Transparency New Zealand

The reason I am writing to you is because of your position at MBIE and the fact that you have now witnessed two affirmations for Vivienne Holm lawyer for the FMA. a full detailed copy of my sworn affidavit is here ..it is important to note that she has never disputed this evidence or proved anything to the contrary. the only issue appears to be as to her not having a practicing certificate in june 2006 which has been proved conclusively by by her

The court action in Auckland was commenced on the day when Vivienne who lives in Wellington was declined the right to transfer the Wellington proceedings to Auckland . Vivienne has been very uncomplimentary about me and appears to need help in sorting out what a legal entity is and what constitutes a trust . It is therefore fortuitous that you have come into play and have a position with the government department which should know a thing or two about legal entities.

I have never met Vivienne she phoned me late at night on 2 june 2006 and threatened my professional licence if I did not change the name of our legally incorporated trust , to me and by definition this is intimidation .

Vivienne claimed to be acting for AWINZ , an organisation which through our successful incorporation of our trust (also called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand) was proved to be fictitious. Our trust was incorporated on 27-APR-2006 . AWINZ in the case of her ” client” was just a undefined name for person or persons unknown yet was referred to in the proceedings as though it was a legal entity in its own right. The first recorded meeting of this ” trust “was 10 may 2006

In 2006 it was not easy to search the register and by being successful we proved that no other trust could exist by that name as no two legal entities can be registered under the same name.

Our reason for doing this was to establish who or what the approved organisation AWINZ was . AWINZ had coercive law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act equivalent to those of the RNZSPCA but unlike the RNZSPCA which is an incorporated society , AWINZ was proved to have no legal existence at all and no trust deed was held by MPI who contracted to it or by Waitakere city council who’s facilities and infrastructure “AWINZ ” through the guise of Neil Wells ,was using to obtain a private income from public resources.

Our concern was that an Organisation which had no legal standing could not possibly be identified and be held accountable to the provisions of the animal welfare act , as only legal persons can sue or be sued and who ever AWINZ was was effectively invisible.

A recent court decision from Canada shows the importance of this accountability see here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Decision-19-01-02-Ontario.pdf

MBIE at the time was the ministry of economic development and the then registrar of trusts sent this letter which basically stated that we had a legal right to the name and Neil Wells did not.

Not being content with this, a letter was sent by brookfields solicitors see here and we believe that it was who Vivienne drafted a statement of claim for her husband to prosecute so as to force us into abandoning the name .

MPI, in collusion with Wells withheld vital information from me and only after having the ombudsmen intervene and 5 years having passed, I obtained information which is significant .
the audit report from MPI here showed

The reality was that the very first meeting was three weeks after we had incorporated and had proved its lack of existence this was serious cover up .

From the affidavit of Tom Didovich we learned that he had allegedly driven to the trustees in 2000 and obtained their respective signatures, they therefore did not meet at inception , the deed itself had a termination clause after three years, since no meetings were held the trust could not have survived, we have evidence that the trustees did not hold a bank account and never passed a resolution .

The first meeting was recorded as seen here  There is no legal appointment of Wyn Hoadley ,the trust deed was missing and the so called trustees had to be briefed on the purpose of the trust , one would have thought that trustees of a legitimate trust would have known this .

There was also no connection of this ” trust” to the approved organisation as it allegedly formed months after the application for approved status was made and had no proven connection with the application other than an unsigned trust deed. It is our opinion that Vivienne does not appear to be very good on time frames and you may wish to explain why legally it is impossible for a trust allegedly formed on 1.3.2000 to make an application for law enforcement powers on 22.11.1999.. how would a resolution to apply for such powers be possible if the people have not met and consented to their individual responsibility of accountability which was required in this instance.

Monique I hope that you can explain to Vivienne that the people who she claimed to have instructed her (at a time when the law society claimed she was a law clerk) , had no standing as a trust as they did not have a trust deed, had no evidence of being appointed to the trust and had no evidence of ever having worked or functioned as a trust or even a law enforcement authority and that she had a legal duty to ensure that these finer details were confirmed before taking legal action .

It was therefore impossible for the legally incorporated AWINZ to pass ourselves off as a group of three people who together had no legal identity and had never functioned as a group under any name , they certainly had no legal right to force us to give up the name . The legally incorporated AWINZ was a legal entity, a body corporate but the people whose names appear on the statement of claim, Wyn Hoadley , Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts were not a legal entity by any legally provable means and could not have legally called themselves AWINZ, they could , if they had a trust deed or proof of appointment call them selves Hoadley, Coutts and wells as trustees in the animal welfare institute of New Zealand. Their responsibilities were as individuals and their trust had no legal standing separate from the alleged trustees jointly

I was taken me to court for defamation for saying that the AWINZ trust(as in the law enforcement body ) was a sham, I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and my life , my family and my marriage was destroyed. It has been proved conclusively that AWINZ was a sham now Vivienne has come out of nowhere taking me to court for harassment for getting the discovery documents to her .. its absurd.Its in my opinion all to cover up conscience does make cowards of us all .. and its at my expense that is why I speak up 13 years is too long.

If any one with the paperwork which “AWINZ” produced to obtain law enforcement powers , had gone to a bank they would have been laughed out of the place.

Vivienne’s father David Holm transpires to be a community board member in Auckland I wonder if he condones the use of council resources for private enrichment ?

Vivienne has all the evidence and it is additionally all set out in full in my
copy of my sworn affidavit is here , I don’t know if she has a mental block or just cant see it or refuses to see it but it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that a trust which has never met cannot be a law enforcement authority especially when there is no evidence of a trust existing prior to the application and when trustees are not appointed or reappointed then the trust ceases to exist, and in any case a trust without assets is not a trust its a sham .

The only evidence which was sent to me to support the claim to the name was this deed as you can see they are different people to those named on the statement of claim . Without a connection and proof of continuity Tom Dick and Harry cannot claim to be the same trust as Mary, Joan and Edward

It is important that you sort her out on the legal entity issue and trusts as she is now a lawyer for the FMA and heaven forbid if she continues to think that any one with a piece of paper or speaking convincingly can be a trust or a legal person, its the stuff that fraud is made of

Looking forward to your help .

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

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

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

By way of back ground

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*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 

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 .

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

“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

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.

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

.A Plymouth woman who acted as personal assistant to bogus psychiatrist Zholia Alemi says she repeatedly tried to blow the whistle on her ‘bizarre’ actions but was never treated seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this from the application audit report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mean  while we  continue to  live in the perception

don’t be fooled   The reality is no fairy  tale

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

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

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

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

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

They expressed their opinion that I should not express mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

this from the  Courts of New Zealand web  page  

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

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

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

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

Of the 7 associate judges  four were recommended by Finlayson.

Appointment of judges in the UK 

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

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

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

The New Zealand Law society 

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

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

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

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