In October 2018 the SPCA took 15 dogs from Janine and Barbara , these dogs were not ill these dogs were healthy and above all these dogs were champions in their breed .

Two subsequently produced pups and despite the SPCA acknowledging that they were pregnant they x rayed them

This dog was uplifted allegedly for an ear infection and being under weight her weight the day after being seized was recorded as 30 .5 kg which according to official records is slam bang in the middle of the norms 28 – 32 kg .

this is just an example of what “under weight” means

The questions we need to ask here are

• why did it take a year and a half of investigation before charging the owners if the dogs were in a bad sate would that be conclusive evidence
• why was it days and for many two weeks before they were seen by a vet despite the SPCA charging the owners with allowing the dog to suffer
• why was the interview not about the condition of the dogs and their health and treatment ?
• why were they left with the vast majority of dogs if they were not suitable to have dogs
• why did the RNZSPCA return 5 dogs which were taken without documentation
• why were dogs taken without documentation what act section protocol allows this
• why was the surrender form for the first 5 dogs not given to its owner and why did some one forge a signature
• under what lawful basis could the RNZSPCA take healthy dogs and not inform the owners why they were taken
• why were they not allowed to see the dogs the pups and dogs
• why could their vets not provide an independent assessment
• why the discrepancy in litter numbers
• and why enforce standards well beyond the code of welfare

Questions for Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker

• this is a private prosecution then why do you emblazon your court documents with the word CROWN ?

• and why change the name to the RNZSPCA when in reality the prosecutor was not them and we can prove that it was the Auckland SPCA and there is no evidence at all that it was the RNZSPCA again is that not misleading he court ?

• why did it take nearly two years for you to correct the name and why was it not done with any proper evidence or supported by affidavits ?

• why make repeated offers for a guilty plea and why drown them with 79 charges should you not have reviewed the charges and the evidence long before now ? especially in light of the evidence and the pressure that these women are being put under to plead guilty

• Luke you know that your clients executed a fake search warrant you say your not relying on that but your clients who ever they are have all the evidence which the ladies collated to defend themselves .

• and if you had looked through the evidence then you too would wonder how a person can be charged with

and the very first time it ( an others with similar charges ) saw a vet was 27 October should you therefore not be charging the SPCA with neglecting animal which they claim were ill ?? and also be taking them on for allowing a dog to birth in the back of a moving van ? is that condoned but having a dog on a short leash warrants its disposal ?

• may I remind you of your obligations in particular 4 (a) and 4(d)

The RNZSPCA has obligations under the bill of rights

they exercised their powers under the legislation which gave them approved status

It would appear that this prosecution could be ground breaking in proving that the breach of the bill of rights would impact on its accountability to the public .. which in my interpretation of the law means compliance with the law

When the evidence is not there corrupt prosecutors tend to resort to dirty tactics and in this case it was an unlawful search warrant that took all the preparation the ladies had done for their defence not only did it leave them powerless to fight the disposal which incidentally was to the Auckland SPCA , it also meant that the corrupt SPCA could counter the points which they had observed and made notes about on their private computer in their own home

How ,as crown solicitor could you possibly sanction entry into a home with a false search warrant

And where is the dispensation from the solicitor General which you require to act in this manner are you not severely conflicted by turning a blind eye to an organisation which should comply with he law but is actively ignoring it ?

This case ,which I am sure the ladies will lose, as the corruption is so great and the playing field so un even that the cards are stacked against them . They have been totally bullied and harassed their lives have been totally destroyed and they have already had trial by press coordinated by the SPCA .

Is this prosecution really in the public interest and why have the prosecution guide lines been ignored

This is not a crown prosecution and the crown has never assumed responsibility so why are you portraying yourself to the court as the crown ?

The ladies will be totally destroyed but its not about humaneness is about dirty tactics all the way including the provision of a legal aid lawyer who has now disclosed that he is actually a member of the New Zealand Animal Law Association and is looking at abandoning his client at the 11 th hour he certainly has not done any preparation except put pressure on her to secure a guilty plea .

We need to have an outcry in New Zealand Just like the one in Australia .!

Please keep the stories rolling in the SPCA should not have coercive law enforcement powers they are abusing the ones they have and the power is now in the control of a select few . it is not the voluntary organization of old

Senator Malcolm Roberts calls for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity.

 Play

MP3•Episode home

In this podcast two guests join us to a discuss our modern-day RSPCA. What might surprise you is that this isn’t a heart-warming story.

The Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known as the RSPCA, dates to 1871 when a public meeting was held in Victoria in response to the ill treatment of horses. The QLD RSPCA was formed in 1883. The RSPCA is a household name and many consider it a beacon of respect and care for animals.

Today, the RSPCA has capitalised on its branding of animal welfare with producers and brand owners being able to use the RSPCA logo to reflect their shared vision for animal welfare. Today we can buy RSPCA approved meat in our supermarkets. Typically, we don’t question the integrity of the claimed “animal welfare” standards as we take for granted that this iconic brand is squeaky clean.

Several QLD constituents contacted my office recently with extraordinary stories about how the RSPCA were conducting themselves. Since asking questions at Senate Estimates about the RSPCA, their methods and the legitimacy of their not-for-profit status, we’ve been flooded with more calls and emails. Their stories share many similar themes and the overall message is that there is something rotten in the state of the RSPCA.

The concerns being raised are varied.

The RSPCA’s charity status means that they are not-for-profit and enjoy a tax-free status. Looking closely at the recent annual report it shows revenue was $58 million and included in that is a $4 million Federal Govt grant. The hefty surplus of $8.7 million is what prompted Senate Estimates questions of the Commissioner for Charities and Not-For-Profits. My questions were about whether the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status? We’re waiting for that answer as no-one could provide one on the day.

The RSPCA appears to be leveraging its charity branding to become heavily commercial. I have already mentioned the RSPCA approved meat and today RSPCA pet shops are being set up in the suburbs. On the face of it there is no problem. It is when we understand how the RSPCA is conducting itself under its Inspectorate powers, that we see the problem.

The RSPCA’s Inspectorate of RSPCA QLD, has power to investigate and confiscate animals that are poorly treated. That is the heart of what we expect from them. What we don’t expect is seizure of animals based on lies. We have dozens of examples where Inspectorate officers have entered properties and confiscated with no prior notification or investigation. All this is based on an anonymous tip off that is never disclosed to the property owners. The warrants JPs sign sometimes use photographs of animals in poor conditions, which do not match the animals to be seized. This is only the beginning. Some pet owners have then seen their animals online for sale within days. This is the problem when the RSPCA have a commercial arm alongside their charitable arm when they can confiscate and sell based on misuse of powers and lies. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Many pet shop owners, registered breeders, private pet owners, animal rescuers and veterinarians have experienced the full force of the RSPCA’s misuse of power. Many have spoken out against this strong arm approach and suffered the consequences. Pet shop businesses have been sabotaged when the RSPCA advises their suppliers to blacklist them based on false accusations of animal cruelty. Veterinarians who have spoken out against this behaviour have also suffered from the RSPCA spreading false accusations regarding their standards of animal care. Business have been decimated through this belligerent behaviour.

My two guests, who both own pet stores, join us to share their experiences with the RSPCA. Their stories are confronting. 

Leichelle and Nicole’s stories are extraordinary and not what we expect of a charity that is supposed to champion care and respect for animals. This unconscionable conduct is exploiting its charitable and tax-free status to create a multi-million dollar business. Its strong-arm approach is clearly outside of acceptable conduct under both the Acts. 

The RSPCA have become a law unto themselves, issuing warrants based on lies, not going through due process to investigate before seizing animals, extorting money out of people for housing their stolen animals and then annihilating local private businesses through negative media and malicious lies. It’s quite a rap sheet for the warm and fuzzy RSPCA we all grew up with.

This belligerent and intimidatory behaviour must stop. Their exploitation business model must be stopped.

I am calling for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity. I urge everyone to take your complaints to the ACCC and to the Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission for investigation. Everyone who donates to the RSPCA, think again. Any RSPCA employees, past or present, are invited to call my office and share their stories.

This behaviour has gone under the radar for too long. We need to bring the RSPCA back to the animal welfare organisation it is supposed to be.

“The Sword which lady Justice carries supposedly symbolizes enforcement and respect, and is meant to imply that justice stands by its decision and ruling, and is able to take action. The fact that the sword is unsheathed and very visible is a sign that justice is transparent and is not an implement of fear. A double-edged blade signifies that justice can rule against either of the parties once the evidence has been perused, and it is bound to enforce the ruling as well as protect or defend the innocent party.”

BUT its is warfare and the sword is manipulated by an army on one side and an amateur on the other it is not a level playing field .

It equivalent to a mediaeval Joust, if I can drug your horse and cut your saddle straps I will win if I can stay in the saddle . That is pretty much the SPCA’s approach and they have targeted ladies with high value dogs and little ability to defend themselves.

I have written articles about Volkerson where an 80 year old and her daughter have had many of their pedigree dogs taken from them . I would not be supporting these ladies if they abused their animals , they have a magnificent farm and the dogs are just gorgeous

It took 1 1/2 years before charges were filed and in the intervening time the SPCA inspectors gathered evidence for the prosecution through

• unlawful search warrants which have never been proved to have been issued in any legal manner
• Taking defence documents from the home and never returning them depriving them of evidence for a defence
• cloning the computer and accessing their email accounts
• obtaining vet records from their vet for treatment for the dogs over a considerable period of time

additionally They employed dirty legal tactics

• Took the security system and left it dismantled
• used the pro bono panel of lawyers which happened to be a crown solicitor and who the court believed was representing the crown
• court documents which falsely allege that this a crown prosecution
• failed to disclose who the actual prosecutor was
• Acting in the name of the Auckland SPCA in disposal proceedings

• unsupported with evidence just weeks before the trial the prosecutor is now alleged to be RNZSPCA
• they trumped up the number of charges.. there are many duplicate charges and they obviously had to dig deep to formulate these. It appears it is an offence to have a dog on a short leash even for a short period of time !!!!
• the reason that there are so many charges is to overwhelm the ladies and their lawyers
• several dogs which they have allegedly left untreated and we allegedly ill were taken straight to a pound and left there for two weeks before being examined by a vet
• Puppies were unlawfully disposed of through the court when there is no legislative basis for their disposal
• they were denied the right to an independent assessment on the health of their dogs its all on the say so of the SPCA vets some of whom are confirmed SAFE activists
• the interview proves that the objective was not an investigation rather than an incentive to surrender the dogs which were selectively taken in October 2017 .
• the following year in the disposal proceedings there were offers to forgo the costs if the ladies voluntarily handed over their dogs
• there were in excess of 30 official visits and there were mid night raids where the dogs were disturbed and interfered with
• Swamped and overwhelmed the ladies with large bundles of alleged evidence which focus on distraction like smell and opinions about stained concrete rather than any real evidence of the condition of the dogs themselves
• you have to wonder why on two identical charges that one dog was seized and the other was not the only difference being that the imported blood line was seized and the other dog left
• What is the significance of of obtaining the dogs pedigrees ? and why were past purchasers of pups contacted and friends and relatives harassed.
• statements from various inspectors appear to be cut and paste versions none were written up contemporaneously and it was only after the final push to surrender the dogs failed that they started looking for evidence !
• the coordination of a public exposure (including TV press and a massive mail out) with the disposal hearing
• the attack and identification of the ladies through social media ensured that they had death threats and mid night raids

A legitimate prosecution would have been based on the evidence displayed by the dogs as they were found on the day and supported by the documents issued on the day that identify why they were seized instead we have statements such as this “We said they have too many dogs on the property and a major destock was required.” The property is a farm it is massive and it isn’t looked after just by the two ladies they had farm workers of which there is no mention made.

It is grossly unsafe for a private organisation for have coercive law enforcement powers , unlike the police they have no independent oversight and they have the government acting for them through the crown solicitor sanctioning the corruption rather than holding hem accountable for the transgressions

Luke Radich better known for his involvement in a betting scandal is employed by the crown solicitor , he appeared incapable of identifying the fact that the prosecutor in this case could not be

He has not checked the charges as implied by Anita Killen in Law talk Download LawTalk issue 904 p65″by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met,” wouldn’t getting instructions from a legal entity be the first port of call ?

How could the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals ( Auckland) “instruct” a lawyer when it does not exist

What process did the decision for prosecution follow when the head inspector for the RNZSPCA said that she had no knowledge of the matter but did assist in returning 5 unlawfully taken dogs in Dec 2019

Which board of which legal entity authorized the prosecution it was the Auckland SPCA which “instructed ” Luke Radich this email sent to the ladies lawyers

Referring to the disposal order above we have been trying to get our head around the number of pups for a long time , not only did Radich and Natalie walker fail to advise the court that the puppies were not capable of disposal under section 136 A but there is a gross discrepancy in numbers there was an application to dispose of 13 puppies Reid in his email below alleges “Desni gave birth on the 10th of December and her 7 puppies (4 male and 3 female) are doing well.”

Unfortunately one of Debbie’s pups died and was eaten by Debbie. Despite the challenging time that Debbie went through during helping our vets advise that her 4 male and 5 female are now progressing satisfactorily. I make that 16 pups

The vet reports Debbie had 11 pups one DOA which is odd as there is a kennel number missing in the sequence and the DOA appears to be a non sequential number . Two were euthanized total of 8 surviving pups

Desney is shown as having 9 pups one euthanized 2 deceased which leaves 6 a total of 14 pups she whelped in a moving van being transported by the SPCA . she did not have a quite place to whelp and it appears that pups died as a result of the SPCA’s negligence in not allowing a dog to have a safe place to deliver her pups .

One puppy has officially gone AWOL and 13 unlawfully disposed of. This is proof that he SPCA cannot account for anything and their lawyers cant get the law right. If the SPCA cannot account for puppies what else are they getting wrong .. there is plenty but we will leave that for court

Greg Reid writes

Spca.org.nz was the web domain owned an operated by The Auckland SPCA Reid specifically states “I have copied in the email details of Luke Radich from the Auckland Crown Solicitor Kayes Fletcher Walker, who we have instructed.”

He goes on to add “I can further confirm that whilst the SPCA acknowledges the efforts your clients have made in developing new Kennels. the number of dogs your clients have confirmed they have still exceeds the Kenneling capacity at the
property. In addition we still hold concern about the integrity and competency of your clients approach in managing dogs and so it would be inappropriate to place dogs back into what we have deemed to be a significantly high
risk environment, particularity when despite our repeated requests and directives your clients persisted in operating in a manner which we anticipate will result in criminal proceedings.“

This confirms the statement he is recorded as making when he inspected the new kennels which the ladies were told to build he claimed that  the improvement was 120% but added “Hope you have not built the kennels for the dogs, you will never get the dogs back.”

The ladies had complied with every section 130 direction and had never been warned that they failed to comply they were doomed from the very first day when they were identified as being prime targets as per the scenario below

This from and Australia contributor

False allegations of sexual assault and other sexual offences have had a fair run in the media, and are an obvious problem. 

However, false allegations are a far greater problem with respect to RSPCA prosecutions, about which the scepticism factor has yet to ruffle the public mind – despite the tsunami of rage rising on the internet!

An estimated 100% of RSPCA cases are

1) fabricated (eg inter alia with staged photographs) or

2) exaggerated beyond credibility, and 

3) reliant on hostile subjective interpretations of statutory offences made possible by loose statutory definitions, and

4) collusion of witnesses,

5) use sub-clauses of the relevant legislative Act without reference to other clauses which would inhibit prosecution if the Act was required to be regarded as internally consistent

6) based on selective profiling –  with a view to using ‘prosecutorial discretion’ (inbuilt for  ‘private prosecutions’) – which ignores common law insistence on ‘equality of all before the law‘, in order to choose persons a) with property or other valuable benefits that can be acquired through conviction, or b) predicted to be lackingfinancial, emotional or physical capacity to run an effective defence,

7) should be peremptorily denied locus standi on grounds of history of bringing vexatious charges

8) should be but are not thrown out by a) the DPP on request for intervention to terminate or takeover the case, or b) the magistrate concerned for to protect the process of the court over which he is presiding, on grounds of unconscionable behaviour, improper purpose, mens rea (no criminal intent), etc.

9) supported by unconscionable refusal of politicians, lawyers, judges, magistrates, DPP, police, media or general public to assess RSPCA prosecutions as an offence against public order and good governance (public interest)

I am sure I could continue along these lines for a considerably longer time. 

In my personal case, all of the above should be augmented with extra charges that should include, for instance, false arrest, entry without a warrant, wilful damage to property, conspiracy, wrongful access to police surveillance and database, defamation, theft, and more.  

For the moment, however, please consider the content of the attached ‘Summary case against the RSPCA’ – with especial look at Section 4, for 31 “possible/potential charges” with which the RSPCA should be charged, as preliminary to demand for massive compensation for victims who have suffered massive and ruinous damages to their lives.  

Sir

New Zealand has one approved organisation under section 121 of the animal welfare act The criteria are shown in section 122

The SPCA is a private organisation which now totally lacks transparency and appears to be nothing more than an incorporated society of a bare minimum of members so that the power and control over the assets and functions are held by a select few

This comes after many of the smaller branches and member societies were persuaded to sign over their assets to the RNZSPCA. Ho wit used to be was that there were branches and member societies which each was an incorporated society with its own members . the members elected a board and a representative of the board was on the RNZSPCA.

It appears that the richest of all the Auckland SPCA took over the RNZSPCA and persuaded the branches to sign over their assets , this was all done in the guise of a better SPCA but ib reality it will prove to be a massive asset grab

Most of these smaller societies and member groups are now being closed their assets have been transferred to the RNZSPCA and this controls well over one billion dollars worth of assets and funds ( source charities register accounts ) The members were given free membership till 2019 and simply since then the majority of former SPCA members have lost their say in the society

There appear to three people at the heart of all of this who have total control of all the affairs of the SPCA David Broderick and Gordon Trainer who have a number of shared directorships and ownership of companies out side the SPCA all associated with finance and property and their right hand woman Andrea Midgen and even though she is allegedly an employee she is also shown as a board member .

What all three have in common is a solid background in finance and not in animal welfare this is all about $$$$$$$$$

Midgen went around the country and encouraged smaller SPCAs to hand over their assets which occurred in 2017

Significantly the Ontario SPCA lost its law enforcement powers and I would like the minister to review the criteria of section 122 in view of the dramatically changed structure and lack of transparency of the RNZSPCA .

It would be in the public interest for the minister to send a representative to the Manukau District court next week where there is a prosecution by the RNZSPCA I believe that evidence at this trial will prove that the RNZSPCA has no regard at all for the bill of rights and the rule of law

The trial that will occur next week is a copy cat of the scenario that senator Malcolm Roberts describes as occurring in Australia

A chronology of what occurred at the Volkerson Kennels, the number of visits in itself raise questions a as to the manner in which the SPCA is operating and with regards to its accountability to the public

Janine and Barbara have champion pedigree German shepherd dogs. They are not a puppy mill rather they are people with a passion for the breed . Their house is full of trophies and ribbons, Janine is a German Shepherd Judge Barbara has been breeding German shepherds since 1960s .

The farm was run with the aid of woofers and there were always plenty of people about to look after and care for the dogs .

IN 2017 They were breeder of the year with 8 Champions including Pirelli, Angelo, Tiana, Abba. Significantly they have unique imported blood lines which other kennels did not have.

on 28 July 2017 they were in the middle of cleaning the kennels when they were visited by Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis , they claimed that there were too many dogs and instructed them to build new kennels which were built and they were told to de stock which is outside the scope of the authority of the inspectors unless they can show that animals are being harmed

4 August 2017 they returned and criticized and intimidated Barbara a woman in her 80s and coerced her to hand over 5 dogs . No receipt was issued there was no paper work at all . After I came involved I sought out the documentation and we were supplied with this document which has not got a legal signature on it from any one authorized to surrender the animals

11 August 2017 return visit and micromanagement intent was to remove more dogs “We discussed with Mrs Glover and Ms Wallace regarding rehoming more dogs and we offered the ability to surrender ownership of more dogs to the SPCA, They both declined the offer.”

Kevin Plowwright went of to Namibia for a spell so all was quite he came to the farm again on the 12th October left no documentation and came back and with reinforcements in 7 vehicles on 13 October and selectively took 15 dogs two of them pregnant bitches . They   took  the breeding age dogs   they didn’t take the old ones or the young ones   and they knew which ones to take through microchip numbers .

Amongst the dogs taken was the champion Pirelli who was on a short leash at the time being groomed for a show that week .There is no law that stops a dog being on a short leash . Another dog was injured when they opened the shed with a sledge hammer and she panicked

24 October Lori Davis & Kevin Plowright arrived no AWS was given.

9 November 2017 There was a interview at the Auckland SPCA the encouragement was for us to surrender the dogs voluntarily see the transcript below this is not a normal interview for ” offenders”

The interview lacks any reference to any offence and appears to be totally about securing the surrender of the seized dogs, there is mention of the costs incurred by the spca and there are offers to wipe these costs if we surrender the dogs He makes it clear that there were no decisions to file charges P 56 “ If there’s not, if there’s massive stress levels on you for coping, for too many dogs, if your mother’s not well, we would like to know that. So we would like to, part of this interview process is, is not, I can mention there’s no course of action decided at this stage. Anything can happen from here.”

Janine was threatened with the hefty penalties page 68 but when the interview failed to secure the surrender of the animals the inspectors belatedly started collating evidence

29 November 2017 One of the seized bitches gave birth Janine and Barbara were not allowed to see the pups the whole litter has been contaminated with Coccidia and they are all sick, all underweight and were deliver by caesarian section , they were x rayed at a very young age their vet records shock dog owners that the SPCA could treat pups in this manner

Desneys Pups were born 11 December one pup was born in the van village ID 293360 “Pup was born DOA on transport back from after hours. ” what would any one be charged with if they transported a bitch in labour ?
the pups are recorded as having giardia and coccidia

These medical files are sad reading they show what the SPCA subjected puppies to in their care

Barbara and Janine never saw these pups and they were unlawfully disposed of through the crown solicitors who misled the court .Section 136A allows for dogs to be disposed of through the court if they have been seized and if they are subject to charges .. they were not seized and they have never been subject to charges

Christmas is always a good time to manipulate people events and it was in the Christmas Holidays 2017 that Plowright and co set about preparing their files , they got the vets associated with Volkerson to handover their records and got all the pedigree documents from Dogs NZ

Friends and associates of Barbara and Janine were subjected to visits from the SPCA and the dog control were instructed to uplift dogs from friends addresses where here was not even a cat

17 January 2018 document’s were filed for the disposal of the dogs the applicant was the fictional royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals,

08.02.2018 there was a further visit to the farm no action taken no animal welfare  notice  was given

27 March 2018 a search warrant was executed conveniently Barbara and Janine had all their documents on the dining room table preparing to fight for their dogs. All the documents were all taken as was their computer which has been cloned and their emails and passwords accesed.

The first thing that Plowright did when he arrived was to dismantle the security system , nothing was safe they took personal items , jewelry privileged communications with lawyers, medical records of the poeple who lived in the house, diaries and personal correspondence and all this was taken without a proper inventory and based on a false search warrant .

significantly we have never found out who issued the search warrant or been able to locate an affidavit for application the document executed was a year old and had copy written on it .

during the execution of the search warrant Barbara and her daughter were forced to sit on a bench and were not allowed to tend to their farm this was unlawful detention

29.03.2018 SPCA – Plowright returns some documents, a puppy uplifted 27 march young puppy picked up and returned 29.03.2018 there is no documentation re  the seizing of this pup just documentation returning it

03.04.2018 SPCA – Davis returns laptop, and other electronic devices a letter was supplied indicating that   a copy of all data had been taken from these devices

1 May 2018 SPCA  feature our dogs on a  very damaging  TV   program and publicly call the farm a puppy mill . this coincides with the hearing for the disposal of the dogs.

Correspondence from Inspector Greg Reid to The kennel club shows that the exposure is not coincidental and is which said ““This will while being a civil matter create a ‘public exposure’ which will probably coincide with carolyn’s story being aired. That is what we are looking at I think.“

There is a massive fundraising drive and one of the dogs featured is a dog which was one of the original five taken unlawfully in August 2017 .

18.05.2018 SPCA & Animal Control approx. 10 vehicles – taking note of all dogs in the kennels. the workers on the farm were in  the middle of cleaning and disinfecting each individual kennel. 4 vehicles then drove all over the property – 6 dogs seized   No section 127 notice was given just a section 129  saying that six dogs were seized  we were not told why they were seized or under which section of section 127(5)

The dogs taken had been out on a run and a swim and had been left under the trees to rest while the kennels were being cleaned , the SPCA made out that the dogs were left there for an extended period of time when the reality is that they were taken there for a morning run

22.08.2018 a notice of application for disposal order is filed for the  dogs seized in May , note that this  was done  three months after  seizing the  dogs where as the  other application was made  five months after  sizing them.  Again the application is in the name of the fictional approved organisation  

22.08.2018 SPCA Visit Plowright  & Vet Student  No name or identification – 1 vehicle + Lori Davis  Robbie in  2nd vehicle issued  section 13o  for  a calf   which was new born and noted the number of dogs23.08.2018 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright  and Robbie Lloyd  to recheck the calf page 21

24.08.2018 SPCA Visit  Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis  no documents provided as to the reason for their  visit

5 September More face book and TV campaigns   this is now over a year since the dogs were taken and there have bene no charges and Barbara and Janine have no idea what offences are in the pipe line

11 October 2018 there is more face book propaganda about prosecuting he biggest prosecution ever throughout October there are Facebook posts alleging that the charges will be filed any day now and finally on 2 November charges are filed in the Manukau court

there are 79 charges many of them duplicates . the charges themselves raise a lot of questions why is the crown solicitor prosecuting when its against heir terms of office ? and why have they not checked the fact that the named prosecutor does not actually exist ? if this is the degree of scrutiny of he charges how can there be any reliance on accuracy ?

This from Anita Killeen’s pro bono panel page 65 “We are very grateful to have a significant commitment of pro bono litigation support from Kayes Fletcher Walker, the Office of the Manukau Crown Solicitor. The firm support the work of the Pro Bono Panel in a number of ways including by acting as instructing solicitor, by providing legal
opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met, as well as appearing in court to assist Panel members on cases. The pro bono work that Kayes Fletcher Walker provides is a significant factor in the ongoing success of the Panel initiative and contributes to ensuring the consistency and high quality of SPCA Auckland’s prosecution files.“

The crown solicitors terms of office specifically prohibit them taking on private prosecutions but the court is repeatedly deceived in thinking that the crown is representing the SPCA

Walkers prosecution has not checked the file if they had they would see that the ladies have ben charged with a named dog and then again for an unidentified dog which in reality is a duplicate charge . But by have 79 charges you create a lot of work and it becomes overwhelming especially for an 83 year old this has been totally cruelty to humans

More evidence that the file was not checked was the charges for some of the dogs which relate to allegedly having a sick animal and failing to care for them the SPCA’s own evidence show that he dogs were uplifted and taken to kennels and were not seen by a vet for 2 weeks . !!!!! they were seized on 13 October and seen by a vet on 27 October so how could they be guilty of having a sick animal ?

There was never any ability for an independent opinion by their own vets and often the only vet involved was a SAFE activist .

17 December 2018   the first appearance in court   right on Christmas

24.01.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis  plus 2 other people  with no identification or names given arrived in  2 vehicles K Plowright took “Xena” who was running loose around the house on the lawn. Xena had a litter of puppies who were exactly 7weeks old to the day  AWS 129 Given , Xena   has simply disappeared  

01.02.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright, Lori Davis and  4 other uniformed unnamed SPCA women – 4 vehicles plus 3 vehicles parked up at the Mangatangi Fire Station Plowright said they were here to do a “Hands On Inspection” of all dogs, Emma and Alex were taken no documentation and no reason for taking the dogs

Alex and Emma both were left in SPCA cars in the blazing sun Alex for 1.5 Alex hours & Emma 1.75 hours before anyone of the 6 SPCA people gave the dog’s well-being a thought.

05.02.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis a letter is left

21.02.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis, Senka Piri, 2x uniformed Women SPCA no identification or names given, SPCA turned up with 4 vehicles and took Fenta, it is recorded on the vet documents that the dog was taken as part of an investigation …this is not a reason why an animal can be taken

06.03.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis, E OMalley, 2x Policemen from Tuakau, 1 1st year student, Robbie, 2x SPCA women Names given … to execute another invalid Search Warrant to view any dogs inside the home. Not signed, not stamped from District Court.

18.06.2019 SPCA Visit Kevin Plowright and Lori Davis, E OMalley, Maori guy scanning all dogs – 3 vehicles – scanned, photographed, videoed, vet checked each dog making notes re BCS, examined ears (no otoscope), teeth & gums, coat, felt each dog all over, all females stomachs were extensively palpitated to feel if there were any pups, checked to see if in season.

08.10.2019 SPCA Visit Lori Davis, E O’Malley, K Wright, Robbie Lloyd, Mike Loulanting, 2 Police Officers from Pukekohe called by Lori Davis, scanned all dogs microchips – 3 vehicles, photographed, videoed, vet checked each dog making notes re BCS, examined ears, teeth & gums, coat, paws, stretched and pulled the back legs out and the front legs forward, felt each dog all over, all females stomachs were extensively palpitated to feel if there were any pups, checked to see if in season, comments on sloping backlines of individual dogs.

16 December 5 dogs unlawfully taken in 2019 returned  by Tracy Phillips the head inspector of the RNZSPCA there has never been an explanation as to why those dogs were taken and why there was no documentation

The name has now been changed to the RNZSPCA when we know that the initial action was by the Auckland spa a different organisation all together but next week will prove interesting thee will be perjury and we need to ask why so much pressure is being put on Janine and Barbara to enter a plea of guilty when they are not .

I would not be supporting them if I did not believe in them I have been to their farm I have seen their dogs and for a cat lady I am impressed this is all about taking high value dogs I am sure that some have bene sold overseas where they would fetch significant sums

To me it seems odd that they allegedly abused their most valuable stock everything reeks of a dog snatch as evidenced by senator Malcolm Roberts

section 122 criteria

The change in structure and the lack of supervision of the inspectors and their ability to ignore the bill of rights has to be of concern . the mere fact that the prosecution charges were filed in the name of a fictional organisation has to bring about questions of supervision and over sight

The bill of rights is applicable to the SPCA and they have a duty to comply with it

Everything in this scenario is about an old lady who has quality pedigree dogs and the inspectors seeing a way to take them from her. Reid and Plowright have left the RNZSPCA and Tracy Phillips left not long after she returned the 5 dogs in 2019 I am certain that she could see what was wrong.

I therefore ask for an investigation into the SPCA , this is not the only matter like this there are others and this must not be allowed to go on .

While we are on the subject of identity fraud and in view of new evidence it is time for an other post the video below is a must see and the site https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ worthy of a visit

when I heard the video and read the site I recognized it immediately as the identical tactics that are being used here in New Zealand.

I have been helping out two ladies one in her late 80s the other in her mid 60s mother and daughter . Mum has been breeding dogs since the 1960s. they have / had valuable imported stock and regularly won trophies etc for best dogs .

Both are now before the court charged cumulatively with some 80 charges Not by the RNZSPCA but by Kevin Plowright of the

Interestingly and as an aside Anita Killeen was a director of the Auckland SPCA, who employed Plowright the inspector who seized a multitude of healthy dogs from the ladies after first consulting with dogs NZ for their pedigrees and the council for their microchip numbers. the dogs were selectively taken like kids in a candy shop.

The lawyer instructed is a crown solicitor and representations for this private prosecution and being portrayed as though it is a crown prosecution . This is totally contrary to the crown solicitors terms of office item 16 this is from an intituling used on the court file

Anita Killeen in an interview with the New Zealand animal law society

But they have failed to check the legal existence of their alleged client

and the prosecution had been taken in the name of a fictional entity when all indications are that the entity which took the dogs in 2017 and did not file charges until December 2018 was

The ladies have been made out to be a Puppy farm . gross atrocities occurred but not of their doing

Dogs were seized and left locked in the back of a van in the souring heat and without water by the SPCA

dogs allegedly ill were seized and placed in the pound for two weeks before a vet saw them

a dog known to be in whelp was xrayed one birthed in a crate in the back of a van while being transported while in labour .

Pups born to two of the dogs 20 in all were not legally seized and unlawfully disposed of

The article https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ is so on point that it could have been written about these ladies whose lives and passion for showing quality German shepherds has been destroyed

We have already made a complaint to the police but when you have crown solicitors involved and an organisation such as the SPCA who would believe two ladies who have been made out to be villain’s.

This is not about animal welfare this is about whole sale abuse of Humans

Thank you so much senator malcolm Roberts your on to it .

FYI request

Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

IN November 1999 Neil Wells who has now been acknowledged to have been a corrupt lawyer , made an application for the coercive law enforcement powers provided by the animal welfare act.

Neil Wells had drafted and advised on the legislation and basically wrote it to facilitate his own business plan see here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-conte…

He made a fraudulent application claiming legal existence of AWINZ your own records prove that on 1 may 2007 MAF recognized that AWINZ had no legal existence http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…

MAF had entered into a MOU with AWINZ http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten… as if it was a body corporate in its own right

Evidence that it was not a body corporate is found here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten….

In 2006 I reported to MPI that AWINZ had no legal standing as an entity . MAF did nothing except be obtrusive and believe Neil Wells , MPI has continued to be obstructive, I personally attribute this to the conflict of the chief legal officer who was a crown solicitor at the time of the application and failed to check the legal standing of AWINZ , hence and investigation into AWINZ would highlight his oversight at the time http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…

I realize that I have had all the documentation and the documentation that I have proves that MAF and now MPI condoned this public fraud and allowed a fictional organisation to continue to administer animal welfare law on the public

By way of OIA I would like to know the legal means by which the MPI can condone fraudulent applications for approved organisations and how it possibly thought that an organisation which did not exist and had no evidence of existing could possibly have responsibilities to the criteria provisions of the act.

I further request all documents in which MPI consider the consequences of contracting to a undefined name and discussions where by a decision was made not to investigate this public fraud and conceal it

If MPI considered that this was not fraudulent then I would like to see all documentation which they relied on that proved that AWINZ had legal existence

The situation is ironically that AWINZ could not have got a bank loan for $10 yet MAF gave it coercive public law enforcement powers. While this is bad it does not compare to the 15 years of the concealment of this corruption by failing to investigate the fraudulent application

The public need to have confidence in the MPI and this fraud has been ignored for too long, I am still under attack by one of the lawyers who was instrumental in the initial cover up I am a whistleblower and want the attack on me to stop by getting the government department which had responsibility to the public to act responsibly .

The manner in which AWINZ had been dealt with brings into question
the competency of MPI to supervise the one and only approved organisation which now has a changed constitution and appears to be acting in conflict of interest and using their inspectorate to promote the interests of animal welfare activists .

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

This is an article which has been sent on to me by the The SHG – for Rspca problems their face book link is here

The same problem applies to NZ , the SPCA is no longer about abuse it is about giving animals a better life , Hands up ay one who wouldn’t want a better life . The organisation is riddles with animal activists and it is no longer the caring nurturing volunteer organisation which once existed now it is about $$$$$$$

This is from the SHG “In our system of government, we have over generations learnt the lesson of the importance of the separation of powers, we keep the police separate from the courts, the legislature from the bureaucracy. We ensure all range of government inspectors from work safety, health and environment are under the control of the government and not private industry, but for some reason we have let the fox into the hen house when it comes to the RSPCA overseeing an industry they oppose.

In simple terms the RSPCA is seriously conflicted as they continue to expect to play the role of a political activist organisation, lobbying against various forms of commercial animal production – while also acting as the industry police officer. It’s an untenable situation which government needs to address.”

this is the original post

RSPCA Activist Or Welfare Organisation – Not Both

• By Trevor Whittington 
• November 17, 2020 
• 10:46 am 

In the October 1, 2020 edition of the Farm Weekly the RSPCA published two articles commenting on live exports and WAFarmers one by their CEO Richard Mussell titled ‘Winding back reforms is short-sighted,’ and the second by their President Lyn Bradshaw “Animal Welfare Views’.

Both articles attempted to portray the RSPCA as the reasoned voice of animal welfare, a trusted agency of experienced, knowledgeable, professional health inspectors who are only interested in the welfare of animals.

And so they largely are, but they are also a professional lobbying outfit that uses donated money to attempt to change government policy and one of those policies is to ban the live export trade. 

In our system of government, we have over generations learnt the lesson of the importance of the separation of powers, we keep the police separate from the courts, the legislature from the bureaucracy.   We ensure all range of government inspectors from work safety, health and environment are under the control of the government and not private industry, but for some reason we have let the fox into the hen house when it comes to the RSPCA overseeing an industry they oppose.

In simple terms the RSPCA is seriously conflicted as they continue to expect to play the role of a political activist organisation, lobbying against various forms of commercial animal production – while also acting as the industry police officer.  It’s an untenable situation which government needs to address.

The RSPCA can’t have it both ways, they can’t act as a political organisation similar to Greenpeace working to shut down commercial activities, all the while being funded by the government to undertake contracted inspection services.  It’s like giving Greenpeace powers to enforce compliance in our commercial fisheries, or the Wilderness Society inspection powers of landholders.  That is not how western democracies operate.  

In this modern world no government would consider handing over statutory powers and responsibilities for animal welfare to an organisation that is run by a board of passionate but also  politically motivated volunteers who have strong views at odds with the government that funds them, a government which claims it supports the live export trade (albeit with ever increasing regulatory restrictions).

Just as no government would today consider giving responsibilities for the inspection and enforcement of standards for children, the aged, the sick, the incarcerated, the fish or the environment to a society of passionate people with no authority other than being badged by the Queen as Royal. 

These responsibilities sit with the Crown – that is the State Government and its public servants not with Her Majesties loyal subjects.  That’s the basis of the separation of powers, we vote in governments to regulate the affairs of the state not sub them out to non-elected and unaccountable groups of people.

So why does the RSPCA have the powers to investigate animal welfare breeches, in short it’s a relic of the past from the days when the churches and welfare organisations looked after the sick and the elderly, ran schools and orphanages free from any state based rules or regulations. 

But those days are long gone, now government retains the sole power to ensure standards and compliance.

WAFarmers has argued that the RSPCA is so conflicted and so underfunded and so out of step with modern governance practices of independent compliance and enforcement that their future role should be reviewed and wound back to focus on offering shelter not policing.

If the RSPCA really cared about animals it would welcome a no holds bared inquiry into its role and responsibilities with a special focus on its future ability to adequately fund and administer best practise animal welfare support across the state.

With a budget of just $8 – $10m a year almost all of which is heavily reliant on donations it knows it is woefully underfunded and worse has been racking up a rolling series of cash deficits, with last years a record $1.8m.

But despite its desperate financial position it has failed to gain the government funding needed to fill the gap, and worse faces serious future funding shortfalls as the economy goes into recession.

A new animal welfare compliance structure is needed. One that can provide a world class service from one end of the state to the other something that the RSPCA is clearly unable to do as its cash crisis has left it with a city centric focus and a clear reluctance to investigate and invest resources into animal welfare issues in some of our more remote communities.

The RSPCA needs to refocus and invest its commendable care efforts into shelters leaving government to undertake all the inspection and compliance work. This in turn will free the RSPCA to focus its limited resources on shelters and allow it to peruse its political campaigns without being at risk of being accused of a conflict of interest.

To be clear WAFarmers has no problem with the RSPCA being a strong advocate for animal welfare and continuing its vital work caring for neglected animals.  It has every right to continue as an active political organisation competing for the communities and politician’s attention alongside of all the other animal rights organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front and Direct Action Everywhere.

What they can’t do is continue to use the governments stamp of approval via its government powers and contracts for fund raising campaigns which in turn support their lobbying campaigns against Live Exports and other commercial farming activities.

If they really cared about animal welfare they would join with WAFarmers and sit down with government and map out a plan to hand back their compliance powers to government in return for a substantial increase in taxpayer funding of the government’s own animal welfare inspectors, and more support for the RSPCAs shelter work. 

All government inspectors be it in health education or animal welfare need to be professional public servants, working free of any perception of conflicts of interests and appropriately paid with appropriate resources to do the job properly.

The RSPCA will need to acknowledge that its long term plan of waiting and hoping for more donations or govt funding is not a viable way forward, neither are its attempts to claim it can manage its conflicts of interests. It’s time to trade their powers for the government to do more.

The organisation also needs to stop running the argument that the powers need to stay with the RSPCA because they could never trust a future Liberal minister to direct the Department to ignore animal welfare issues. 

Such a view is naive in the extreme of the powers of a government minister to direct their department are actually very limited and ignores the common sense approach that past Liberal Ministers of Agriculture like the Hon Ken Baston have taken in supporting the RSPCA via initiating the last independent review into the organisation back in 2015.

But even this review which was very sympathetic to the RSPCA and saw many of its key recommendations adopted has still left the RSPCA struggling for the government funds needed to do the job properly.  Government sources claim that DPIRD would need an additional $10m a year to effectively cover the animal welfare of companion animals.  At the moment the RSPCA gets less than $500,000 to cover the whole state.

Only government has the bank balance and the core powers to do the job properly and while the RSPCA remains in this space it allows government to walk away from the real and growing issues in animal welfare, the vast majority of which are linked not to farm animals but domestic and companion animals.

For too long the State has gotten away with outsourcing animal welfare and for too long have the elites in the RSPCA hung onto the power they have been granted by the state. 

WAFarmers would like to see an open and frank discussion on the merits of government bringing in-house all the compliance powers as part of the current review into the Animal Welfare Act and just as it does with a whole range of other emergency services, out sourcing the helping hand side, such as the running of shelters to non for profits like the RSPCA.

This will leave the RSPCA to continue on with their political campaigns against live exports, dog racing or anything else they want banned, free from any charges of conflicts of interest, and most importantly it will ensure the animals particularly the companion animals that are being abused in the remotest parts of WA are given the same level of protection as those in the inner city.

David Slade – President Livestock Section WAFarmers

Trevor Whittington – CEO WAFarmers

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 

5 puppies wool shed

4 adult German shepherds

an adult German shepherd deer

three adult German shepherds in old runs

young male German Shepherd dog

female adult German Shepherd

three German Shepherd dogs crates

young male German Shepherd dog fence

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.