

There is obviously a lot of public interest and I am concerned with the online bullying which has gone on and the manner in which these ladies have been executed before they have even been to court. In fact the manner in which they are being treated is grossly inhumane.

In my day in the police no single person ever dealt with a prosecution, there was always oversight of the file by a more senior person in the police. This file is akin to one person ” throwing the book ” at two ladies for trivialities.

I further concerned that it appears that this file is being prosecuted by a person who has left the employment of the SPCA and that there is no legal organisation which has charge of the file.

The whole thing appears to have been passed to the Crown Solicitor to prosecute. The involvement of the Crown Solicitor in itself is a concerning matter as this is a Private prosecution and is in breach of the  Terms of Office of Crown Solicitor (at point 16). 

The inspector who was involved from day one was Kevin Plowright he left the SPCA on 21 June 2019, so the prosecution file has lacked oversight by the officer in charge since at least that date and probably before that when Plowright was overseas see https://www.spca.nz/news-and-events/news-article/ronas-roar

It occurs to me, that the timing of the events with Volkerson, the publicity and fund raising capacity that this gave for the SPCA and the winning of the  2017 Rona’s Roar prize by Kevin Plowright may well be more than meets the eye. 

Getting back to the identity issue

According to the Bio on the Detector Dogs website, Kevin worked with Neil Wells in Waitakere City Council where Wells operated the “approved organisation” which was AWINZ for some 10 years ( there have only ever been two approved organisations one the RNZSPCA the other was AWINZ ) 

Kevin was warranted as an AWINZ ( Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ) inspector from 2002-2005.

AWINZ was a fictional organisation, it did not exist in any legal manner or form but no one in MAF( Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries ) at the time or since has cared about this. A fictional organisation which had coercive public law enforcement powers has been totally condoned. 

Kevin is a protégé of Wells and would be aware of the significance of using the correct name for an organisation and he has seen that fictional organisations are condoned. 

Kevin Plowright was employed by the Auckland SPCA from 2005 – 2007 and again from 2010 to 2019. The Auckland SPCA is an incorporated society officially known as THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED (222889) this is its constitution 

The Royal New Zealand Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is the approved organisation under section 121 animal welfare act which gives the SPCA its inspectorate powers which by virtue of section 190 is passed on to its member societies

The Auckland SPCA is a member society of the RNZSPCA see the constitution of the RNZSPCA society number 218546 schedule 2

It Is very clear by this that the SPCA Auckland and the RNZSPCA are two distinctly separate organisations to the extent that the constitution of the RNZSPCA defines. 

SPCA Auckland as The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated (registration number 222889). and the “RNZSPCA” and “SPCA” mean the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated and includes its officers, employees and Board Members, unless specified otherwise.

The charges however has been laid as follows: 

“I, Kevin Plowright of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) have good cause to suspect that has committed the offence specified below.”

Question for Tracey Phillips. I will have questions for you from time to time in this open manner and undertake to put your responses up publicly and un changed. Because of the multitude of issues I will tackle them one by one.  Today the question of identity. 

Who or what is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) ?  There is no such organisation and fictional organisations are not capable of taking a prosecution see Section 16 Criminal Procedure Act 

The contact person is the Crown Solictor who appears to be ducking for cover and we have now been told officially through the court one thing one week and an another the following week. 

Tracey it is apparent to me that neither the RNZSPCA nor the SPCA Auckland has oversight of the file and no one has been able to fully and fairly inform Barbara or Janine what the specific allegations are with regards to each alleged offence.

If you looked at the file as closely as I have, you will notice that evidence is rather sadly lacking and given that all the inspectors involved have left the RNZSPCA, we need to identify a person representing the alleged prosecuting body, and for them to take charge and ensure that the file is of prosecution standard and that each charge can be sustained. 

As the most senior inspector we presume that the responsibility must fall on your shoulders.

The papers are reporting this as an RNZSPCA prosecution. However based on the court papers it appears that it is a prosecution by a fictional organisation and as such the charges cannot stand .

It also appears that no one in the SPCA Auckland or the RNZSPCA has had oversight of the prosecution and that Kevin Plowright has prepared the file and handed it on to Luke Radich the relative of Jenny Radich through the Anita Killeen pro bono prosecution scheme .

Please advise urgently .

RESPONSE

From: Tracy Phillips <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:17 am
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Tena koe Grace

As the matter is before the courts I am not in a position to comment.

Kind regards

Tracy

From: grace@verisure.co.nz <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:35 am
To: ‘Tracy Phillips’ <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Thank you Tracy

but we don’t even know if the prosecution is a legitimate  SPCA prosecution  or even  if  the SPCA is involved

We doubt that the board of the RNZSPCA or  the board of the Auckland SPCA   supported the prosecution   and wish to  have the identity of the prosecuting body   confirmed

I certainly hope that  you do not  condone a prosecution is in the name of a fictional organisation 

Post script

Tracy left the RNZSPCA Nov. 2020 and in December 2020 commenced work for Maritime NZ

Dogs New Zealand is the latest fictional organisation to take on life of its own. It is nothing more than a trade mark . Few people realise that a trade mark is like a car, it is vehicle for business. It can be assigned it can be used but it is a thing and has as much capability of sending out letters in its own name and invoicing and fining people as your car does .

All over New Zealand Dog breeders are being duped with the latest list of fines and penalties and being rejected on any appeal , few realise that the name Dogs New Zealand has no physical ability to set up the so called breeders code, and least of all, enforce it .

I decided to look into the back ground and first port of call was the register for incorporated societies .Put in the New Zealand kennel club ( as dogs New Zealand wont bring anything up ) and you will find the list of filed documents

The only constitution which has any legal binding is the latest constitution filed in the registry . You will note that this document dated 2018 makes no reference to Dogs New Zealand or any code of conduct , process for making rules and regulations, process for enforcing them .

By going back through the documents you will find that the original documents were robust and contained all the rules and regulations in the constitution and were passed by the executive council with due process.

In 2014 the rules still contained a large section entitled Discipline and settlement of Disputes at section 35 . The following year it was simply struck from the rules see here and again when the constitution was filed again a week later here

There has been nothing in the constitutions since which provide for any process of making dispute and settlement regulations and it is of note that there appear to be no members of the executive who have authorised the correctness of the filed constitutions ,this has all been done by staff members ie employees.

In my experience I have seen many instances where incorporated societies have been taken over by its staff . It is the executive that makes the rules and they appoint the ceo who then employs the staff to carry out those directions , not the other way round .

So often the executive have no idea which way is up , they are elected by the membership , or in this case the delegates and too often are then pretty much told what to do by staff.

It is unclear as to how DOGS New Zealand came about and its even more puzzling as to how ti took on life of its own .It is a registered trade mark but we do not know by whose authority and when it was resolved by the executive to adopt it , the possibility is that the exectutive have no idea how it evolved either .

What can you do .. each of you belongs to a kennel club which has a delegate on the NZ Kennel club , I believe that you should raise it with your club as a concern that the kennel club is acting unconstitutionally

Ask for a copy of the minutes of AGM’s going back to 2014 to verify that the constitutions were changed with proper authority and consensus , to check when and how the rules which are being enforced on you were passed and what legal authority those rules have

Seek evidence that the clubs were consulted on the changes which relate discipline and penalties and the consultation process which had been undertaken with executives, delegates and members.

Those on the executive council https://www.dogsnz.org.nz/dogsnz/executive-council need to be held to account for the unconstitutional actions of the Trade mark and those using the trade mark as though it is a legal person .

A copy of this post will be sent to all members of the executive council and I ask that you all spread the word to the breeders to seek fairness , transparency and accountability

We all know that there is no such thing as magic . Magic in my definition is to do something seemingly impossible

We are told that our justice system is robust and that there is fairness in our courts but what few realise is that the civil jurisdiction has far less constraints on it than the criminal jurisdiction .

Section 27 of the bill of rights “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”

But only those charged with offences have “the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court” section 25

For many lawyers court action is war, and as you know all is fair in love and war .

I was once a police prosecutor and believed that they system we had was fair , perhaps that was because I was an honest cop and thought the same of my colleagues, but times change standards change and a wider perspective allows you to see the full picture .

when I found myself in the civil jurisdiction on a claim of defamation and passing off , I discovered that lawyers are simply able to make things up

This is the statement of claim ,I was not allowed to defend it and the corrupt Barrister Neil Wells who was behind this public fraud swore it as true

The statement of claim was originally drafted by a law clerk , the charitable dollar was used to prosecute it and it was all signed off by a former crown prosecutor, with a reputable name who had obviously not looked at the allegations and the evidence to support it see details at this link more background

Clues to our legitimacy to hold and have our name is on the front page of the intituling the first plaintiffs

NEIL EDWARD WELLS of Huia, Auckland, Council Officer and
Lecturer, WYN HOADLEY of Castor Bay, Auckland, Barrister and
GRAEME JOHN COUTTS of Avondale, Auckland, Recruitment
Consultant as trustees of the ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF
NEW ZEALAND, AN UNINCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST

the third defendant

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALAND, AN
INCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST having its registered office at , Epsom, Auckland

Only through incorporation does a group of persons become a body corporate , Wells was aware of this he provided the law society with copies of minutes in 2011 these stated it clearly “Registration as Charitable Trust and tax exempt status with IRD..AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. IRD approvals required.

this contrasts with the application he submitted to the minister in 1999 and the letter which he wrote in march 2000 when he gave the minister the assurance that he could not send a copy of the trust deed as it had been sent off for registration .

There was never a trust deed produced that showed all three people as a trust and evidence was later to be found that the trust deed which they did produce was a total fake , the people named on this trust had never met and had never passed a resolution and the trust by its own terms expired in 2003 and since there was no meeting there was no re appointment of trustees

But why should all this stand in the way of obtaining a incorporated name through court action All done by way deceiving the court and attacking my reputation and character .

All this was achieved without evidence, simply as perjurious statement of claim and bull doze a head as if all the crap is true lawyers don’t fact check those with the money can get anything past the post .

The major flaw in our legal system is that Judges believe lawyers .Like any good magic trick it all begins with distraction by planting ideas in your head until our courts start calling for evidence and for a lawyer to fact check the claims then there will be no justice

The court must not be a tool where by the corrupt can obtain what they want and neither should the court be complicit in this , when there are no safe guards and the court can re write history based on the verbal garbage a lawyer presents then there is something very wrong. Its not about winning at all costs its about upholding the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand something that many lawyers over look guess there are no $$$ in that so they help Goliath strip david of his pebbles and slingshot and say justice has been seen to have been done .. or any way lets pretend it has.

While we are in lock down and Easter is upon us it is time to reflect on the meaning of Easter .

I for one am moving my summer clothes and replacing them with my winter wardrobe, but our friends in the northern hemisphere are doing the opposite and that is where the true meaning of easter can be found .

Easter is marked by the Friday after first full moon after the winter equinox , the equinox was on the 22 March so easter can fall any time between that date and the full moon .

This year the full moon was on the 7th april making Friday the 10th Good Friday and Sunday 12th Easter Sunday .

So why is Christmas , the birth of Jesus, a fixed date and his resurrection a movable feast . Well it is because it actually has nothing to do with Jesus at all and it is in fact part of the marketing package that sold Christianity to the pagans .

There are fabulous articles for those who do not have minds which are limited by their beliefs and a good starting point is this , and this . The story behind easter eggs is here .

Last year I was in the Norway and visited the first christian church built in 900 ad , I discovered that Christianity was a tool which was used by men in power to keep their power and control over the people . Kings ruled because they had the support of the vatican hence every one in those early years were catholic and were called up on to have large families as this in time would mean more troops or cannon fodder to keep the kings in power.

While the term ” image of god” would have us believe that man was created in the image of god, the reality is that god was created in the image of man and that was to put all the other preexisting gods out of business. But some survived thursday is still Thors day , friday Freyas and wednesday Odin ( wodin).

and so it was that eventually our legal system, originating from roman law is totally founded on christianity.

While our ancestors were deprived of education we have more information at our fingertips than ever before and we do not have to believe what we are told and our sunday sermon in church is not our only source of education.

Except for some cults and cultures, we are no longer being killed or thrown out for having our own beliefs or opinions . and very much whatever you believe in is true .

o that end I simply love this clip George Carlin – Swearing on the bible – YouTube so True and it totally reflects on the fact that swearing on a bible doesn’t mean that the evidence is true but in New Zealand it is almost impossible to have some one prosecuted for perjury .

Our justice system relies on lawyers ” not knowingly deceiving the court ” you may find this address by her honour justice Winkelmann interesting

she states ” 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. 23 “

The biggest problem we have in New Zealand is that lawyers are not held accountable to the lawyers and conveyancers act least of all the “truth” which they encourage the court to believe.

If lawyers can stand before the court and be believed while hard evidence is ignored , then we have an unsound legal system

If lawyers were engineers and had to front up to mother nature instead of judges they would find that their ” constructions would collapse. as Mother nature only accepts integrity and anything without integrity is put to the test in a very physical and real way .

Getting back to the bible The Wise and Foolish Builders Matthew 7:24-27 New International Version (NIV) ²⁴ “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. ²⁵ The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. ²⁶ But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.“

Is our legal system built on solid foundation or is it built on the sand ?

I am very much impressed with the accountability that we all have to stopping Covid and hope that the same will be implemented in our legal system to stop corruption which I believe is perpetrated by lawyers who lack integrity and will do anything to win .

Update an associated article worthy of a read https://www.kiwisfirst.com/new-zealands-plan-to-eliminate-covid-19-prompts-habeas-corpus-challenge/

Christmas is always an interesting time of the year, it is the time that everyone goes off on their holidays and those who are wishing to do something less than transparent makes their move .

Traditionally the SPCAs throughout New Zealand were run by volunteers, they were incorporated societies consisting of locals who were concerned about the needs of animals in their region . These societies were united through the membership to the RNZSPCA which was the only organisation to have law enforcement powers , The reality is that the RNZSPCA is the only private law enforcement organisation .. do it corruptly it is a licence to print money

In recent years local SPCA’S were taken over and closed down, many great volunteers got a kick in the teeth and were left at the road side. The ambitions of those who had taken over the helm, was to corporatised this voluntary organisation , the wolves had taken over the hen house .

From an organisation which had millions tucked away in trusts and pleading poverty we now have a corporate structure which supports executives Ceos, in house lawyers, animal welfare inspectors and their supervisors and full time vets .

You do not set up such an organisation if there is no prospect of $$$$ , the voluntary system is not what these people are after they are promoting the inspectorate and the system they have for prosecution is pretty much fool proof .. like lambs to the slaughter.

A while ago I mentioned the SPCA aotearoa LTD which was set up by Gordon Trainer the former Ernst and Young partner and now Chair of the RNZSPCA . It appears that Andrea Midgen and Tony Lemmens became the directors of this company which is now owned by the RNZSPCA and filed its new constitution just a few short weeks ago , there is no longer a desire to prevent cruelty the desire is to give animals a better life .

The SPCA now employs its own vets and has its own legal team but things are not as transparent as one would want and there appears to be a massive conflict of interest

Action under the animal welfare act is commenced on the opinion of an inspector, who can seize and animal or animals . The animal is seen by a vet at some stage and later charges are laid and the person who being charged is prosecuted by one of a team of lawyers who volunteer their services to the spca .

The prosecution is passed on to the crown as a crown prosecution and the penalties are very serious . The odds of winning a animal welfare prosecution are very low part of the reason is that the evidence is trumped up and stacked against you and a private law enforcement authority has no interest in justice only in $$$. it is for this reason that the Ontario SPCA lost its powers ( see earlier posts )

lets look at some of the players

Brett Lahman was a board member of SAFE save animals from exploitation , he was also a Wellington SPCA animal welfare inspector  and is now the in house lawyer for the RNZSPCA

Jess BEER according to her linked in profile has been a vet for the SPCA since 2016 her web site https://www.kiwivetbehaviour.net/ “I am affiliated with …………. Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE)”( post has since been removed but here is a capture

The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated.. The New Zealand Animal Law Association is a coalition of lawyers, law students and law graduates working to improve the welfare and lives of animals through the legal system. Arnja Dale of the RNZSPCA is the honorary patron .

Saar Cohen-Ronen is the current president he is also a board member of SAFE and just to take it to a further degree of conflict this was his role until recently . https://www.adls.org.nz/cpd/cpd-events/2412/in-house-counsel-who-is-your-new-client-on-demand

Although he is no longer in this position he is currently still employed by the government and members of the The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated are currently crown prosecutors e.g Natalie Walker

Natalie Walker is the daughter in Law of former chief justice Sian Elias and Hugh Fletcher . the Fletcher in the law firm , for which she holds the crown warrant , is her husband, their son Ned is another partner of the law firm for which Natalie now holds the crown warrant . http://www.kfw.co.nz/our-people

Natalie was one of the lawyers to go on Anita Killeen’s pro-bono panel of prosecutors “14 of NZ’s finest litigators join the fight against animal cruelty”

What we find so intriguing about this is that the lawyer takes on the work Pro bono and then being a crown prosecutor there is an illusion to the court that the prosecution is being taken by the crown. where as it is simply a pro bono exercise and the prosecution may or may not have gone through the proper channels for prosecution .

Another member of the The New Zealand Animal Law Association Incorporated is Justine Dearsley who is now auckland council in house lawyer but was according to her linked in profile Principal Advisor at Ministry of Justice – New Zealand since 2016 these are her submissions to the animal welfare bill

Gretel Fairbrother another lawyer states on her web site” Gretel has also been involved with the SPCA, SAFE, Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network, The New Zealand Animal Law Association and Oil Free Wellington“. others are not so open about it

There is a very clear connection between the animal law association members, safe and SPCA is a tight one and any one requiring to defend themselves against malicious SPCA charges is up against a legal system which makes the assumption that the SPCA acts lawfully and legally

We are not alone suggested further reading https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/activists-hijack-worthy-groups-like-the-ama-rspca/news-story/aa1e71c8807393ba757a11cf98fae767

There appears to be a lot of fuss about a comparatively minor matter of the pay out for a sexual abuse while a large and very serious matter has been totally ignored by both parties for some 13 years .

Jacinda is aware of this matter as I spoke in her presence and that of
Julie Anne Genter at a pre election function two elections ago.

I have written to the government copious times and have been fobbed off , I can only come to the conclusion that you are totally ignoring this matter so as to condone corruption .

In the early 1990s Neil Wells, a barrister who has now been proved to be corrupt , volunteered his services to a Labour Minister to write the animal welfare bill , his volunteering transpired to be to facilitate his own business plan .

He never declared his gross conflict of interest and became ” independent advisor to the select committee” and made an application for a fictional organisation to receive coercive Law enforcement powers under the new legislation which resulted from the process in which this corrupt barrister was an integral part of .

It has been 13 years since I raised the concern and although AWINZ ceased being a law enforcement a law enforcement authority in 2010 , I have suffered on going repercussions which are massive compared to one unwanted sexual encounter .

The simple evidence which proves my veracity is in the fact that we successfully incorporated the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand there by proving that no other organisation by that name legally existed .

Had MAF checked the existence of AWINZ in 1999 they would not have accepted the application or Wells Word for anything, not only did he make a false application he continually lied about it then used the court to conceal his criminal behaviour.

In January this year a decision came out of the Ontario Supreme court this decision resulted in the Ontario SPCA giving up its law enforcement powers It was held by the court that a private law enforcement authority did not and could not have proper accountability to the public

If this is the case for a legally incorporated organisation then how could a fiction organisation have any possible accountability when there is no evidence of it existing and as it transpired there was never any one else involved in running it other than Mr Wells .

The significance of private law enforcement becomes significant through Well”s own words in the submission to the the select committee in 2013 he states

I have linked my affidavit which sets out the background in full starting at point 14

Why has this issue not been important , why has it been condoned and fobbed off ?

When you have finished with the side show on minor matters could you please take some time to have this investigated as there are massive implications as the the lawfulness, transparency and lack of accountability of the remaining Private law enforcement authority the RNZSPCA , especially in view of the Ontario decision .

There is great significant that Ontario had the same powers as our RNZSPCA , There is a very close connection with Ontario through the chairman & CEO of the canadian humane society who lives in Ontario and which the Ontario SPCA was part of . The ontario SPCA had these powers from 1990 and it appears that this was inspiration for Wells to create the legislation which we now have .

Please see hyperlinks for the full evidence

Today I received the attached court decision from the Superior court of Justice  Ontario    Decision-19-01-02 Ontario

It was reported in the Ontario press https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-judge-strikes-down-enforcement-powers-of-ospca-as-unconstitutional-1.4239169.

I see this  decision as impacting  on the Approved organisations  which  currently enforce the animal welfare law in New Zealand, the ontarion SPC has a lot in common with the  RNZSPCA  and  their legislation  is  pretty similar to ours ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

By way of back ground

I am a former police prosecutor and became a mother then a private investigator . In my role as Mother  I stumbled across  a fictional “Approved organisation”  being the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) .

MPI’s own  documents record that  this “ organisation “ was never incorporated under any legislation, this actually means that the application for approved status was fraudulent , it was compounded with  false and misleading statements to the minister . I discovered he fraud and on blowing the whistle was immediately crucified , 12 years later I am still suffering the fall out,  this time at the hands of a Financial markets authority Lawyer  *.see foot note

What makes the impact of this even more significant is the fact that  the only person to  operate this “ approved organisation “ was none other than Neil Edward Wells the barrister who had written the No bill for the legislation  and  then become  “ independent advisor” to the select committee when the bills became Law . see his cv here

His purpose for writing the  bill was   his own business plan see the a copy of which you have on your files here   and  a copy which I have forwarded to your staff many times here   , it has to be noted that these  were dated 1996   an predate his  drafting of the legislation  He inserted the approved organisations into the bill to facilitate his business plan .

IN 2006  I raised Questions  with regards to  AWINZ   and found that this was totally covered up by  MPI  officials  who were  on friendly terms with  Wells. The  current MPI  chief   legal officer Peter  McCarthy was the  crown law solicitor  who  gave advice  in the approval stages  and failed to pick up the  lack of any  legal existence of AWINZ see  document here ,  His own conflict  has  in my opinion  jeopardised any investigation into the  public fraud which existed for  some 10 years.

I raised question with regards to accountability  as in my mind a fictional organisation cannot have accountability .

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

 The Ontario decision impacts on  the only two   Approved organisation  which have existed   in   different ways

1. AWINZ    .. was MPI  negligent in allowing AWINZ   to continue as an approved organisation   until 2010 despite a whistle blower.. (me) correctly  identifying that the organisation had no legal existence ,this  point  was  recognised by MPI  in 2007 see here    . MPI  met with people claiming to be  the AWINZ trust but these people informally came together in   may 2006 a  month after we had proved that AWINZ the approved organisation was a fiction .  the gazette notices with regards to  AWINZ are here
2. RNZSPCA   I see that the case with the RNZSPCA  reflects the same issues as the  judge identified with the Ontario SPCA.  Ours  however is compounded by the fact that  the RNZSPCA  has never been given approved status  but was given approved status under  Transitional provisions. Mr Wells was a former  director of the  RNZSPCA  , his law degree had been paid for  by the RNZSPCA   and  he  continued to have associations with the RNZSPCA  after   AWINZ lost its approved status.

Wells was proved to be a   corrupt barrister  the organisation he misappropriated funds for the RNZSPCA.

When the RNZSPCA  was given  provisional approval  in the legislation  it had a constitution  1995 constitution which was  very different to its current constitution 2017 constitution . There is also reference to branches, but  there is  a move to  remove branches and the entire structure and integrity of the RNZSPCA has changed  with the  Auckland SPCA ( a member society ) effectively taking over the RNZSPCA

The  Ontario decision   in particular paragraph 84  to 91 impacts on the AWINZ matter  specifically  i the fact that the application  for   approved status for AWINZ   was fraudulent in that it  claimed to be an organisation when  the  only person applying for approved status  an  involved in running the approved organisation under the fictional name  AWINZ was the author of the legislation

There was no transparency then  and those involved in the  cover up     being  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts  ,  Tom Didovich , the FMA lawyer and MPI staff  whose actions    sought to conceal the fact that AWINZ , the approved organisation ,had no legal existence as determined  by  the ministry of economic development  see here  . have  continued to be fine upstanding persons  while I hve had to endure 12 years of  orchestrated attacks on my reputation    so as to discredit me and the facts of the substantive issue   ignored.

Itis time that  MPI  takes steps to  ensure  transparency , integrity to protect itself  from  fraud and  demonstrates that such  falsehoods will not be condoned,  this is particularly serious as it involved law enforcement   through fraud

With regards to the RNZSPCA   in light of the Ontario decision mPI must  review the search and seizure powers Section 21 Bill of rights  and section s 127 -130 Animal welfare act  as discussed in paragraph 12 of the Ontario decision  paragraph 31  to 61

In particular  it needs to be considered that Paragraph 24 of the decision  refers to distress,  the definition in the   Ontario act is distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect; (“détresse”)24 ,

 Our  legislation does not define  distress which means it takes on dictionary meaning and  can  include “ discomfort , despair, worry  anxiety’ My cat suffers from this  frequently when she doesn’t get a hit of “treats”   and with  the RNZSPCA constitution change incorporating  the requirement to “create a better life for animals “  I am  in danger of causing distress to my cat .. she certainly puts up a convincing show

• this means that inspectors subjective  opinion could determine that  I am causing my cat  distress  when she does not get her fix of her favourite treat on time

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

“By granting police and other investigative powers {including search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act  )to a private organization? In the alternative, if it can be constitutional to grant such powers to a private organization does the animal welfare  Act never the less breach sections 21   25   and 27  of the bill of rights by granting these powers to the RNZSPCA, specifically, without any or adequate, legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?”

Ontario decision . Just like the  Canadian legislation our animal welfare act carries  imprisonment  penalties (section25  37 AWA) and therefore  are “ criminal in nature “  people  who are charged with animal welfare offences  are liable to lose their employment  such as in the case of nurses  and  teachers.

Many of the offences are strict liability  and the   “unreasonableness” in compliance or noncompliance is  only evaluated  subjectively “ in the opinion” of the  Inspector of the private  enforcement organisation which  co incidentally  appears to have changed its constitution to   target  enforcement as a means of income and is  involved in significant   recruitment and training of new inspectors   see here

Like the Canadian provisions  many of our criminal acts require  intent ,  however intent is not an ingredient in the animal welfare  act  and a person acting in accordance with their  traditional  standards  could well become guilty under the act. If suffering is in” the opinion” of any party  it is the opinion of the  RNZSPCA that counts. The RNZSPCA  is targeting fines as a source of income

It is of specific note that  you are automatically guilty  of an offence under the animal welfare act unless you file a defence  under  restricted terms , within 7 days . section 13 animal welfare act.

It is also of note that the legislation was  written and advised on by a Barrister who   was closely associated with the RNZSPCA  under its old constitution  and one who was  intent on using this  very legislation to derive an income for himself.

The discussion  Paragraph 62 onward   in the Ontario decision is  very relevant

we require an urgent  review of the RNZSPCA and the  animal welfare Acts’ compliance with the  bill of rights  and Official information  act

1. • section 21 BORA   given that all it requires for an  search and seizure is the opinion of an inspector  who  is  employed by a charity whose  purpose is to “taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.’

• • Section 25 C Bora  “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”   and section13 Animal welfare act  , there was a case where a nurse had  horse which contracted  a  disease distributed by pukeko’s, her horse rapidly deteriorated and  died.   The laboratory tests  were not back within 7 days  and her defence  failed because the SPCA proved that her horse died in her care .

• • Section 27  does the ability of the RNZSPCA  to enter and search without warrant impact on  the right to justice

• • Unlike the police  or government body  prosecution  the RNZSPCA is not subject to the  official information act  and therefore lacks transparency

It is further of note that the  RNZSPCA   trades as the SPCA  , the  staff and directors of the former  Auckland SPCA which was a separate legal entity appear to have taken over the  RNZSPCA which was the only body to have  approved status.  Their  new  constitution allows for other names , this    brings about confusion and  opens the ability of any one to pass themselves off as an approved organisation  and  gives scope for another  fraudulent  law enforcement organisation  such as AWINZ.

I  sincerely hope that  the Ontario decision provides clarity and direction for our own animal welfare legislation

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 .