Uncategorized
A tale of two companies Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited and Tamaki Regeneration Limited
There appears to be an awful lot of confusion with the Tamaki Regeneration project
first of all the web site is called http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/ but the web site is owned by Tamaki Redevelopment Co
Tamaki redevelopment company limited was set up in in 2012 following the signing of a heads of agreement between auckland council and two ministers of the crown
Tamaki Redevelopment company was set up with share holding from the crown and council and the shareholders adopted a Constitution this 31 page document was drafted and filed by the company secretary Simpson Grierson . The comprehensive constitution was amended in 2014 to this version Amendment of Constitution a 27 page document , we are uncertain as to the input of the crown shareholders into that document , it was again filed by the undefined trading name simpson Grierson .On 14 March 2016 the constitution is replaced by the 25 page document Revocation and Adoption of Constitution what is of note is that this constitution unlike the two former ones has no obligation to the heads of agreement .
on 11 November 2015 Tamaki Redevelopment company limited became the sole share holder of a new company called Tamaki Regeneration Limited and of a company called THA GP Limited .
THA Gp limited subsequently became the general partner in a limited partnership called Tamaki Housing association Limited partnership ( 19 january 2016) these bodies remain as subsidiaries of Tamaki Redevelopment company limited and we will just put them to one side for now
we will now look at the government web sites and special announcements
9 FEBRUARY, 2016 John Key Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament
In March this year, 2,800 Housing New Zealand homes will be transferred to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company.This will result in at least 7,500 new homes in that area over the next 10 to 15 years, of which more than a third will be for social housing.The transfer of Housing New Zealand properties to community housing providers in Invercargill and Tauranga will happen later this year.
25 FEBRUARY, 2016 Bill English Speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University – State of the Economy
The Tamaki Redevelopment Company will become the owner of 2,800 former Housing New Zealand houses at the end of March, which the company plans to redevelop into around 7,500 houses.
Note that up to this stage the housing new zealand stock was going to be transferred to Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited which has been abbreviated in correspondence as TRC
then on
31 MARCH, 2016 Bill English, Nick Smith Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed
The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council
TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme
Note that he states that the houses will go to Tamaki regeneration Limited, but he called it Tamaki Regeneration company TRC. He goes on to say
The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.
But Tamaki Housing is a subsidiary of Tamaki redevelopment company limited TRC not of Tamaki regeneration limited TRL he then adds to the confusion and states
TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme
Yes Tamaki Redevelopment company limited was set up to lead the regeneration programme not TRL which at this date was a subsidiary of TRC .
On 14 April the shares of Tamaki regeneration limited are increased from 100 to 1631161218 and the shareholders are updated Particulars of Shareholding
What is of concern is that it appears that the ministers believe that the properties are going to the company of which council and crown are the share holders , the company which was set up for the transformation project the company which is the ultimate holding company for Tamaki Housing Limited partnership . but..
The reality is that the assets have gone to an entirely different company one which the crown had no input in to the constitution, a company which is a stand alone .
Now let us look at the annual reports of tamaki redevelopment company Limited this is the 2015 report note that the company is referred to as TRC .
The annual report states
page 5
The New Zealand Cabinet agreed that the ownership and management of approximately 2,800 social homes currently held by Housing NZ in
Tāmaki will be transferred to TRC by 31 March 2016
Page 6
On 1 April 2016, TRC will own and manage all current social homes of approximately 2,800 in the Tāmaki area.
We are respectful of the responsibility and mandate provided to us by Shareholders to look after the most vulnerable families in our rohe. At the same time, this will be an opportunity to catalyse community led action and move at pace to achieve our objective of making Tāmaki an awesome place to live.
and
Whilst Housing NZ and TRC have different mandates, the commitment by both organisations to ensure a seamless transfer and prepare TRC for
1 April 2016 is unwavering.
In the 2016 annual report the confusion continues the report is entitled TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT 2016 .
page 2
TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC) HAS BEEN MANDATED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND AUCKLAND
COUNCIL, TO REPLACE 2500 SOCIAL HOUSES WITH 7500 MIXED-TENURE HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.
There is no such company as tamaki regeneration company limited. There is Tamaki regeneration Limited company number 5840214
and Tamaki redevelopment company limited 3937662
The name Tamaki regeneration company is used twice and in both instances it is tied to the abbreviation TRC
page 9
Tāmaki Regeneration Company will bring about transformational change to achieve four equally important objectives – social transformation, economic development, placemaking and housing resources.
Through its shareholders, the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council,TRC will replace 2500 social houses in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt. England and
Panmure creating 7500 mixed-tenure homes over a period of 10-15 years.
Tamaki regeneration limited the owner of the properties has no share holding of council
to add to the confusion on page 18 a TRC legal group is created. a legal group has no statutory definition or legal existence .
Tamaki regeneration Limited is referred to as TRL . Through the annual report references are made to the transfer of the properties to TRC ( pages 6,10,12,23) this is incorrect they were transferred to TRL
The confusion is such that courts have been misled with regards to ownership see Open letter to Robert Gapes Simpson Grierson
this has resulted in a fundamentally flawed decision due to the court basing the decision on the lawyer’s flawed submission. The lawyer a member of simpson Grierson law firm, the company secretary told the court that Tamaki regeneration limites was a subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment company limited. we ask How can a lawyer and the company secretary get it so wrong and what does this say about the integrity of the management of the company’s affairs by the secretary .
Of even greater concern is that it appears that the Ministers and treasury were not involved in the setting up of this new crown entity and had no input into the constitution.
Considering the fact that 2800 houses were transferred into this company of mixed identity and dubious origins it is something that we the public need to be concerned about
we note that in the 2015 annual report Mr Holyoake page 6 states “TRC and its partners must also own the lapses or mistakes.” we therefore hope that full transparency is applied and that this mess is corrected to remove any doubt as to who had a mandate to receive the houses and how they came to be in the possession of a company other than the one Government intended the stock to go to .
We note that several of the directors are property developments and one states as his interests ” Potential development opportunities in and around Glen Innes” an other lists directorship in Tāmaki Investment Trust Company Ltd
To those who care about crown assets it would appear that foxes are guarding the hen house we have to ensure that they do not get fat and accountability and transparency is how we wish to achieve that .
The state of corruption : New Zealand
Further open letter to David Mc Neill Corruption , Whistleblowers and Transparency
David,
Since responding to your reply to my first open letter a number of people have approached me and have asked me to put questions to you as a director of transparency International .
Could you any one else from Transparency International NZ please respond with your observations
You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”
These statements indicate to me that you and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.
it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells
it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed and about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when issues of corruption are brought to their attention .
Unfortunately Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt Public service in the world , if this was the case I would still expect to find corruption but I would expect that there were policies and methods in place throughout the public sector which would ensure integrity and systems of accountability .
Jose Ugay , your international president used an equation which I have been fond of
Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .
If you were to apply this to our public sector you would quickly find that accountability is almost totally absent and discretion being the use of the unreasonable complainant conduct manual , totally out of hand
I have actually come across items where it stated that due to the relatively corruption free environment such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be the least corrupt .
Of the 2013 Integrity report ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for for compiling, she said
Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.
It was not coincidence that TINZ was at the time funded by the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written. see here To me this appears to be a conflict of interest which in itself is corrupt .
Now if TINZ had taken the trouble to listen to the issues which I and other whistleblowers had raised rather than treating us as a villains then the person conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then the results would not have been so glowing .
In an impartial and thorough evaluation of integrity in the public service an important aspect would be to monitor public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to whistleblowers and evaluating their experience based on the evidence that they have to support their claim .
The reality is that the public sector does not know what investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons and not the issue.
It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and perception of integrity of persons are what is accepted and considered. Of course if they want to get rid of the person involved then any complaint will do .
The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse conclusion could of course be implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator becomes the whistleblower and become unpopular at work .
So what does the public sector do they turn to manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by your gold partner the ombudsman’s office .
There a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct 138 Pages Yes that’s right there is no manual on how to investigate
What do you think the “Go to” resource will be , which one allows them to get the head ache off the desk and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it “the unreasonable complaint manual” its the thickest and was copied from Australia minus the essential resource “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy” .
In NZ and our manual simply refers the user to locate the model policy on the Australian web site. This essential part of the document which is missing in NZ stipulates that each organisation should rely on their organisations own policies for unreasonable complainants.
So with that part missing so are the policies in our public sector and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call on unreasonable complainants and how they are defined.
While I accept that there are fruit loops out there at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated. and if a complaint is properly and fairly evaluated then people don’t get cross if they are shown why their complaint comes unstuck .
But we work in terms of economy and its not economic to look at ll complaints so throw up a brick wall and very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person. Problem solved
The essential Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy which is missing in New Zealand specifies
3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.
So this is how the ” investigation ” in our public sector is conducted
- Get complaint
- go to the person allegedly accused and run it past them
- accept what they say about the person making the complaint who after consulting the alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person and go to the check list
- The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”. the perpetrator has already given a good explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
- The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”.. well how can there be a valid issue when the complainant is reportedly just a nasty person the whole thing has to be a set up and we know the alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
- The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.” Substance has already established from our trusted colleague and based on what he/she tells us there is no substance
- For good measure the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14 and the early warning signs UCC? page 16 and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower , on issues of genuine public interest can tick many of these boxes
So let us see how this applied to me
I had been on a trust with Neil Wells , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions due to the trust being in danger of becoming insolvent .
He removed me from the trust by telling lies . I sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .
Lyn Macdonald who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer saw that I was a private Investigator , she too had been bullied by wells and he later got her kicked out of her job for associating with me . she asked me to find out who or what AWINZ was , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise animal welfare over her council paid duties.
I searched for AWINZ but could not find any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council I found that although both had a MOU with AWINZ( MOU Waitakere MOU MAF) neither had a copy of a trust deed .
I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated that AWINZ had to be a real or legal person . This was 2006 and registers were not that easily searched so with others we formed and incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand . we did not expect to be successful but we were, this proved conclusively that the entiy which Neil wells claimed to operate was fictional.
Here I have to explain something about names and trusts
- an unincorporated trust can be a group of people who are trustees in a trust which they then give a name , the legal name for that trust is (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
- An incorporated trust can use the name of the trust and trade in that name without referring to the trustees as the trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these were all legal persons in their own name .
The application. which Neil Wells filed with MAF to obtain law enforcement powers under the legislation which he had drafted and advised on was fraudulent it categorically stated
since the trust had not been formed but was allegedly in the process of being incorporated the application should have been in the names of the four people shown as trustees of AWINZ and each should have at least signed the trust deed and each would have to take responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document committing to that role.
The reality was that the trust did not exist as there was no trust deed .
Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister In this short paragraph he tells the following lies
- Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
- The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
- the trust deed which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier only goes to 19
Just this little bit of information should make the investigators look more closely but Wells was well connected to MAF and was known to ministers he was even able to write caucus papers .
When I raised concerns with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up he selected the people wisely
Graeme Coutts .. a non questioning JP who worked in the office beside Wells and beside the RNZSPCA his name had been on the original application .
Wyn Hoadley QSM.. great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always reputable
Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council . Tom Didovich was in this up to his neck and went out to get the signatures of the alleged trustees when the deed was missing.. probably missing because hit had never been signed .
So in my situation
I was made out by wells as some fruit loop who was disgruntled about her removal from a trust
Wells was a respected barrister wrote legislation and lots of friends in very high places
so Maf and Council threw up brick walls and I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and also his desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to Joanna Tuckwell who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.
Wells took me to court for defamation , his lawyers Brookfields did not check to see if there was a trust deed before commencing proceedings , Nick Wright a resource management lawyer started the proceedings in a unethical manner by making threats , they then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the fed the court a lot of BS and Voila a judgement which they could wave around to discredit me and use to apparently legitimise AWINZ .
every one happy except that Wells kept attacking me subversively and saw to it that I lost my ability to earn a living through private investigations .
when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out and knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct to have the investigation into AWINZ opened.
Had the public sector acted with integrity they would have left people aside and investigated the Very simple issue
Did AWINZ exist …No it did not no one had a trust deed prior to 2006 By that stage it had been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years
Was the application for approved status fraudulent… Yes it was
can you see that we have a problem ?
If we conceal corruption and give the public sectors resources which help conceal corruption then we have no corruption .
You report that there is integrity in the public sector and by refusing to look beyond the perception which you help create . whistleblowers and their families have their lives destroyed .
You don’t have to support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that proper and fair complaint measures are available and that the issues are dealt with .
I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up are easily Labeled Uncooperative complainants because that way we remain the least corrupt and after all ask any economist .. that’s good for business.
so in the end the question is
are you going to look at the integrity of the public service with regards to how they deal with complaints
Are you going to allow whistleblowers to be members of transparency International New Zealand
will you monitor the complaint making process ?
will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors
Where is the transparency in your accounts you have $400,000 of your 500,000 expenses written off as other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to how much and why be conflicted when you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .
Transparency International NZ and whistleblowers
I received a reply from TINZ director David McNeill in response to my post Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand
the email can be found here response from TINZ director David McNeill
In the interest of transparency I publish my response
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 11:37 a.m.
To: ‘David McNeill’ <dm@ti.org.nz>
Subject: RE: open letter to David Mc Neil
Thank you for your response David
I am sorry that you don’t agree with the methods I use to pursue my case but after 11 years I think I have tried everything to bring this matter to the attention of the authorities and misters .
Should bringing corruption to the attention of the government be this hard ?
If it is ignored what does it say about our values?
The only reason I have kept on with it is because it has cost me so much it cost me my marriage and my family not to mention the obscene sum of money which was taken t from me through the subsequent fraud on the court where Wyn Hoadley Barrister, Graeme courts JP and Tom Didovich the conflicted former manager Waitakere city council dog control along with Wells set up a similarly named trust and passed themselves off as the law enforcement authority .. a total legal nonsense but the names were the same so it was OK
I acted in good faith on a matter of public interest which I raised with the purest of intentions after a council employee had come to me .
In becoming a vocal whistle-blower I also became a go to person for those with issues of their own . In the 11 years at the coal face of corruption I have found why corruption is so prevalent in New Zealand and I thought that this information would be of use to TINZ.
How can you work on the issues of integrity , change of policy and political attitude if you yourselves remain uninformed of what is occurring and shun whistle-blowers.
You ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?” well the short answer is that he died last week but the legacy of what he set in action lives on.
He has proved that in New Zealand
-
writing legislation for your own business plan is condoned.
-
you can be an independent adviser to the select committee on matters in which you have a personal financial interest.
-
you can make a fraudulent application for Law enforcement powers and influence the decision makers
-
Those investigating an application for statutory powers do not check if the organisation exists or any alleged fact
-
Obtain your own legal opinion for government and have input into it
-
You can draft your own documents for the government
-
You can contract to councils and government department using a fictional name MOU Waitakere MOU MAF
-
That he can influence the government department to such an extent that the Whistle-blower is discredited and no one verifies that a fraud has occurred or not .
Simply put he has proved that if you make it easy for the public servant , have their trust and liaise with them frequently and meet with minister then you can get them to accept anything and they won’t check. Rule number one never verify . Being a barrister helps after all a man of the law knows and would never be corrupt .
Ironically today there is an article in the newspaper “SPCA confiscates man’s dog based on ‘hearsay’, he claims “ this is very relevant currently the RNZSPCA is undertaking a very dodgy “ amalgamation “ and will be focusing on the inspectorate which will see more personal properties raided by persons who are privately employed. But that is not for now
You say “We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing” Please tell me the difference . If I am screaming corruption now it’s probably because after 11 years of hitting my head against a wall and having my reputation maligned it’s the only thing left to do .
You state “Transparency International NZ “approaches corruption in a different way, attempting to give the whole system more tools & techniques for exposing and preventing corruption. ‘ How can you prevent corruption when you don’t know what the symptoms are ?
Cancer left untreated will kill you corruption left untreated will kill our country and indeed will have killed many in its path . I know this as at one stage I was suicidal .
My criticism of TINZ has been that you prefer not to know about corruption and appear hell bent on portraying New Zealand as the least corrupt to enhance business interest. When I heard Jose Ugaz speak I was heartened I would never have thought that you belong to the same organisation .
You have no idea how difficult it is to see transparency International run programmes such as WHISTLEBLOWING FOR CHANGE, etc yet be shunned by your local branch .
ON https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/whistleblowing/ the following appears
This opens up onto https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblowing
“ Through our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres, located in nearly 50 countries, we advise whistleblowers in making their disclosures and work to make sure that their disclosures are duly addressed by appropriate authorities.”
The international body recognises the importance of Whistle-blowers
“ There is growing awareness of the important role whistleblowing plays in stopping corruption. “
yet TINZ say this approach is wrong.”
“We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing.”
I did not wake up one day and decide to become a whistle-blower.
I was a mother had a family of three teenagers thought I was happily married , I helped a lady at Waitakere city council and my whole life changed . this should not happen to any one !
I found something that was very wrong and raised questions with MAF and Waitakere city council which I thought were the appropriate bodies
Rather than checking out my claims they colluded with the perpetrator who then took me to court for defamation, deceived the court and got a judgement against me by denying me the statutory right of defence. That judgement has been waved about ever since to discredit me.
My marriage was simultaneously attacked and my funds were frozen I could not fight back .Lawyers cost money . when My matrimonial property was settles I got a lawyer he happened to be Evgeny orlov who fleeced me and was himself embroiled in matters relating to the panama papers . He had no credibility with the court and was at one stage struck off , just my hard luck that he was my lawyer .
In 2007 Mr Wells wrote to MAF that he intended to bankrupt me . over the years he advised them as to what to and was kept in the loop with every OIA I made and allowed to make comment . see here for another example
The down side of publishing on transparency NZ has been that it allowed Wells and Hoadley to engage a Private investigator who then assisted in muddying the waters. The intention was to deny me my PI licence . five years later they have succeeded putting me out of work at age 64 from a career which is an extension of my police career which commenced when I was 21
I was discredited even to my own children . what I have been fighting for is to get my reputation back
While Neil Wells was portrayed to be good I was made out to be a sinister person
Just prior to his death I found a news item on the law society news Censured lawyer gets name suppression , I recognised the events and from this have speculated that Mr Wells was actually a corrupt barrister . I was charged with alleged breach of a suppression order , the police didn’t need evidence to charge me , it took them 6 weeks to find something that could at a stretch be an order but in reality is vague .
Our biggest issue with corruption in New Zealand is that we thrive on perception , make someone out to be bad and they are bad forever and no one will ever look at the evidence .
Evidence is what Jose Ugaz felt is essential in proving corruption but evidence plays no part in our courts.
Barristers such as Neil Wells and their legal representatives have the ability to influence the court without any evidence this is reflected in a speech made in 2014 by : Justice Helen Winkelmann – Chief High Court Judge of New Zealand (Helen Winkelmann’s 2014 Address).
“There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006”
David the process of holding lawyers accountable to the rule of law is long and again the lawyers word is preferred over the complainant.
I have lost my PI licence , the matter is still under review by the LCRO, I was accused of harassing a lawyer for telling him that he had an obligation to the rule of law and could not use his office for fraud.
Such is New Zealand today have not even touched on to another raft of issues.
I am sure that we could work well together we would both like to see corruption contained and by providing policies that work much grief can be avoided.
I wonder if the Joanne Harrison matter could have been prevented if the lessons which could have been learned from AWINZ had been implemented.
No one should have to go through what I have had to endure there is only one way forward and that is by providing transparency .
I would like to join TI NZ we can learn from each other .
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Fraud and corruption Is New Zealand up the creek without a paddle?
When it comes to back ground screening I tell people that the corrupt usually don’t do things by half measures. what is the point of inflating your Cv just a bit when you can be dynamic and give yourself a degree which will take you to the top .
And so it is with perception ratings. If we acknowledge that there is fraud and corruption then the perception of being fraud and corruption free is destroyed .
“Our public-sector agencies have focused successfully on developing processes that prevent corruption and these contribute to New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector” says Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its low corruption reputation and we are increasingly finding how to transfer these behaviours from our public to our private sector to leverage off this enviable reputation for integrity.”
It is ironic however that Transparency International New Zealand prepares the integrity report with funding from theses very sectors .partners / sponsors
The reality was seen this week when the police acknowledged that
White collar crime ‘rampant’ as nearly 900 fraud complaints go uninvestigated
It appears that the investigation into Joanne Harrison has lifted the lid on corruption in New Zealand. within a few days we got interesting head lines
Fuji Xerox NZ voluntarily suspends competing for government contracts
FujiXerox NZ corruption scandal grows in spite of New Zealand’s silence
Binnie: Bain case tarnished NZ’s reputation
Immigration NZ staff investigated for corruption and fraud after visas issued to family, friends
New Zealand: thousands of bottles of allegedly fraudulent wine exported
Patrick Gower: Metiria Turei’s political fraud is ripping off the New Zealand public
The hypocrisy of NZ’s approach to fraud
“A number of victims of these frauds suffer significant loss. Some of these people would have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings, a lot of these files aren’t minor files.”
And there is another side to it too Victims and whistleblowers are attacked in an effort to ensure that the fraud goes undetected. In my experience it appears that the fraudsters get far more support from the police than the person discovering/ reporting/ victim the crime does. I often wonder how lack of action on fraud impacts on our overly high suicide ratings.
These are true stories I know they are true because they happened to me , I know suicide is a factor because there were times when it appealed to me thanks to neil Wells Wyn Hoadley , graeme Coutts and tom Didovich
I am ex police and found myself working as a private investigator right in the line of fire
Lulled into the false sense of security that NZ has no tolerance for corruption I raised the fraudulent application of AWINZ to be a law enforcement authority with MPI and Waitakere city council . Neil Edward Wells a barrister who is now known to have been corrupt , had written legislation for his own business plan made an application for law enforcement powers for a fictional organisation he then had the council buildings re branded with the name of his fictional organisation and worked in a situation of severe conflict of interest using council resources infrastructure and staff to operate his own business.
11 years later and this still has not been independently investigated by the authorities and in a move akin to Joanne Harrison neil edward Wells was able influence the staff at MPI so that the matter was not investigated. he took me to court for defamation for claiming that the trust was a sham , I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion , my family was torn apart and now 11 years later I have been taken to court by the police for speculating that Neil Wells was the lawyer in a law society news publication .
Not long after I had raised this issue I assisted a lawyer in locating the director and Liquidator of Fresh prepared Limited
The liquidator and director were both fictional , they had been created by a Hawaiian business man named Terry Hay . I found my self being harassed by him when he posted three advertisements in the mandarin time to ensure that half the chinese population descended up on our house hold to buy a super cheap car, get a great accommodation deal, get a fabulous job .
Simultaneously I had reported fresh prepared to MAF at the time as it was a border control facility and they had now claimed to be a different company . I found myself under investigation by Maf and warned for passing myself off as a Maf officer. I was to learn that this was handy work of Neil Wells.
Hay was charged by the National enforcement unit and took of to Honolulu he remained there for several years and the 22 charges were dropped
Next up was fraudster Jonathon Mann and his partner Dr Gerald Waters , Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims
His victims had to set up a blog site to deal with him,but it appears that fraudsters don’t like having potential victims warned
I came under attack by Gerald Waters but eventually he was charged with companies act offences
Then I was approached by a couple , the husband had had a former brief relationship with a Parisa Hamedi . Hamedi had gone to Steven ZINDEL and engaged him on legal aid , after a dozen or so bonks Hamedi thought she was entitled to the mans house . I conducted the investigation and found that she maintained her housing corp home in Nelson where she and her children lived with her former husband.
I committed a terrible crime by suggesting to ZINDEL that he should do some home work on the de facto status as my investigations had proved that they were a long way off the threshold. He came back and suggested that if $50,000 compensation was paid then it would all go away . This wonderful hard working couple spent some 6 years fighting this through court and in the end the verdict was.. wait for it.. there was no de facto relationship . Yet Zindel took me to the Private security licencing authority because i told him to check his facts as he may otherwise be using his office for fraud.
Then there is the on going saga of Muse on allen, where a young immigrant invested money in a restaurant o see it all taken away by Samuel North who then claimed to be the youngest chef to own his own restaurant. this has gone through courts for many years and simply proves that the civil jurisdiction cannot cope with fraud , on top of being ripped off the victim then gets a hiding to nowhere and loses even more funds.
Lawyer David Abricossow was acting for the company and when I told him that he had an obligation to the rule of law and could not use his practice to facilitate fraud he took me to court for harassment and made false claims that I had defamed him, I was beautifully set up and lost my Pi licence because this lawyer was at the start of his career and needed protection .
From what I can see is the Fraud is left un addressed as it is a fabulous meal ticket for lawyers. Brookfields Lawyers certainly clipped the ticket on the AWINZ matter .
If you are defrauded or if you discover fraud the best thing you can do is close your eyes and walk away. make that RUN the courts appear to support fraudsters evidence has no place the ones with the biggest lawyers win and when you have been scalped and the other side has the money you don’t have much of a chance at all .
You have no rights there is no justice and in the civil jurisdiction there is actually not right to a fair trial .
But it all helps in the concealment of fraud , if we do not acknowledge that fraud exists then there is no fraud.
You cant find something that you are not looking for .. see no fraud problem in New Zealand.
Trading in the grey BS names , trading names and fraud condoned
In 2006 I unwittingly became a whistleblower on serious corruption . I discovered that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) did not exist in any manner or form . Neil Wells a barrister who is now known to be corrupt wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act to facilitate his own business plan, He made a totally fraudulent application claiming that the application was being made by a trust.
for 11 years the Government ( both National and Labour ) have failed to address she issue of fake identities in trusts . I have long claimed that identity fraud in companies and trusts is the greatest corruption we face in NZ today.
So while all eyes are on Metiria for minor sins in the past the large ones are still going on , this week we learned that life line lost the contract for suicide prevention and that it has gone to Le Va where Bills wife Mary happens to be one of the so called board members of this fictional organisation
Bill English’s wife and her association with the 1,000,000 grant. I’m not saying that there is anything up with what she has done but the “trusts ” she is involved with certainly appears odd.
Le va is a creature of fiction the terms and conditions page states
“These terms apply to the website and social media of www.leva.co.nz which is owned by xxx.“
but in a page dedicated to a board there is just one small clue to be found ” Pacific Inc, trading as Le Va, is an organisation with charitable status governed by a board of trustees ” it just shows how little people know about trusts and companies . Companies have directors and trusts have trustees.
the web site le Va.co.nz is registered to Wise group
Wise Group is a group of charities , which does not have any legal status of its own , its neither a legal person nor a natural person but the incorporated charitable trust wise trust board owns a conglomeration of companies .
While le va does appear to have foundations with a legal company why do we have to use a trading name that is so different to the legal name .
Wells signed agreements in the name of this fictional trust with MAF and with the dog control section of waitakere city council. He applied for the position of Manager without declaring his conflict of interest and got the job effectively then becoming both parties to this mou .
In 11 years I have not been able to get any progress on this matter ,I have truck loads of evidence but this matter has been actively covered up by MPI and the former Waitakere city council and Auckland council. The Police and SFO have played a game of hot potato with the case one saying its too serious the other saying it isn’t serious enough.
I have learned that Wells engaged a private investigator to set me up , I have just discovered that Ron Mc Quilter drafted a witness statement which he then had a witness sign and did what he could to ensure that I would lose my PI licence.
Rons Business partner just happens to be bryan Mogridge of the committee for auckland and previously enterprise waitakere , good reason to see me discredited .
the AWINZ matter has highlighted to me the level at which corruption is condoned in New Zealand . We have a tendency to ignore crime at the top of the scale but pounce on the simple straight forward matters.
This is because or enforcement system is economy based. so its about return of $ for investment. I learned much about false trusts, fake identities, abuse of trading names and was actually on to the panama papers long before the journalists exposed the material . I included all this information as evidence in my petition for a commission against corruption
My petition was thrown out by Mike Sabin .. now no one got to hear about his sins… and he most certainly did not own up to them .
I have seen everything from fake companies fake addresses fake liquidators proxy directors fake directors. all of this is possible and apparently condoned.
On page 65 of my evidence you will see that the crown law office memorandum seeking to have the 22 charges withdrawn for a a well connected american business man Terry Hay , former business partner of David Nathan , for charges relating to company fraud.
so why are we being so tough on Metiria Turei for historic deeds of hers.
The awinz matter has been covered up at 40,000 feet , the fact that it has not been investigated 11 years after reporting it shows that this tactic of using fake names is more common than we think .
Just like the Joanne Harrison matter where she concealed her frauds the same occurred in the MPI . I have evidence of OIA’s being run past Neil Wells, he was consulted and kept in the loop of my questions and contacts with the mpi.
there were people in the auditor generals office who told me that they did not want to touch it as they were too close to retirement and were not wishing to place themselves in such a precarious position .
Many years ago in police College I learned that those who stand by and do nothing are as guilty as the perpetrator of an offence . Those who assisted in concealment of an offence were called accessories to the fact or accessories after the fact .
section 71 of our crimes act reads
71 Accessory after the fact
(1)An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
so while some politicians admit to frauds of the past others stand by and let them happen .
Open letter to José Ugaz Chair of transparency International
The state of corruption In New Zealand
Sir
I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Limited . My company actively exposes corruption In New Zealand . It was formed after Transparency International New Zealand refused me membership because it claims that
“the TINZ Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases.”
Unfortunately I believe that by looking at corruption in New Zealand we can learn from it and prevent it from growing.
Ignoring corruption is like ignoring cancer, ignore it long enough and it will kill you
I was very impressed with your presentation at Massey University, Palmerston North .
The views you promoted on Behalf of transparency International resonated with me and I felt sad that Transparency International New Zealand does not hold the same values as the international body .
You regarded whistleblowers as essential to uncovering corruption but the local professor quickly added that whistleblowers are regarded as tell tales and then there were some comments by him abut obtaining information unlawfully.
I can assure you that the truck loads of information I have collated have been acquired lawfully and it sets out a major issue which we have in New Zealand and that is the use of trusts.
We use trusts to the extent that we invent trusts and although the invented trust is totally bogus they appear to be able to act like legal persons , no one checks.
In this example a fictional trust obtained an arrest warrant the full document is here
more about this is found in Anne’s book available for download at Annehunt.co.nz
When fictional ” trusts” have a standing in court and can have an order issued to infringe on the rights of a natural person then there is something seriously out of wack
It shoudl be the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure that such action does not find itself in court and he and he alone should be held accountable to the full force of the law.
In another matter A fictional trust obtained law enforcement powers the fraudulent application is here
This application was made by a corrupt Barrister who has advised Government and was heavily involved in drafting the legislation to facilitate this fraud
He had a business plan see here and wrote the legislation and advised on it to facilitate this plan
He and his corrupt lawyer took action against me for defamation for saying that the trust was a sham. I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and through the false allegation that a similarly named ” trusts ” created retrospectively ws one and the same he misled the court and effectively the fiction became reality .
I see the courts reliance on the word of lawyers as the single largest contributor to corruption in New Zealand . Things are sanitised and legitimised through the courts by misleading the court .. no evidence is ever required.
Trusts in New Zealand are therefore the no 1 vehicle of choice for fraud and money laundering , if our courts and lawyers don’t check to see if a trust exists then its open slather . In the case of animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) I asked the solicitor general to investigate the trust and the various trusts that have been set up to jump through time and vacuums to give the illusion of reality.
If a trust does not have to have a legal structure which commences and continues in any verifiable form then we are dealing with fiction .
New Zealand is very much a Victorian colony which is coming of age through the use of computers . that is why whistleblowers are silenced here.
You raised a question with regards to John Key and asked why had no one investigated him. The answer is simple you just need to look at what I have suffered and you soon realise that if you even ask one question out of place you will be discredited and your life will be in tatters . Your comment and my research on Key since leaving the meeting has made me realise why no action has ever been taken with regards to AWINZ, for 11 years I have said it is a blue print and sure enough it has been . If a fictional trust can be a law enforcement authority then it can be anything.
In 2014 , Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption to Parliament , I was the lead petitioner . I was asked to present evidence as to why we needed such a commission and I supplied my evidence it is at this link you will see that I touched on panama, I was taken to court with regards to my discoveries of these panamanian companies and Hungarian alcoholic directors , I was silenced .
I provided evidence of fake liquidators fake directors and showed that the crown solicitor’s dropped 22 charges of fraud of Terry Hay a well connected american for fraud under the companies act
items 56 in that report relate to TINZ role in corruption today
Transparency International New Zealand in my opinion serves only to ensure that New Zealand status as least corrupt is preserved. To do this they actively ignore corruption and pretend that it does not occur.
Transparency International New Zealand gets funding from the key public service agencies to do the integrity reports on the public sector.
Quite personally I think that that is a conflict of interest and corrupt .
The reality is that New Zealand is in my experience rotten to the core we have cheated on our exam cards ( the perception index) and that makes us among the most corrupt of them all .
When simple corruption is covered up at high levels and they have to go as far as to discredit you then you know that the corruption is deeper than any one imagined.
I look forward to a response from you and look forward to being able to work with transparency International to address corruption in New Zealand and not be part of the problem by concealing it.
- items on John Keys trust Panama papers John Doe statement
Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands.
7 May 2016 Why was John Key singled out by Panama Papers hacker?
7 May 2016 Panama Papers whistleblower confused – John Key
8 May 2016 Taxing times: The ghosts of wineboxes past
5 october 2016 John Key keeps lid on hidden billions
21 march 2014 John Key dismisses rumours surrounding resignation
READ MORE:
* Panama Papers source breaks silence, denies being a spy
* The Panama Papers New Zealand link revealed
* New measures to combat cybercrime outlined by Government
* Prime Minister John Key’s lawyer asked about foreign trusts
* NZ trusts at the centre of Malta money scandal
* Government now says NZ trust examination likely
* More NZ links to Panama Papers to come
* Q&A: Panama Papers’ fallout has only just begun
Documents obtained by the Australian Financial Review show:
- Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantu, who built his fortune from billions of dollars in Mexican government contracts, was investigated for lavish housing deals with Mexican political figures.
- On July 1 last year, Cantu’s Miami lawyer said his client had “circa $US100 million” to put into three New Zealand trusts.
- Maltese investors who had been turned away from nine banks in the Caribbean, Miami and Panama eventually found a home for their money in New Zealand trusts.
- Demand for New Zealand trusts went into overdrive late last year with Mossack Fonseca staff in Panama urging New Zealand staff to “chase the money”.
Man of Convictions :By Anne HUNT a Must read for all New Zealanders
The Opening words of Anne’s Report could well be my own with a minor change, hers are with regards to Phil Taueki and mine With Neil Wells
“The crime I discovered is serious. Why the cover-up? It piqued my curiosity. No self-respecting “Investigator” can resist the temptation to ferret out the facts! “
Anne makes this comment on her web page which provides a down load for her latest book a man of convictions http://www.annehunt.co.nz
the only difference between Phil and Neil is that Phil is a victim of this type of fraud and Neil Wells is a corrupt former barrister who perpetrated this identity fraud on the public .
I have spoken to Anne many times she was a fabulous support while I was going through the darkest days of my AWINZ journey( Neil Wells ) .
There is a strange bond between those of us who have gone through the mill so to speak and we have all learned a lot about injustice , the tricks played in court and the dirty tactics.
So when Anne sent on an email with regards to Philip Taueki’s plight I couldn’t help but get involved. I smelt a rat .
I asked Anne to keep my involvement quite so I worked in the background as I feared that if I was to be connected with the matter then it would blow up out of proportion as other matters which I have been seen to be connected with have. Its all over now so I can come out of the wood work , but you can appreciate that Neil wells would not like to think that this was again another fake trust and once people cotton on to the use of fake trusts his own might be looked at .
This trust however was allegedly a Maori trust so I completed a crash course in Maori trusts and identified the fact that there were a number of court actions which had been brought against Philip by fictional trusts. It was the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand all over again.
Much of the court action had been brought by “HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) PART RESERVATION TRUST” My investigations showed that it had no claim on the land, it was a trading name which has not been defined. It has no standing before the court and cannot seek to have a lawful owner removed from his own land . Basically it was just a group of people hiding behind a BS name .
Fortunately there is no corruption in New Zealand we just have systems where checking is the last thing that is done and we operate entirely on assumptions .Lawyers will take instructions from any one with dosh which means at the worst that someone living overseas using a fictional name can make your life hell here on a bogus claim.
It is time that lawyers who do not check if
1. their client has standing and
2. that there is a valid claim
If neither exist then the lawyers should be charged with offences under the lawyers and conveyancers act .
Anne acknowledges my work in the tributes, strangely enough I have have just been removed s a PI for not acting in the public interest .. My crime I told David Abricossow to act impartially for his client the muse on Allen and directed him to the provisions of the lawyers and conveyancers act ….makes you wonder doesn’t it .
Download the book its free and promises to make good reading
A new dawn, a new day a new career path – Grace Haden Investigative Journalist
It’s a new life for me
And I’m feeling good
Last week my world was shattered, for the past 14 years I have been a private investigator before that I was a mother and before that a Police officer of 15 years standing.
I received the call in the morning telling me that the reserved decision was going to be released . I didn’t know what to think deep in my mind I knew that were desperate to strip me of my private investigator’s licence. The words of the PSPLA still rang in my ears… as long as you blog and report Lawyers to the law society you will not have a licence.
So they had to dig deep and they did it see here decision second appeal
My entire ability to earn a living has been judged on one incident where a lawyer was in my professional appion not working according to the rule of law
But fast forward past the boring bit of how it happened and I am pleased to say I am reinventing myself as a
Public Investigator: Public Watchdog : Investigative Journalist : Citizen Journalist : Fraud and Corruption Educator: Investigative Consultant
Every cloud has a silver lining and by being an investigative reporter I have no obligations to the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010
Meaning of private investigator
no person is a private investigator within the meaning of this Act by reason of the fact that—
(4) (a)he or she seeks, obtains, or supplies any information—
(iv)for any purpose relating to the dissemination of news or other information to the public or to any section of the public
The background to the lack of transparency and lack of justice in losing my licence is here , they had to dig deep and this is what they had to pin it on. the lawyers have not even been dealt with for misleading the court and I am already executed
David Abricossow of Johnston Lawrence law firm was representing the company Muse on Allen Limited . (Muse on allen features on this site a share holder had $64,000 transferred out of his name and was kicked out of the company whihc had been purchased of some $95,000 .)
Abricossow saw it fit to make a false allegation of contempt of court with regards to my actions , he falsely alleged that I had distributed documents which had been provided by way of confidential discovery in the high court proceedings . These documents were sitting in lawyers offices in Wellington, I had not seen them nor did I know what they were .
So by means of what I believe to be a brilliant set up, Malcolm North of the ministry of social development who claimed to be a director of the company , provided Jozsef who I was helping with documents which alleged that he was responsible for losses in the company . Statement of Claim without privilege he also provided these privilege free documents.
It was obvious that the company was insolvent, trading while insolvent and incurring more debt that at this stage they appeared to be holding Jozsef accountable for so the strategy was to limit the damage and inform creditors of the company that Jozsef did not have any control over the company , his shared has been stolen from him, he was being held accountable for the company debts and did not consent to the company incurring any more debt. and that is how Abricossow came to make an allegation of contempt of court against me , it would appear that Malcolm north had provided the documents freely one day yet on another claimed they were confidential .
I made a complaint to the directors of Johnston Lawrence with regards to the false allegations of contempt they addressed the issue by alleging harassment
The harassment proceedings were set down in Wellington I lived in Auckland
The proceedings were more in line with strategy rather than rule of law and when I thought there was an agreement for a consent order without apportioning blame they did an about turn on me and I found that I had to be in Wellington at very short notice like Hours away .
The judge refused to allow me to attend by video conference and held the hearing without me.
New matters were raised particularly defamation , this was claimed in letters which were only between myself and Abricossow and by some what twisting matters . the reality is that defamtion has its own act and under that act there is a thing which I have never experienced.. the ability to prove the truth of the statement or opinion.
without your right to that defence you are toast. You are also toast when defamation is alleged in your absence.
So his honour decided that on the basis of continued defamation I had Harassed David Abricossow .
Because the decision is under the harassment act it is not published but to overcome that they published the decision and called it Lane V Haden making it appear that I am a serial harasser ( a term which Malcolm North the recent bankrupt likes to use )
I asked for the decision to be recalled based on the legal grounds that defamation was introduced at the final submissions, I was not given an opportunity to address those allegations and defamation should have been pleaded separately . So one of the other directors of Johnston Lawrence trundles off to he court and misled the court with regards to defamation and the decision stood.
so I have made a complaint with the law society and the LCRO nearly 2 years later these complaints are still being dealt with but in the mean time the action of these lawers is enough to put me out of my life time of work
I know that eh disgraced barrister Neil Wells is involved because Malcolm North admitted to communicating with him.
I suspect that Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley had engaged Ron Mc quilter and a mate of Mc Quilter Trevor Morely a former president of the NZIPI has been involved with the Norths see here
From: Trevor Morley [mailto:twam@clear.net.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 2 May 2015 4:36 p.m.
To: Malcolm North
Subject: Message from Grace HADEN.Good afternoon Malcolm,
When we spoke on the telephone and you sought my advice re the serving of a trespass notice, you mentioned that you had heard from a Grace HADEN. My understanding of what you told me was that the service of the trespass notice and the matter that she was involved with and yourself were two entirely different matters.
It would seem I may have misunderstood you.
Irrespective of that, I certainly did not expect you to mention to her (or anyone else for that matter) that you have been in contact with me.
Just so that there is no further misunderstanding(s) Malcolm I would be grateful if (a) you did not, at any time in the future, mention my name to someone without first confirming with me that it was proper and appropriate to do so, and (b) please do not communicate with me at any time in the future about whatever the matter(s) are that you are involved with necessitating the involvement of Ms HADEN.
I am sending a separate and brief e-mail to her requesting that she does not communicate with me in any way, shape or form about whatever it is that she needs to communicate with you about.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Trevor W.A. Morley.
Trevor was the chair person of the NZIPI when I was secretary he changed the constitution so that he could remove two members who they could not get rid of under the rules
I left the NZIPI after that as I believe that if you have not got legal grounds for removal then you don’t change the rules retrospectively .
Morley provided a lot of in put into the the private investigators new legislation and now I have been designated an unfit person based on the subjective opinion .
I can keep on fighting but want to use my time constructively , I have asked for the judgment to be recalled but doubt if this will happen
on the basis of the above incident with a lawyer I have at 64 lost my ability to earn an income in my chosen profession FOR EVER . compare this with lawyers and you see this
- One month suspension for Robert John Latton Deceived his client. In two emails to the client he represented that he had sent the letter when he had not.He also backdated a draft letter from a version that had been sent to him by his instructing solicitor, and showed this to the client.
- Marc Cropper suspended for three months possession of a class A controlled drug, methamphetamine
- Gang “Richard” Chen has been suspended for two years having been convicted of five criminal offences, four of which were punishable by imprisonment and tended to bring his profession into disrepute
- Stephen Joseph Woulfe has been suspended for two months A signature on an authority and instruction form prepared and executed by Mr Woulfe was a forgery
- Gary Horne has been suspended from practice for a period of three months Two of the charges related to his actions when acting for different clients in the purchase of properties. The third charge concerned the operations of Mr Horne’s nominee company and a number of breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Nominee Company) Rules 2008.
- Richard Zhao suspended for four months he failed to pay the money into his firm’s trust account until more than six weeks after receipt During that period the money was held in various personal accounts belonging to him and his wife and a portion of interest attributable to his client was not paid to her.
- Keith Ian Jefferies suspended for six months convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment which tend to bring his profession into disrepute. The convictions were for possession of a Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine, possession of a Class C controlled drug, bk- MDMA, and possession of utensils contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
- Former lawyer Greg Stewart suspended for 18 months failure to keep adequate records, having client balances overdrawn, failing to reconcile trust bank accounts with the trust ledger, and incorrectly certifying compliance with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account Regulations) 2008. Greg Stewart relates to the investigations I conducted into him when he was part of the Equity international trust company with Evgeny Orlov
- Richard Austin censured for unsatisfactory conduct he falsely certified signatures on declarations which were submitted to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). Mr Austin did not inform LINZ that the declarations either were not in his possession when the e-dealing was certified or were not retained on the client file or that the new declarations were backdated and not properly witnessed.
No right to justice for me Ron , Twam Neil you may think that you have achieved your objective, I am no longer a private Investigator but I am now a Public investigator / Consultant and Investigative journalist
May Transparency rule
Verisure will continue to operate we are investigators just not Private lets face it Hr specialists, lawyers health and safety people the whole world investigates without a licence so why should I fight for mine.
it was the last thing they held over me I am free to speak up and I think it is one hell of an indictment on the NZ IN- justice system
My open letter to be distributed at the world justice forum
The world justice forum is currently under way the forum is being attended by a colleague who will be distributing the following
It is time New Zealand woke up to the corruption which is occurring, ignoring it does not make it go away . cancer ignored will kill you and so will corruption https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/engagement/events/world-justice-forum
A whistle-blowers story from New Zealand
A short introduction by Grace Haden for the World Justice forum 10 July 2017
New Zealand is supposedly the least corrupt country in the world on the perception index. This is probably because New Zealand excels in Perception.
New Zealand still lives in the Victorian era, front parlour looks great but in the back we hide things from view.
I am a former Police Sergeant, I work as a private investigator, I am currently before the court on 5 counts of breaching a suppression order. I was charged six weeks ago and today received the first publicly available copy of the order which I have allegedly breached. My crime was to identify the Barrister who has made my life hell for 11 years as the lawyer who was given name suppression for ripping off his client and old lady who I know he has been targeting for years.
The police were quick to move on charging me but in 11 years they have never looked at the serious corruption which I uncovered. They even charged me before they even knew an order existed.
I run a web site called www.transparency.net.nz, I do this because transparency International in New Zealand is all about keeping the “ least corrupt “ perception alive so that they can attract more business to New Zealand. They receive funding from the public service sector so they can boast how well they do and because there is no corruption in New Zealand we don’t need the usual safe guards
New Zealand is reputedly the country that is easiest to set a business up in, it is also a country in which the same simple companies structure will see you cleaned out. No one checks and the registrar seldom prosecutes. I am currently dealing with a company where the person who invested lost all their funds with a stroke of a pen
In my time as a private Investigator I have seen false companies, false liquidators and the big one that I am being prosecuted for is for identifying a corrupt barrister who wrote legislation for his own business plan, advised on it as “ independent “ adviser to the select committee then made a fraudulent application and told lies to get it past the post . He operated this from a local council’s premises which he rebranded to look like his fictional trust. In 11 years no one has looked at the mountain of evidence and when he was recently found guilty of serious offences under the lawyer’s legislation he was given name suppression. I recognised the scenario as being him speculated and am being prosecuted despite never having seen and order.
One law for all is not what you get in New Zealand, you must pitch your offending just right be certain it does not include injury, no speeding or breaching any unseen orders. But you can successfully use false identities and rip people off for any sun under two million dollars and get away with it.
I presented evidence for a petition for a commission against corruption , the petition was thrown out because the evidence disclosed corruption see it here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Evidence-in-support-of-the-Petition-of-Grace-Haden-and-others-5-11.pdf
Please keep tabs on our web site and you will see how the law does not work in New Zealand, the structure is there, the perception is there but then perception is not reality
Grace Haden
Open letter to the Ombudsman
Dear Sirs .
There is one fundamental issue with the complaints system in New Zealand .. it is out of date and does not appear to comply with the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014
I note that the Good administration guides are all about 5 years old and probably out of line with the Changes to the Ombudsmen Act and official information legislation document dated May 2017.
Just recently I blogged about the reliance by authorities on the unreasonable complainant conduct manual
and commented that this manual was pretty much identical to the one used in New South Wales , the fundamental difference is that here in New Zealand whistleblowers are often labeled unreasonable complainants, in an attempt to drive home the message the complainant will provide more evidence and where the toll of whistleblowing is starting to show the whistleblower may resort to highlighting text, bolding it and in conversations may raise their voice due to frustration . the easy course to take is to say AHAH an unreasonable complainant.
In New South wales the complainant can go to the Independent commission against corruption who will independently investigate the matter .
In New Zealand you go to the Police who say it is too serious and the SFO who say sorry not serious enough .
It appears some australian states have adopted the standard for complaints AS/NZS 10002:2014 and have published a document in 2015 and 2016 which guides Public sector agencies through the complaint process.
The publications can be found at these links
[PDF]complaint management framework – Ombudsman SA www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/wp-content/…/Complaint_Management_Framework.pdf
[PDF]Complaint management framework and model … – NSW Ombudsman https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__…/Complaint-management-framework-June-2015.p…
[PDF]Good Practice Guide to Handling Complaints – Parliament of Victoria https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/…/Tabling_copy_VO_Report_A_good_practice_g…
[PDF]Effective complaint handling guidelines – International Ombudsman … www.theioi.org/downloads/…/Effective-complaint-handling-guidelines-Third-edition….
and the company registration also has its policy
[PDF]Complaint management policy – ASIC download.asic.gov.au/…/complaint-management-policy-for-external-publishing-final….
In New Zealand we appear to be hell bent on ” writing complaints off ” covering up and doing what it takes to preserve our corruption free image .
As a whistleblower with over 11 years experience of banging my head on a brick wall I have also noted that identity fraud in New Zealand is only dealt with by the department of internal affairs . the companies office on the other hand unlike ASIC , looks at compliance and does nothing about the use of “trading names ” and similar names
My complaint about the approved organisation Animal welfare institute was thrown out by your office because no one identified the fact that the court had been seriously misled through the introduction of a trust which bore the same name as the fictional law enforcement authority .
the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) was an undefined trading name it was a falsely portrayed as being a legal entity by a lawyer who has now been proved to be corrupt .
He set up a trust with the identical name and misled the court and MAF by switching one for the other and thereby pulled off the perfect fraud .
MPI never checked if AWINZ existed and processed the application with an unsigned trust deed. they didn’t even question why the subsequent deed that was provided to them 7 years later differed from the signed copy which i was given for court.
Nor did they question why The minister had been told on the 25th march 2000 that the deed had been sent on for registration when in reality it had never been incorporated in any way .
Also a simple check of the trust deed would have revealed the out right lies as there is no 20 (a) in the deed.
MAF at the time were clearly out of their depth and had not the faintest idea what a legal entity was and how they should deal with an unincorporated trust . They relied on Mr Wells experience as a barrister and was prone to drafting documents for the ministry
Mr Wells who wrote the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act and inserted the provisions of an approved Organisation to fulfil his own business plan in to the new legislation on which he advised as “independent advisor “to the select committee without apparently declaring his conflict of interest.
He made a fraudulent application to MaF claiming that AWINZ existed as a trust and was in the process of being registered quite clearly this was a lie as the trust deed showed the trust was formed after this date and AWINZ was never incorporated it was at all times an undefined trading name which was given legal existence without actually having any . What made this so important was the fact that this was a Prosecuting authority under statute .
It would have been impossible for anyone to hold AWINZ accountable , new trustees were magically switched in in 2006 to give it a pseudo appearance of legitimacy . I say magic as no real or legitimate process was involved . But MAF was very happy to cover it all up .
I Brought it to the attention of the council , Maf and a multitude of government departments and 11 years on I am still being persecuted . Government departments like the companies office look for compliance they don’t prosecute that is why it is so open to abuse .
Whistleblowers in New Zealand are treated very poorly to blow the whistle means to devastate your life. it is therefore essential that we have proper complaint procedures and staff who know what they are doing and don’t ask the alleged offender for guidance.
I may have forwarded one or two of her very early Emails for Mr Wells’ awareness/comment/response.
they also state that MAF needed to provide assurances to the minister that AWINZ accountability met requirements of the act.. how could they possibly have achieved this when the organisation was a total fiction ? This is Wells OIA request
The significance of the existence of an entity also goes to the heart of any agreements .Here Joanne Tuckwell states
and it states “This Memorandum of Understanding between the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand
(AWINZ) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) ”
definition ” “AWINZ” means the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. – this shows that MAF clearly thought that AWINZ was a legal person in its own right But Neil Wells signs as trustee and conceals the reality that the application was not made by any trust ( there was no trust meeting which would have allowed him to sign for the other trustees, the trustees of he 200 deed never met ) and that AWINZ is not a legal person in its own right .
Now that Neil Wells has been proved to be deceitful and a person who is less than honest in his roll as barrister , I hope that this may be used to test out a robust complaint procedure. 11 years of victimisation for whistleblowing is enough .
Please implement the standards adopted by australia and enforce them .
It is unreasonable to treat whistleblowers as unreasonable complainants no one should have to go through what I have been subjected to .
I look forward to finding some Fairness .