Uncategorized
The SPCA .. wolves in sheep’s clothing ? Who has taken control , who pulls the strings ?

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
Open letter to Paula Bennett and Jacinda Ardern: it appears that you actively conceal corruption !

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
You are what you believe.. something to ponder at Easter
Here we are on Easter Sunday , celebrating a pagan festival which is simply not relevant to us here in the southern Hemisphere . This clip is very interesting and puts things into a perspective. this is also why Easter always shifts it is always the first full moon after the equinox
So much of what we have been told becomes a different reality when put into perspective , never before have people been able to share information like they do now. This is why Bloggers are deemed dangerous they open peoples minds and make them question
Enjoy and remember always put things into perspective
“Change your diet or you’ll die” the words which saw a Doctor censured

This week I was sent a link to a video which was a real eye opener on many levels and it proves that the old world ways are slowly succumbing to the new era due to the access to information and the ability to communicate with others over the internet.
The link to the video is here it is significant on both the legal and medical fronts and it is extremely thought provoking. The questions the video raises are massive. Here was a doctor who tried to do the best for his patients and was dealt to very severely because he advocated a low carbohydrate diet.
His wife Belinda took on some research as to what was behind it and what she found surprised me and will no doubt surprise you .
Here in New Zealand Sanitarium has a massive hold on the market. as a child I remember coming home from school and eating a whole bowl of weet-bix , I attribute this to my life long battle with weight and now at a ripe old age I have discovered the truth about this product and it has nothing to do with health and every thing to do with Religion.
Sanitarium the trading name of the ”
NEW ZEALAND HEALTH ASSOCIATION LIMITED ” gets its name from ” sanitorium” and in this particular instance ( according to wikipedia )Battle Creek Sanitarium the emphasis there was on a low fat,low protein
with an emphasis on whole grains, fiber-rich foods, and most importantly, nuts. and was founded on Genesis 1:29 rather than any scientific or properly researched data
According to its own web site “Sanitarium Health & Wellbeing Company was established by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in New Zealand in 1898 to promote and produce plant-based health foods. This is based on the Church’s belief that plant-based diets are designated by God, our Creator, for the health of the human race.1 Worldwide, the Church operates health food industries and health-care services based on this philosophy.”
Sanitarium’s stated mission is to “share with our community health and hope for a better life”. As such the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Sanitarium continue to share an explicit common reason and purpose of existence.
Sanitarium is often invited by government and the food industry for advice in developing food and industry policy and consumer education.
So what happened in Australia why was such harsh action taken against a doctor who had his patients welfare in mind . It really does bring about questions of who influences what why did he get a ” government-imposed lifetime ban on discussing nutrition “
The reality is that Gary’s story , which was resolved just late last year with an apology and the lifting of the ban , reflects on who influences government , the health sector and the legal sector .
Once again it just proves that those with a conflict of interest should not have any input .The NEW ZEALAND HEALTH ASSOCIATION LIMITED is a registered charity its funds go overseas according to this news item
some 84 million dollars of tax free New Zealand revenue found its way into the combined group 1 church coffers in 2012
Its all rather fascinating and thought provoking … Further reading
Bullying, mobbing and victimization”: Gary Fettke says “enough is enough”
A doctor can’t give nutrition advice to his patients? The absurd case of Dr. Gary Fettke
“You can’t handle the truth” – Dr. Gary Fettke censored for recommending low carb
The RNZSPCA and a groundbreaking decision from the Canadian courts .. will it impact on us ?
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
- 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
- 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
-
- 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
*the lawyer, (who despite working for the FMA , apparently cannot discern a fake trust from a real one ) , is taking me to court for defamation for saying that it appeared odd that two barristers should instruct a law clerk and for saying that I felt intimidated when she rang me late at night and make threats against my private investigators licence if I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust :-The Incorporation of our trust proved conclusively that the approved organisation AWINZ was fictional , to me her threats against my licence was intimidation However she cannot understand that this is intimidation and now claims its defamation for me to say that I felt intimidated .
Another point of contention is whether or not she was a lawyer, I have lots of evidence that she did not have a practicing certificate and could therefore not be lawyer she has evidence that she did not have a practicing certificate but apparently does not let a good document stand in the way of a bad argument ..she is currently a lawyer working for the FMA
Corruption concealed with lies and deceit
The following article was written in response to an email from Tatsuhiko Koyama and Paul Gee …
There appears to be something inherent in NZ about covering up , its all about saving $$$ and saving face so we unjustly leave citizens with the cost and the degradation which comes with being a whistle-blower .. no wonder there are so many suicides we just give some one a pill and tell them to go away .
Our legal system is totally out of whack it does not deliver justice and our public servants have a massive rug under which anything suspected of being even slightly rotten is swept.
Our systems are broken I petitioned for an independent commission against corruption it was thrown out by a man who left parliament under a cloud , the reason it was thrown out.. it disclose fraud and corruption… go figure read about it here
I was charged and found guilty for breaching an order which cannot be shown to exist for an un name person the Lawyers disciplinary tribunal decision makes no reference to any orders nor does it caution the existence of one , the decision was one where the tribunal effectively condoned criminal behaviour of one of its own have a read…. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016-NZLCDT-24-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-v-Mr-M.pdf. I believe that this is the same man who wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act for his own business plan and then made a fraudulent application which gave him statutory law enforcement powers and no accountability , the court has protected him and MPI has protected him because they never checked the facts they were reckless and its easier to make some one else’s life hell than show that they system is not working .
The ombudsmen’s office provides a document 130 pages long http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/463/original/managing_unreasonable_complainant_conduct_manual_october_2012.pdf?1351456121 which allows a person who uses CAPITALS , underlines words , uses a different Colour or Highlights a word to be declared an “ unreasonable complainant .
To complain about being an unreasonable complainant makes you even more unreasonable
The ombudsmen do have a book on how to deal with complaints its only 32 pages long of which only 5 pages deal with the actual guidance of dealing with complaints
This culture of treating any complainant whether whistle-blower or some one pointing out a flaw in the system ,as a villain only serves to make New Zealand more corrupt.
I had a first hand demonstration of how effective this system is Ian Holyoake who has been a rotarian for many years totally defamed me with his opinion which was so skewed that logic was totally absent ,
Ian is of such standing that his word is gospel and all he needs to say is that he is a fine upstanding person and that is sufficient for his opinion to hold against any one. When I asked for a retraction and an apology he could not possibly do that and when I mentioned the possibility of defamation action he went round telling people that I had already served him with papers . The local assistant Governor told me that an apology from Ian would be unlikely the pattern in my opinion appears to resemble the rules shown here
When you are the innocent party every reasonable thing you do to set things right is turned into a sinister act it is a real art form all perpetrated with fallacies but more on that later .
Whether that society is your local rotary club the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, Law society or our government,when facts and evidence don’t matter the society you are involved in corrupt but it appears that it is also a crime to expose the corruption.. that is what the real problem is .
why a fair trial is a fallacy in New Zealand
When the headlines read ” Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial ” they got my attention . Fair trial here in New Zealand No way !!! so how could the breach of the suppression order which is implied to exist possibly damage the fair trial of a murderer when many others who have not been associated with murder do not get a fair trial .
Any one who has been fortunate enough not to have entangled with the law is of the mistaken belief that our justice system is robust and works like a well oiled machine.. don’t be fooled there are many things which impact on natural justice here in New Zealand
Suppression . By suppressing the name of the offender the chances of a material witness coming forward is laos reduced , if the offender was named someone who knows him is more likely to remember a relevant fact a week out from the murder rather than upon hearing his name a month or so later .. and what could have been relevant evidence is diminished by doubt and confusion which occurs with time.
How do we know that there is a suppression order, well you wont find anything from our court stating that there is a suppression order , the judge in this case refused one but he mere fact that the lawyer for he accused said he would file for one was sufficient for suppression until the next appearance to be available . But the court did not make any statement that this is the case for that you have to search the statutes or wait for a reporter to write an article .
But can you believe the press , one report states that this was court ordered suppression when another explains that it a statutory obligation .. why nothing from the courts directing what the situation is, Despite there not being any firm direction and the name being freely available on any search of Graces name .
The police are talking about prosecuting those who breach suppression this is done in a flash and they don’t even need evidence as the court supports their prosecution.
Evidence is not required
I read a publication by the law society which was so detailed that from my own experience I could speculate as to the identity of the lawyer who had defrauded his client. He had been given name suppression by the law tribunal to conceal this corruption . I was prosecuted, no evidence of a suppression orders existence was required , the court merely said the tribunal had a right to make one.. when actually there is no scope for a suppression order under that legislation but they can make an order for non publication. No evidence existed as to the identity of the lawyer who appeared before the tribunal or if an order under the non publication criteria was ever made . basically the question I still have is whatif I had said Mickey mouse would I have been similarly guilty as there is about much evidence that Mickey mouse was the lawyer as there was for Neil Wells.
I have learned that evidence is ignored all it takes is for a lawyer to say I have it on good authority your honour that the sky is green then the judge will say it must be right as he must not knowingly mislead me
Perjury
perjury happens all the time but it is too difficult for the police to prosecute it so people perjure all the time. In a recent case a forensic accountant gave evidence to support his client despite the fact that he had sworn an oath that as an expert witness he was obliged to act in accordance with the code of conduct
An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.
An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness
The client was very pleased and sent an email to the forensic accountant thank you I could not have done it without you a complaint made to the police will not be investigated as it is not a priority
Denial of a defence
I discovered corruption and questioned how a law enforcement body which undertook public prosecutions could have been given that authority when it did not exist and the application was based on fraud. I was taken to court for defamation and I was not allowed to put my defence of truth and honest opinion .
Lawyers acting in appropriately
Nick wright who was the lawyer taking the case was during the course of the events a committed patient , he grossly misled the court as did his seniour lawyer David Neutze who never checked the facts and was happy to rely on his own reputation to succeed in court .
The judges believe that they have a duty to believe lawyers as a lawyer is an officer of he court and must not mislead the court. However it is apparently impossible to hold a lawyer accountable to the rule of law .
The Judges
the judges can do their own research and obtain material which has not seen the light of day in court , they write their decisions accordingly . Judge joyce used his 92 page judgement as a attack on my character and reputation .
Judges are not held accountable for their decision , many judges are husband and wife teams and no conflict of interest is declared
No trials fake documents
see the experience of Tatsuhiko Koyama here
Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc, DipGrad
Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
The new zealand law firms
Law firms are a group of persons in a partnership, no partnering documents are ever visible or discoverable and mist contracting is done under the trading name which is not registerd. so the law firm can never be sued they are a grey area undefined entity which is described in walis v sutton
Litigation involving unincorporated associations is notoriously difficult when it is not done by way of representative action.
Unincorporated bodies are lawful but legally nonexistent. As Fletcher, in The Law Relating to Non-profit Associations in Australia and New Zealand
p.187 puts it:
“Legal issues arising from their activities are justiciable provided they can be presented without attributing a corporate character to the association.”At p.190 Fletcher concludes that:
“The prohibition on assuming a corporate character does not prevent the members collectively from asserting their rights either by all joining as parties to the suit or by representative
action.”
Fletcher quotes an article by Lloyd, Actions Instituted By or Against Unincorporated Bodies (1949) 12 Mod. LR 409 at 411 on the subject of collective action by all members:
“Under this procedure, every member would, of course, have to be individually named and would have the full status of plaintiff or defendant, entitled to appear and be separately
represented, and liable to incur separate sets of costs.”
“There seems to be no doubt upon the authorities that a voluntary association, such as the plaintiff, which has never been incorporated in any way, cannot sue except in the name
of all the members unless advantage is taken of rule 20 and an order is made by a Judge that one or more of the members may sue for the benefit of all persons interested.”
thus it is very clear that prawn pickle and herring cannot sue or be sued, therefore how could they enter into a contract least of all claim to represent their clients when in fact they could nto be lawyers
the New Zealand justice system is a farce
we do not have the privy council
the supreme court is our highest court
Our highest judge Sian Elais is married to Hugh Fletcher
Judges are appointed by the governor general , Sian elias has held the position of Administrator of the Government when the Governor-General is unable to fulfil their duties
the governor general appoint based on the recommendation by the attorney general who is generally a member of he law society and chooses members of the law society to be judges
there is a judicial complaints officer The first Commissioner was Ian Haynes, ONZM, BA, LLB. He served from 2005 until 2009, he is now a member of the law society
Sir David Gascoigne KNZM, CBE, LLM served from 3 August 2009 until 30 August 2015 he is married to our Governor-General Patsy Reddy
Alan Ritchie, LLB became the first Deputy Commissioner in 2011 and took office as Commissioner on 31 August 2015, Mr Ritchie was also Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society from 1985 to 2008. which was the former law society which did not have a requirement for lawyers to have an obligation to the rule of law.
the new law society is both the disciplinary body and the development body for lawyers , it is thus grossly conflicted
the law society is a statutory body but works with law societies which are incorporated societies set up after the inception of the new lawyers and conveyancers act.
the law society has committees which review complaints depending on whether you are foreign educated or local the results may well vary some are protected some are crucified
the law complaints review office is funded by the law society it is under funded and under resourced to such an extent that it makes the wheels drop off . the persons who are appointed LCRO are frequently former lawyers
Lawyers hold top positions every where and are the advisors to government. New Zealand is a small country but there are probably more close knit relationships in the judiciary and legal system than that would be good for the health of the country and true justice I would hate to think how many deals are done in the Northern club and other related clubs.
Keeping a lid on Corruption by using the court to assassinate Whistleblowers reputation
There is a culture in New Zealand that has to change and that is practice of keeping up appearances .
We just love keeping the illusion of ” all is well” alive and again today I read Maggie Barry whistle-blower threatened with legal action, as more bullying alleged. The tool box supporting the illusion consists of suppression orders, confidentiality agreements, denial , character assassination and using the court to turn fiction into fact .
Our courts have become a tool for the concealment of corruption , our courts themselves are corrupt ( being that they do not work the way that they are supposed to work.. they simply do not deliver justice and are manipulated )
People have in the past kept quiet because to speak up means that your life is over . Yet we encourage people to speak up, we pretend that we are anti corruption but when you say “hey there is something wrong here”, be prepared to be destroyed financially and reputationally.. it’s called scorched earth .
I have been in the thick of it for 12 years I proved that a private law enforcement authority had no legal existence and came about out of fraud . Now 12 years later I found myself being totally slandered by a former Police assistant commissioner Ian Holyoake who had the nerve to send this The Brief x to the people in my Rotary group when he was unsuccessful in getting me thrown out of Rotary .
When Ian Holyoake and his mate David Hills initially attacked my character I made a complaint to the president of our Rotary club who chose not to do anything and put off meeting with me, the usual delay and pretend it doesn’t exist tactics were used . When Ian Holyoake breached the confidentiality agreement by sending out “the Brief” no one did a thing , yet when I published this post I was asked to an urgent meeting. It appears to me that the act of being defamed is of lesser importance than the fact that you say that you have been defamed , by doing so you apparently defame the defamer .
When mud is flung there are those who don’t take the time to talk and find out and prefer to sit and judge . I wonder what would happen if this had happened to them .
I was told to keep quiet and was denied the right to defend the destruction of my reputation by this man saying no more than “look at me I am a fine upstanding citizen and this woman should not be allowed in Rotary “. Not a skerrick of evidence was ever shown to exist and it was 10 weeks after Ian holyoake made his slanderous complaint about me that I was first advised of the complaint but was not allowed to see it or address it . Holyoake had been a past district governor and he had credibility sufficient to persuade others to remove me from my group on nothing more than his say so . (I do not believe that this is reflective of rotary but rather the lack of leadership in our group and the inability of our president to be impartial )
There is a lot to be learned in running an incorporated society and the first lesson is to treat all members equally and fairly . We also need to look at the so called noble men in history who have impeccable reputation but transpire to be rogues. Reputations need to be maintained that I why I fight for mine .
The whole scenario has taught me lots about how things are done in New Zealand . We had agreed to confidentiality. It appeared that the confidentiality only applied to me and not to the others and certainly not to Ian holyoake.
My crime .. to speak up about corruption . 10 years of court action was not enough , the woman who initiated it all , now a lawyer for the FMA and who appears not to know what a trust is , took action against me to make me lose my Private investigators licence by making very serious allegations which were never proved , when that was not enough she decided to take me to court for saying that in 2006 when she intimidated me that she was not a lawyer. now in the defamation matter which she has taken against me she has kindly provided evidence that she was not law society dossier. I very much suspect that she was behind the action in my group as this mirrors the events in the past years .
We have to question where society is going when it is a greater crime to speak up about wrong doings than it is to commit them .. does this mean that we condone corruption?
in 2017 I found myself in court again this time charged with breaching an order which cannot be shown to exist , the action was taken to protect the confidentiality of the lawyers tribunal who without hesitation condoned theft of money by a barrister from his client. see the decision here . The law society wrote this up in this news item and from the detail and my own knowledge of events in Te Kuiti which I had reported well before this event see post spot the suppression order
I took it to the court of appeal but it is apparently not in the public interest that a person is charged with wording which reflects the section which creates the offence , near enough is good enough especially when you can introduce wider meanings than that which statute provides for.. In this case I was charged with breaching 263 lawyers and conveyancers act the wording for that event would be along the lines of without lawful excuse breached an order made under section 240 lawyers and conveyancers act. Suppression however can be achieved by many ways and he lawyers and conveyancers act does not provide for an offence for breach of suppression
In charging me this is what the police relied on alleged suppression order the full copy of this was available on line here
The police admitted to me that they did not have a copy of the order, this is totally against the provisions of the prosecution guide lines
It took the police 7 weeks after charging me to locate this document interim order which is very nondescript and in any case does not say who it is for.
Even if mr W was identified it and the decision being clear, the fact that this document was hard to find and not in the public realm should have supported the “lawful excuse ” content of he charge, but when they are out to hang you you may as well get the dunking chair out and wind the clock back several centuries .
It has to be noted that I had asked the cop who contacted me ,to show me the order which I had allegedly breached and gave him the assurance that I would comply with it , but there was no order hence he could not produce ti so the court was used to cover up for the police.
so we have the police refusing to investigate the public fraud , the law society protecting the lawyer who stole from his client and who perpetrated a fraud on the minister . the police protect the law society and the offender and silence the whistle blower by prosecution to protect the criminal activity which should be of public concern .
I was found guilty because I speculated that Neil Wells was the lawyer referred to in the law society article . My own speculation was all the evidence that they required. Ian Holyoake then took the ball and ran with it alleging that I would be imprisoned and had been convicted of a criminal offence , he claimed he had had an email about me then later claimed he had not , I used to resect the man and can only suspect that he has gone off half cocked because he trusted some one in a uniform , this sadly appears to be part of the the methodology use people with a great reputation to attack those you wish to discredit .
It appears that the name suppression has now been lifted as Neil Wells is dead and a judges have released decisions which name him see here decision on alleged breach of suppression of wells Disciplinary tribunal and Pol v Siemer – Judge Blackie. In the mean time I am paying off yet another 6,000 on top of the 300,000 that blowing the whistle has already cost me. the cost is way beyond monetary and I reserve the right to protect my reputation
The only evidence that the lawyer who appeared before the tribunal was Neil wells, was my speculation that it was him , but and this has now become reality through the decisions of the court.
It appears that the courts support the law society in condoning criminal behaviour of its barristers and provide for the law societies ability to deal with these ” rogue lawyers ” outside the criminal jurisdiction .. covering up and not making those who have a legal obligation to he law more accountable to the law but rather providing them with a layer of protection and hence facilitating the corruption in the legal fraternity
I set up my own blog sites because mainstream media wont touch any of this and unless we do speak up nothing is going to change.
whistleblowers need to support other whistleblowers… no one should go through what I have had to endure.
we have a right to justice and should not live in fear that speaking up will have you bankrupted through the justice system which does not recognise evidence and which apparently works on back room deals done in the Northern Club and its associated clubs.
we have freedom of speech supposedly but it is at the risk of you being severely discredited.. Truth hurts.
Fake NZ doctor why was the whistleblower ignored !!!!!!
The Herald today reported a story about Zholia Alemi which illustrates that new Zealand is not the only place where people don’t check things
For many years I worked as a private investigator and now a verification specialist. But in Godzone the shell be right and God defend us appears to be the level protection which we rely on.I too am a whistleblower and I have been totally ignored
I have found that across the board we do not rely on evidence but trust those who we think we can trust for the basis of our decision making . Evidence and truth does not come in to it … at all .
Prime example is the granting of residency to a drug smuggler by the minister of immigration . The information is there but no one reads it and what is more no one verifies any thing. we have many more examples of high profile people who were not qualified but much in New Zealand relies on who you know and not on the truth
With advances in technology any one can now get a degree document from any university in the world even from universities which don’t exist .
Names can be changed by deed poll and now even sex and date of birth can be changed . You too can be a new person tomorrow , better still if you work it so that you match a degree or qualification and Bingo whole new life.
In such a fluid society where things are open to change it is more important than ever that the changes are verified and that nothing is left to chance .
It is a simple matter to verify a degree and looking at a document and saying looks genuine enough is not the way.
But Trust as a means of verification appears to be the method of choice , if we trust a name or trust a person then that ticks the boxes speak to those who trusted the name Hanover and blue Chip.
The converse also happens, those who seek to keep frauds concealed do so by attacking the reputation of others so that anything they say will be regarded as rubbish or retribution for the attack.. attack is the best form of defence especially if you attack using the court and deny a person a defence.
Its a weird world and here is little old me thinking that verifiable evidence is the key .. it appears not to be so
For every Fraudster caught there are 10 lurking .. But who will die who will suffer miss fortune because of the lack of verification remains to be seen, it only becomes important when the person who suffers is you or one of your family .
Its time our medical council verified the degrees of their overseas applicants and those who qualified abroad.
*Zholia Alemi appears to own both properties at 93 Oakdale Road in Mount Roskill
How we tarnish those who speak the truth
It appears to me that the worst thing you an do in our society is to speak the truth .
I am not alone I had the video link below sent to me today and it simply goes to prove it
Just a few days ago two gentlemen came to my house and spoke most disapproving my of Blogging and frowned upon the fact that I fight corruption .( as if that’s a bad thing to do )
I was told to leave it to the proper authorities. I explained that there appears to be a general covering up of corruption in New Zealand and that my experience was such that I don’t want to see any one go through what I had to endure ( and am still enduring )
I was told that there are two Grace Haden’s the one they like and then there is other , the one with the online presence the one who speaks about things which apparently are a tad embarrassing and conflict with the statistics .. heaven forbid that we upset the perception or prove statistics wrong .
They expressed their opinion that I should not express mine.
I was extremely upset with their visit , I felt bullied by it and it was totally unnecessary additionally they had no apparent mandate from any one, it was totally uncalled for an out of place .
Why do we seek to silence those who are speaking up about the wrongs in our society . The cracks are starting to show in MPI and the SIS . Thompson and clark are members of the NZIPI https://www.nzipi.org.nz/nicholas-thompson/. The NZIPI is headed up by Ron McQuilter who was behind ensuring that I was discredited as a Private investigator . I feel certain that these old boy connections are what is keeping New Zealand’s perception of the least corrupt alive. Stomp on any one when they speak up about corruption , crucify them and make their lives hell so as to ensure that the next person will see nothing .
https://www.facebook.com/supportrickflori/videos/1950697488298231/