Penny Bright .. why we need a lot more people like her
September 5, 2018 | 
Author 
It is exactly 12 years ago today when I met Penny , I remember the date well , because it was her birthday. We are the most unlikely mates, I am the ex cop and she the activist . In the spring bock tour we were on opposite sides of the fence , she had an opinion but my uniform prevented me from having one.
Since leaving the Police and Becoming a Private investigator I stumbled onto corruption. I thought it would be a simple task to bring the lack of existence of a Law enforcement body to the notice of the government, but I was wrong and encountered a cover up of gigantic and unbelievable proportion that has apparently called for a 12 year character assassination of me which continues to this day . Heaven forbid that some one should believe me or look at the evidence, then some very prominent people would be taking up beds in our prisons .
With Penny’s activism and union background and my police prosecution and investigative Background we formed a very close relationship of mutual support trust and respect.
Penny and I are on the same page with corruption, we do not always agree on everything but the good part is that when we talk about our different views we often find that there is yet another angle ,one neither of us anticipated.
I have learned heaps from Penny , having been in Government service you come out rather blinkered and Penny helped me see beyond the things that public service blind you to .
In return helped Penny with my prosecution skills ,I remember her coming to me because she had been thrown out of the town hall and arrested for trespass , I said whoa that is a public place you can’t be trespassed from a public place , there is specific legislation with regards to removal from council meetings and so Penny learned from me and won some 22 cases of trespass .
We took on projects individually and worked on others together one day we ended up in Rodney Hide’s office and together learned from him of the magic of the privacy act. So obvious once you know .
It is hard to believe that when we met in 2006 that the internet was still pretty much in its infancy , all sorts of things were being loaded on line , like the companies register and those who had been hiding their business connections in the files of the companies office suddenly found their business exposed . we unraveled the committee for auckland and saw how the tail was wagging the dog, this was he start of the super city and it was all about $$$$.
I started to blog and we soon found that transparency was not welcome . What it did however was to bring people together and we built a network of people who needed help on the way, a network of mutual support and information sharing .
Penny rang me one day about the Tamaki redevelopment company limited and together we worked through the quagmire of trading names, domain names and fake names which facilitate the transfer of a massive government housing stock to a company other than the one where it was intended to go . We cared bt apparently no one else did , but that is something that one day will become obvious .
We have made headway on corruption, the corruption we saw occurs through using fake identities , false names and fictional trusts. it is not on a person identity thing but using fake entities . the banks are now checking the validity of companies and the directors and shareholders, but you can still register a company and have a liquidation through a liquidator who is totally fictional and hopefully soon the questions will be asked about the tamaki redevelopment company Limited, Tamaki regeneration limited and the fictional tamaki regeneration company limited which , to add to the confusion is is referred to as TRC
see also Corruption Alert ..Tamaki Regeneration limited and Crown Entities , Fictional entities and making things up as they go
I knew that fictional organisations existed after questioning the existence of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand which was in reality nothing more than a trading name used by Neil Wells. Wells was the barrister who drafted and was adviser to the select committee on the animal welfare bill which, when passed facilitated the granting of coercive law enforcement powers . Wells made a fraudulent application to the minister and subsequently obtained this law enforcement power for his fictional organisation this was covered up by his associates in court action against me to re write history. despite many requests this has been covered up
Penny came to court with me and stood beside me more times than I can mention , no other friend has stood beside me like she has .
The state of corruption : New Zealand Questioning corruption is not for the faint hearted especially in New Zealand , because we are repeatedly told that there is no corruption , we must be delusional, ignoring corruption is liek ignoring cancer while penny was fighting corruption she did not notice the tumours in her own body .
Penny You are going to have to get better we still need you , I have had plenty of friends at deaths door and they are here today , You are a fighter your work is not done .
Get better girl and Onward and upward there is much more work to be done
Hugs
Grace
the perfect fairy story When fact is simply unbelievable
IN 2006 Vivienne Holm was working at home as a law clerk 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
How we tarnish those who speak the truth
It appears to me that the worst thing you an do in our society is to speak the truth .
I am not alone I had the video link below sent to me today and it simply goes to prove it
Just a few days ago two gentlemen came to my house and spoke most disapproving my of Blogging and frowned upon the fact that I fight corruption .( as if that’s a bad thing to do )
I was told to leave it to the proper authorities. I explained that there appears to be a general covering up of corruption in New Zealand and that my experience was such that I don’t want to see any one go through what I had to endure ( and am still enduring )
I was told that there are two Grace Haden’s the one they like and then there is other , the one with the online presence the one who speaks about things which apparently are a tad embarrassing and conflict with the statistics .. heaven forbid that we upset the perception or prove statistics wrong .
They expressed their opinion that I should not express mine.
I was extremely upset with their visit , I felt bullied by it and it was totally unnecessary additionally they had no apparent mandate from any one, it was totally uncalled for an out of place .
Why do we seek to silence those who are speaking up about the wrongs in our society . The cracks are starting to show in MPI and the SIS . Thompson and clark are members of the NZIPI https://www.nzipi.org.nz/nicholas-thompson/. The NZIPI is headed up by Ron McQuilter who was behind ensuring that I was discredited as a Private investigator . I feel certain that these old boy connections are what is keeping New Zealand’s perception of the least corrupt alive. Stomp on any one when they speak up about corruption , crucify them and make their lives hell so as to ensure that the next person will see nothing .
https://www.facebook.com/supportrickflori/videos/1950697488298231/
Mycoplasma Bovis a blessing for the greenies and waterways or simply too convenient?
Last year a number of news items were prominent with regards to the issues of dairy farming and the effect on waterways see here here here and here
Put simply, more cows have meant more nutrient and pathogen pollution of waterways. Across the whole country, the number of dairy cows increased by over two million between 1992 and 2011 – an 86 percent expansion. During the same period, average dairy herd size in New Zealand more than doubled from 169 to 386.
Now it occurs to me that Mycoplasma Bovis appears to be a blessing for the greenies or is it simply just a convenient way to reduce cattle numbers ? I have first hand evidence of how MPI can be manipulated and how facts are irrelevant to them.
Bryce Edwards published a great little article yesterday Political Roundup: The M. Bovis debacle deserves more debate. His opening statement totally echos my experience with MPI
What has emerged from the debate over the Mycoplasma Bovis saga is that New Zealand appears to have been let down by authorities – especially politicians and senior government bureaucrats who have mismanaged the country’s biosecurity, leaving farming in turmoil, and the taxpayer picking up most of the tab for their negligence.
I had cause to speak to a bovine vet the other day and he confirmed that the tests of mycoplasma bovis are not particularly reliable,so a whole herd is put down because one cow tested positive, this could have been a false positive but who cares lets put the whole herd down at a time when Gypsy day is seeing other herds migrate freely from one area to another . Guess that fits with the agenda of culling as many cattle as possible .
It has made me realise that the characters in the old TV series gliding on are still alive and well and working at MPI , they may of course have taken the precaution to drink their tea and coffee black .
My own experience with the incompetence of MPI ( then MAF)goes back 12 years .
I questioned serious corruption which had allowed a person closely associated with key players in MPI to write legislation for their own business plan , advise on it as ” independent advisor” to the select committee and while MPI knew this person was severely conflicted they stood by and allowed him to provide comment on caucus papers which saw the government approve an application for coercive law enforcement powers to a non existent organisation based on a fraudulent application.
MAF/ MPI are fully aware of it and have refused to undertake an investigation, my own opinion for this is that the lawyer who provided a crown law opinion was Peter McCarthy 
who gave a detailed legal opinion but didn’t even think about checking if the application he was commenting on was legitimately made and that AWINZ existed .
As a whistleblower on the AWINZ matter I was crucified , the first thing MPI did was to attempt to prosecute me for passing myself off as a MAF officer, their evidence was so thin that they resolved to warn me despite the fact that there should not have been an investigation in the first place . This was tied up with another substantial fraud see Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt – NZ Herald and Charges over alleged fake liquidator – NZ Herald
That was the very first attempt to discredit me, and to properly conceal the matter Peter Mc Carthy was made chief legal officer of MPI
Despite untold complaints to government , ombudsmen , state services commission , police ,SFO and untold ministers this issue has been totally concealed while I was refused a renewal of my private investigators licence and was labeled a ” conspiracy theorist ”
This has been total bullying an white washing of a criminal act .
Wells was able to negotiate with MPI to withhold information from me so that the complaints to the law society etc could be dealt with without the inconvenience of facts getting in the way also see here and here .This crucial document was the audit report which totally expose AWINZ as a sham but even despite their own findings nothing was done but AWINZ conveniently stopped being an approved organisation when the super city was formed.
Samuel North conviction recorded by MBIE
The conviction of Samuel North has been recorded by the companies registrar
section 386 A of the companies act states
386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name
(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—
(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.
(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out in section 373(4). ( A person convicted of an offence against any of the following sections of this Act is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding $200,000:)
The conviction was for setting up and operating Muse eatery through the new company CATERING LIMITED which took over he business, the processes and chattels of Muse on allen which was liquidated by IRD. Samuel has since liquidated Muse eatery but not before he was seen asset striping CATERING LIMITED on the last day. see The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true
Malcolm North , Samuels father who works for the ministry of social development was a director for the phoenix company for a short while when he was a bankrupt .Malcolm North was a director from 28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017 he was a bankrupt 7 march to 20 June the official assignee’s report is worth reading by any one who is contemplating a business venture with Malcolm North or Samuel North . The official assignees report is located here Malcolm North bankruptcy report it is worth noting
The Bankrupt ticked “no” to having any real estate interests, however
attached to his Statement of Affairs was a piece of paper with details of his
property ownerships and their corresponding values. This information is
below:
30c & 30d Arawhata Street, Porirua $370,000.00
10 Palm Grove, Lower Hutt $560,000.00
1/10 Makara Road, Paraparaumu $430,000.00
The Bankrupt stated on his Statement of Affairs that he has been in business
as a director or manager of a limited liability company registered with the
Companies Office in New Zealand in the past three years. No further
information was provided by the Bankrupt as to the Company details that he
was manager/director of. The Official Assignee requested further information
from the Bankrupt. The Bankrupt advised it was an error and that he had not
been in a business as a director or manager in the past 3 years.
company office records show him as being director of MUSE ON ALLEN LIMITED (3933441) 09 Jan 2013 to 11 Nov 2014 then again 17 Nov 2014 to 06 Dec 2015
he was then a director of CATERING LIMITED (5860509) 28 Feb 2017 to 04 Apr 2017
Throughout the administration, the Bankrupt has failed to co-operate with the
Official Assignee on a number of occasions. He has consistently raised issues with
the costs of his personal lawyer as well as the costs of The Official Assignee’s
lawyers. This has resulted in the Official Assignee spending significant time
corresponding with the Bankrupt regarding matters that are not necessary for the
administration of the bankruptcy and have added unnecessary costs to the estate
Vivienne Holm avoids important questions
Below is the email received from Vivienne Holm with regards to the post Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
I have published the message in full with my response I have also updated the earlier posts to reflect Holms views
the questions which I have and would like to see an answer to are
-
1. Why did Two Barristers approach a resource management Law clerk who was working for brookfields from home for legal advice ?
see Hoadley decision ” Mrs Hoadley on behalf of AWINZ instructed Brookfields as a source of independent legal advice.”
see Hoadley response ” AWINZ Trustees resolved to seek legal advice and assistance from Brookfields Barristers and Solicitors.”
Nick Wright in his response narrative of facts states ” Initial contact was made by Mr Wells to Ms Vivienne Parre (who was at that time married to Mr Wright). Ms Parre was employed at Brookfields at the time, and the instruction in turn came to Brookfields.”
Vivienne Holm Told the law society investigator that she was a law clerk see copy of ltr 11 May to Holm with file notes of conversation SAQ and Holm 18 May 2011
The law society in their decision on Holm 4192 completed decision Vivienne Holm state
6] In 2006 Vivienne Holm worked at Brookfields as a law clerk. She did not have a practising certificate until 15 August 2006 when she became an employed solicitor at that firm. At that time she was married to Mr Nick Wright, about whom Mrs Haden has also complained, and came into contact with Mrs Haden because she knew Neil Wells.
next question
2. In her complaint to the Private security Licencing authority Holm claims “First, I held a practising certificate throughout 2006 as confirmed in the email from the NZLS attached annexure H.
I enquired with the law society and was told that they did not have the records as the records in 2006 were held by a different society which folded when the new legislation came in .( 2008)
I stand by my Enquiries at the time and the findings that the law society came to, ie that you were a law clerk and did not hold a practicing certificate until august I cant see what the big deal is other than that you too can see that there is no logic in two barristers instructing a law clerk. the email copy which you sent is not evidence , it is hearsay and therefore rejected .
3. my contact with you was in 2006 when you phoned me and intimidated me and attempted to blackmail me by making threats against my private investigators licence if we did not change the name of out legally incorporated trust
Why do you consider this defamatory when the evidence speaks for itself .
see emails from vivienne parre
Note Vivienne has been married a number of times her names have been Parre Holm and Wright
4. in the emails mentioned above you say ” I simply wish to alert you to the fact that in my view your registration of the name “AWINZ” and your website are illegal.” what is the basis for this ? we proved through registration and our website clearly proved that we had incorporated to prove that the AWINZ with law enforcement authority did not exist , this was of major public interest.
evidence was sent to you from the registrar of companies see here
So how is it illegal to prove that something which plays such a pivotal role in society is a fraud and why did you go all out and sustain an attack on me for a further 12 years to keep this fraud concealed
5. you contacted me via netsafe to support a complaint under the harmful digital communications act with regards to a post on transparency in 2011 which predates the act . If there was anything incorrect with this why not simply communicate with us and seek a correction .Why did it take till 2016 for you to contact me again
Next contact almost exactly a year later
6. in december 2017 you again contacted me again you made threats against my PI licence , why make threats when if something had been lost in interpretation with net safe and myself it could have been resolved with simple non threatening communications, each time you come at me in the most aggressive manner . Every contact contains a threat of one sort or another .
Despite a most civil response and the promise to provide clarification you made a complaint to the private security licencing authority alleging very serious wrong doing for which you did not provide any evidence .
You even tried to imply something sinister in my arrival at your house in 2006 when I attempted to seek resolution as a result of your threats
7. you state “I note that I gave you a letter from the New Zealand Law Society rebutting your claims about me weeks ago. ” I do not recall getting such a letter are you referring to annexure H ? if not please send me the letter you are referring to happy to look at it and publish it
Now you are threatening defamation again , and no, I don’t know that you are suing me , I do not assume such things . I have repeatedly asked you to point out what you think is defamatory and you will not tell me. Resolution apparently not high o n your list as you know you will have to eat humble pie . as I have said its never too late to apologize
May I remind you that defamation is a two edged sword and at this stage it appears that I have the evidence that you have been defaming and blackmailing me To tell someone to change the name of a legally formed trust or risk losing their professional licence is black mail I have the evidence that I have been speaking the truth .
The fact which matters is that AWINZ the approved organization was not the same as the trust which you claim you were instructed by.
Please Vivienne You are a policy analyst it defies belief that you don’t know about identity 101
- an unincorporated trust which does not have a trust deed, trustees or assets cannot make an application for law enforcement powers
- Neil Wells did not have a trust deed in March 2000 to give the minister a copy, this was two weeks after two copies had allegedly been signed
- Why was Wells claiming that AWINZ existed in 1998 , if it existed it could have incorporated 10 times over , but he was using his position as advisor to the select committee to feel every one so that he could make a fraudulent application to the minister.
- It is this fraud that you have strived so hard to cover up , I can prove it and I welcome your defamation action to prove the truth. the reality is that due diligence would have prevented 12 years of hell for me.
- Last time you initiated definition proceedings with your then husband Nick never proved the content of the statement of claim, it is full of lies and seriously misleads the court , you had my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out so that you could win.
- I call that dirty law it is against the rule of law and only unethical lawyers act in that way, the law society investigated but because this transition over the implementation of new legislation you got out of it this is the decision for nick wright decision
- It is of note that Nick Wright wright response narrative of facts wrote on a letter head for a fictional company a undefined trading name something which cannot enter into a contract and after he had been a committed patient which appeared to escape the law societies notice as to his suitability to hold a practicing certificate.. it gets better all the time see] WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NEW ZEALAND POLICE) [2017] NZHC 2865 [22 November 2017]
as a subtle reminder as the lawyer you are obliged to comply with section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
Any way your email in response to the post is below and my response back to you to which you replied “Thanks for the response Grace, that’s fine.”
From: Grace Haden <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 5:09 p.m.
To: ‘Vivienne Holm’ <karen161970@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Open letter to Vivienne Holm Policy analyst for land information NZ .. concealment of corruption
Thank you Vivienne
No I will not accept service email
I am happy to make any corrections and will update the posts using your emails as reference.
I am happy to resolve anything but I suspect you are looking for a fight .
The reality is that I checked with the law society and I have been told by them that they do not have the records for 2006 as this was a different society
You escaped the wrath of the law society because the act changed in 2008
I am happy to put an Asterix and a foot note to the posts to clarify your view and the evidence which I obtained at the time and the findings of the law society
I cannot understand why you think that a simple letter can over turn the findings of the law society committee , and you call me unhinged !!!!
I will welcome your defamation proceedings it will once and for all blow the lid on AWINZ .
It is simply beyond me that a policy analyst cannot discern what a trust is or what a lie to the minister is
You have concealed corruption you know that you have to attack me because you are so scared of your own neck
This is nothing more than vexatious you have built up to this over the years probably because you see this way of getting some money due to all your pro bono mindless work.
Sit down Vivienne and have a very good hard think about the reality of AWINZ the law enforcement authority which the trust deed 1.3.2000 which had not been seen prior to 2006 concealed
Also check out the lies that Neil wells told the minister and ask yourself why you never questioned how wyn Hoadley became a trustee of a trust which was missing a deed had no assets and had never met prior to 10 may 2010
Why would two barristers instruct a law clerk working from home and why did you tell Sally Quigley that you were a law clerk.
Open some of the evidence on the site Vivienne look at it do your job you have been covering up for a fictional organisation by consistently attacking me .
Your credibility would be enhanced if you looked at the things which simply do not stack up and say .. oops sorry
I will have no reason to blog about you and AWINZ once the attacks on me stop.
I have the evidence , I will be asking for security for costs and I will get a top lawyer so be prepared .
Will put this up on transparency tomorrow. In the interest of transparency
Its never too late to apologise , this can be resolved amicably you just need to stop attacking me
happy to sit down with a mediator if you pay
Regards
Grace Haden
Copy of letter to Vivienne Holm -Policy analyst – land information NZ –
Vivienne Holm You could have made a massive difference to many lives by asking questions in 2006 , instead I felt bullied by you when you concealed the corruption that was AWINZ.
AWINZ was not just any old organisation there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them ( RNZSPCA the other ) AWINZ did not exist you covered it up and 12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough.
The purpose of this open letter is to get some issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the government directly as a contractor and apparently as an employee For LINZ.
You are reportedly a lobbyist and as such I see the connection between you and Wells .
see Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
As such it is in the public interest that you act with integrity and that your actions are exposed .
As to integrity it is my professional opinion is that your does not reach the threshold for a public servant It is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to damage some ones reputation so that corruption could be concealed.
I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by giving up my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years in an attempt to discredit me . You say so yourself in the complaint to the pspla COMPLAINT DATED 23 JANUARY 2018
Your complaint in January was in my opinion totally malicious and vexatious yet I was supposed to travel to Wellington the following week so that you could have a go at me in person at a ” disciplinary ” hearing. presumably for the defamation claim you were setting me up for.
You have also alleged that you are preparing a defamation prosecution but refuse to say how I have defamed you or given an opportunity to make a correction .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .
In short your actions with the PSPLA appears to me to have been for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .
I have never met you but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link with Neil Wells was that you both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be kept , Like protecting corruption rather than exposing it .
Last year I suspected that Neil Wells was the corrupt barrister who is mentioned in this decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the money he took , perhaps that unsettled you because you had gone all out to defend him and spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth but by denying me the right to a fair trial and a defence you influenced the court and a most defamatory judgement of me emerged when the judge believed the spin the lies and misinformation Nick Wright put to the court.
The resulting Judgement has served you well and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to create a false impression that I am a nasty person, and you are the one who complains of defamation ! You have done everything you can they should not believe my allegations of corruption. It has worked so far but then you thought I would have given up by now , No I have not . with the spotlight currently on rape through the me too movement , corruption will be next this is like being abused for 12 years .
I suspect that in fearing that the tide was turning, you made a complaint against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious and as a result I have given up my licence as it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing attacks by those I suspect that you have encouraged to make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA I have eliminated that avenue for harassment .
You first approached me at 9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june 2006 you rang my home number and told me to change the name of the legal trust which I was a trustee of or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence , you followed this up with an email at 11 pm making similar threats .
You were working from your home as a law clerk at the time for Brookfields which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner of .
You now falsely claim that you had a practicing certificate but the law society investigations Here and the decision here prove otherwise .
there is evidence that you lied to the PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” this reflects on your level of integrity
One has to wonder why Neil Wells a Barrister and Wyn Hoadley a barrister would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter and why she is now rewriting the past about her status as a law clerk. !
The trust which I was a trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand now called the ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively that no other legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that the Approved Organisation by the same name was a fraud. see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control
You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging that we were competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive Wells of donations . You had the ability to twist facts then that skill you apparently have retained .
This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time. . Documents in support as attached .submissions in response and emails coa
Vivienne Holm claims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do” Really! at 9.45 pm at night when this is what the law society reported in their finding 
So why not simply hang up when I answered or say sorry wrong number but you went on to intimidate and followed it up with threatening emails at 11 pm on Friday night! You used the names xxxxxxxxx and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is your middle name and date of birth .
You never took any notice of the letter which the registrar sent you in reply to your complaint see here
You may not be aware of the significance of this but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan
AWINZ did not exist despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since at least 1998 , Tom Didovich was working on this fraud with him and paid for the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees see also this file
In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ Neil Wells wrote on 22 november 1999
Now apparently, according to you , I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what you think a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?
I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ? well it might surprise you that when Neil Wells made this application it was three months before the date of the trust deed he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until june 2006 when miraculously there were two ( but they were not the same )
Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a group of people applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which does not exist and does not have a deed,
How did the trustees pass a resolution to apply for law enforcement powers ?
how does the law of contracts apply in this instance what liability would there be for the individuals in running such an organisation .. NONE cause they were not involved
why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200 what being an approved organisation meant, surely they would have known they allegedly ran one for 6 years .. or did they ?
In correspondence to the minister Neil Wells wrote in 2000.
A person such as myself who according to your slanderous comment has ” limited intellectual capabilities” this means that
- there is a trust deed
- it has a clause 20 (a) see the trust deed he produced it only goes to 19 there is no 20 or 20 (a)
- there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
- It is not available because the original has been sent for registration .( he knowe that only copies were sent he lied )
The reality is that Neil Wells deliberately lied to the minister not one of those statements is true .
Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by become a body corporate ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person in its own right and has existence apart from the trustees ) Wells had incorporated two just months earlier ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
He knew that only copies of the deed were sent and in 2006 we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were different version 1 and version 2
Version 2 was sent to MAF , the front page and the signature pages are original and the middle pages have been switched out.. Do policy analysts care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone that ? are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?
All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the years but you and him continued your vexatious attacks on me.
Have you not read section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the rule of law you were an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate you are cunning .
You prepared the statement of claim and Nick Wright your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work I wont be bullied
In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006 when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here Vivienne Holm Decision
It obviously became too much for Nick when he became a committed patient but despite this he continued to practice law until june 2011 when he was still acting past that date despite not having a practicing certificate 
Nick has now left law , I was particularly taken with the poem he read on his face book page about the wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true
Getting back to you and your complaint I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority , But no matter what I said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before you had served papers on me MY response is here
When ever you submit more information you introduce more misinformation and childish action as can be seen in your Vivienne Holm submissions in reply
On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate, for the first time since 2011 you allege that there is an issue, then when I correct it for you, you scream to the PSPLA .. “she has changed it she is disobeying the pspla.”
For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, In reality there is no difference to the situation with Wyn Hoadley see the decision re her Hoadley decision and her response Hoadley response
I have no legal obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions for companies which were not under my PI licence .
You are right not to respond to my submissions, to do so would cause you to put your foot in it further .
If you think I am defaming you tell me how and where , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA are too similar you have been there all along ensuring that I am never out of court. How childish can you get for the allegations about me speaking to your kids They came to the door in 2006 I asked for their mother.. you even managed to make that sound like the crime of the century .
Not long after I had an anonymous complaint to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson who coincidentally claimed I had used those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia
I will not give up until You are convicted as a lawyer your obligation was to the rule of law you have been a lawyer off an on since since 1996 you cannot plead ignorance and I have every reason to believe that you have coordinated the attacks on me to discredit me
It all started with the Statement of claim which you and your then husband Nick Wright filed for the fictional AWINZ
The very first paragraph to the court is a lie and the lies just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this Nick just stood there and lied i was denied a defence and that is called JUSTICE !
You did not check to see if AWINZ existed You had evidence that we had legitimate trust had body corporate status but you gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption you take the cake
Neil Wells conspired with MAF to ensure that information was withheld until after the court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released this vital evidence included the audit report which proved that AWNZ was a sham .
This was later confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society with this letter 
What is missing is that the application for approved status under the legislation which Wells had written and advised on , was made by AWINZ on 22 November 1999. so how could trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application ?
Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees only Wells signature was on the application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity in its own right . as you can see the signatory of this crown law opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI Peter Mc Carthy
the trust deed which first saw daylight in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting on 10 May states that the trustees required to be reappointed after three years
the alleged trustees of this 2000 trust did not hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005 and no meeting had occured since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?
Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.” this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 
So this woman who is supposedly a Barrister seeks legal advice from a resource management law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation your specialty
Wyn Hoadley also falsely claims that AWINZ resolved to seek professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution it is not in the minutes!
Wyn was also not appointed by any legal method she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she binding herself into ???? would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ???? it simply defies belief. These people are lawyers !!!!!! or should I say Liars
By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to address the malicious attack on me which you state in paragraphs 22 and 23 of your complaint , ie to take away any credibility my PI licence could give.
The good news is that a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take Translegal and its director Gary Swan for example they have a PI licence yet swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something which is apparently condoned .see this and these Translegal document server jailed . Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.
Nor does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail and ability to find information is a skill I have, a skill which apparently you lack despite you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion in being a corrupt former lawyer specialising in intimidation and discrediting people to win at any cost.
I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make By not replying within 5 days you are confirming to the accuracy of this post
Historical references https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016
Additional information added 2019 .
a decision from the Ontario Supreme court has been forwarded to us ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS it highlights the issues of private law enforcement agencies having equivalent powers of the police with regards to search and seizure.
AWINZ was such an organisation except it went one step better, it was totally unidentifiable, there was no legal person openly associated with it so that it could not be sued. As such there was no accountability to the public , read the news items
Court strikes down policing powers of Ontario animal-protection officers
Ontario judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge strikes down enforcement powers of OSPCA as unconstitutional
Judge finds OSPCA enforcement powers to be unconstitutional
OSPCA police powers ruled unconstitutional
Province given a year to revamp OSPCA powers
Ontario SPCA’s Police Powers Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
Posted in accountability, AWINZ, corruption, identity, law society, scams, suzie dawson, trusts and societies | 
No Comments »
Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company
On 1 March 2018, Samuel North appeared at Wellington District Court in front of Judge Mill for his sentencing indication.
Judge Mill indicated the matter was of moderate seriousness and that a community based sentence would be imposed.
Samuel North accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to two charges of being a director of a phoenix company.
Samuel North was convicted and sentenced to 200 hours of community work.
We believe that Samuel is now working at the Petone ale house hopefully all those owed money by him will be repaid
July 9 2015 Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA
August 27 2015 Muse on Allen a case study of the dangers of NZ companies
August 28 2015 Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA
March 6 2016 Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?
September 7 2016 Muse Eatery is it or is it not connected to Muse on Allen ?or what does this say about Samuel Norths integrity ?
February 4 2018 The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true
February 21 2018 Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation
March 1 2018 Convicted
386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name
(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—
(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.
(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out insection 373(4).
Muse Eatery Catering Limited Samuel North liquidators first report
The liquidators first report has been released for catering limited the company which ran Muse eatery , it can be found here
The liquidators Palliser were appointed by resolution of the shareholder. The shareholder HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED
is a trust into which Samuel North transferred his assets and his share holding in catering limited 22 April 2016 .
Samuel has done his apprenticeship in companies and when He was investigated in 2015 it was revealed that he had breached some 30 companies act provisions.
But the companies act does not appear to be well enforced and even while Samule was opperating what in our opinion ( based on a truck load of evidence ) was a Phoenix company.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that the liquidator states that there are no assets , we have to ask what was it then that was removed from the premises and captured on film .
There was a flat deck truck belonging to Bramco and another truck belonging to castle parcels DDF 834
and at least two other cars ERQ249 and KKF271
what did they take away thin air ?
the creditors are listed as
ASB Bank PO Box 35 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Carrello del Gelato PO Box 6818 Marion Square Wellington, 6141
CPC (New Zealand) Limited PO Box 90535 Victoria Street West Auckland, 1142
Deloitte Accountants 115033 Auckland, 1140
EVEVE New Zealand Limited PO Box 3992 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Executive Laundry WellingtonLimited 9 Sydney Street Petone Lower Hutt, 5012
Farm Fresh Distributors Limited 128d Park Road Miramar Wellington
Fish Factory Limited PO Box 68-409 Newton Auckland
Gilmours Wellington PO Box 38891 Wellington Mail Centre Wellington, 5045
Lee Fish New Zealand Limited PO Box 33077 Taka puna Auckland, 0740
Mediaworks Radio Limited PO Box 11441 Manners Street Wellington, 6142
Mediterranean Foods (WGTN) Limited Street 42 Constable Newtown Wellington, 6021 Nova Energy Po Box 404 Whakatane, 3158
Powershop NZ PO Box 7651 Newtown Wellington, 6242
Regional Wine and Spirits 15 Ellice Street Mount Victoria Wellington, 6011Private Bag 92
Rentokil Initial Limited 905 Onehunga Auckland, 1643
Six Barrel Soda Company PO Box 11884 Manners Street Wellington
T Leaf Limited PO Box 33139 Petone Lower Hutt, 5046
The Clareville Bakery Limited 3340 SH2 Clareville Carterton, 5713
Waste Management PO Box 204253 High brook Auckland,2161
We note that this list does not include grab one or groupon who were still selling ” deals” after the doors closed
We hope that those who attend the watershed meeting appoint their own liquidator
Liquidators have an obligation to report potential breaches of legislation , we will be very happy to assist .
We hope that some one looks for the truck loads of assets which Samuel spirited away .
Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation
Just three weeks after Samuel North closed the doors to Muse eatery the company catering Limited which operated the business muse eatery has gone into liquidation .
It would appear that the share holder
HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand
has placed the company into liquidation and appointed their own liquidators .
Samuel North was the share holder of the company but moved the share holding into a trust in april 2016 . It has all been very predictable and North continued to sell Grab one and groupon deals even after he knew he was closing, we believe that this is fraudulent.
Our suggestion is that if you are owed money that you attend the liquidators watershed meeting when it is announced and ensure that independent liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one appointed by North ) .
When a company appoints its own liquidators the liquidation is likely not to be as transparent or fair as it would be if the liquidator is working for a creditor .
It is our honest opinion that the Liquidators will sell on the Chattels, at a nominal price and the phoenix will fly again when North purchases them .
Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and it is believed that many of its assets actually belonged to muse.
We have been contacted by many persons who are owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are former staff members who have unresolved grievances .
Samuel north has removed the face book page, the linked in page and the web site .
samuel north _ LinkedIn messages
samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators
Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn
the old web site is still viewable here
Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.
Any one knowing where North is please send an email to us through our comment section and we will share the information but will keep your details confidential
We will happily collate information to ensure that Justice is done
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation
Update
Samuel North has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz> and is bleating defamation
We Hope the barrister gets paid .