Spot the suppression order

It is indeed sad that    I am news worthy   for the wrong  reasons. I am again made out to be a sinister person who goes round defying  orders.. but what if there is no  suppression order ?

I feel I have to defend my reputation to responding to the  news items   regarding me of late   here and here 

What I find remarkable is that  when New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  the news papers were silent on it , In Australia a local politician was convicted of fraud.. not a word was uttered in our press    fraud and corruption are dirty words.   New Zealand is free from fraud and corruption because  we conceal it so well and  attack those who  say “but   hey  this isn’t right” .

For 11 years I attempt to  report a serious public fraud which has been concealed by a constant attack on my character . The perpetrator is a good guy loves animals   has grey hair  runs charities . I am the “ litigious and irrational person who might be expected to re-engage in a campaign against the practitioner should the present matters come to that person’s attention.

By Litigious , I presume he means that I put up a fight and  don’t like being bankrupted or  having my company put into liquidation on a false affidavit 

I have been made out to be a bad person  because by doing  that ,the ton of evidence  which I have  to  prove the frauds and corruption  are ignored. They work  with the approach that   you just need to look at the person  and  decide if they are good or bad  and  if they are perceived to be bad you can safely ignore the rest.

The next trick is to get judges to say bad things about the person,   and then you can say ” [27] The litigation pursued by this person has been the subject of adverse judicial comment at all levels” and this is    enough  for    the perpetrator of what appears to  me to be a matter  of  “theft by a person in  a special relationship” to get name suppression  and  not be charged with a criminal offence which had the potential of giving  him 7 years inside .

Background

In 2006 I questioned serious corruption and was sued for for defamation  in the same year. I was denied the statutory  defence of truth and honest opinion

Defamation  is impossible to  fight if you  are defenseless..    but apparently that is justice in NZ even if you are telling the truth, serves to conceal corruption very well there by  enhancing business and attracting more suckers who can be ripped off .

I have learned that much comes down to  language  and   since English is my second language  I have through the  defamation hearing  learned  from he  lawyers  involved that   “Is”  means sometime in  the future, “has been” means something  that  is intended  and now I am told that   “Justify”   means order    and “Granted ”  means Ordered    . Having trouble finding dictionaries that agree .

The act of questioning corruption  cost me my family  and  well over $300,000  in cold hard cash and   11 years. The attack on me was  by using a trust formed to mislead the court  and using charitable funds from which   the lawyer profited himself  to the tune of some $57,000 which  has never repaid to the trust funds he plundered . False statements roll off their lips like false claims that caveats were placed over my property  but I am crucified for the truth . Endless complaints to he police chariteis commission and law societies and they come out as angels  and I  am the  wicked witch of the west .

All appeared well for a while  and then out of  the blue  my Private investigator   certificate of renewal is  declined.

There are no real reasons  but it transpires that  there was a police file in 2012  where a  police woman who only spoke to me by phone  apparently came to the conclusion  that I was a conspiracy theorist . . Her opinion influenced the private security licencing authority   in 2017 and  while no  real reason could be found to deny me  my licence  he focused on the opinion of the police woman in 2012  and made it relevant  for today  so relevant that  it had to become headlines.

Do I smell a set up   yes I do   .

No one has spoken to any of the victims of crimes that I have helped , not one of my clients have complained  but  invariably it is   the rogues ,who use the  court to   conceal criminal behavior ,who then attack me and seek to have me put out of work .

So while I was researching for my appeal I looked at  the penalties that Lawyers get  and  I came across the following item.

  I had no idea that this person had been  before a disciplinary tribunal  but from the   above  I recognized who it was   and asked a simple question …  is this ? I  made reference to this item  two more times Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs and Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

What happened next is recorded  at Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower  I have since been trying to get a copy of the so called order   and wrote an open letter to Napier Police Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The police relied  on this alleged suppression order as existence of an order  as can be seen   it is all blacked out except two paragraphs  .

I  am later sent  an email exchange between the lawyers of the  Ministry of justice and the Police

one states that the order can be found at paragraphs 22-26  the other states  paragraphs  22-28

I am provided only with 22  and 28 .

Fortunately I found the full decision on line   https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016nzlcdt34-waikatobayofplenty-standardscommittee-v-mr-m.pdf  and the police kindly gave me a  unredacted copy  some two weeks later  but  not  before  I had been charged with  five counts of breaching an order under section  240  of the lawyers and conveyancers act. The Police called it breaching a suppression order and did not refer to the correct wording of the offence section   being 263  of the lawyers and conveyancers act  which relates to knowingly breaching an order of the disciplinary tribunal.  1. there was no order  and secondly  if an order was made it would have been  one of three sections , some how the police allege that it is  section 240 (1) (c)   unfortunately I’m not  clairvoyant and wonder how they know  that such an order exist and if there is  one why are they not gibing it to me.

Natural justice  would state that you have to know of the existence of an order before you can breach it  .

Would love for some one  to  find the order under  240 Restrictions on publication  in the decision  of Mr M . It is of note that the  committee opposed   suppression and the person was noted as  lack of insight or remorse   and while the tribunal clams that offending only occurred over weeks   my knowledge of  his dealings with this lady goes back to  the mid 1990’s . to me it indicates  the smoothness of his tongue and his ability to deceive.

I was provided with  this  decision  from the high court which grants  suppression under the lawyers and conveyancers act  ORDER SIMON J Complainant A v NZLS v Z 10.5.17 not one of those sections is enforceable on any one not   party to the tribunal process section 188 Disclosure of information      30 Publication of identity and 31 confidentiality of decisions   regulations.

Would love some help    whistle blowers should not    have to go through what I have been subjected to.  I note that  Mr M suggested the  charges  to the  clerk of the tribunal  .

The court is not the forum for concealing fraud and corruption  and all of us should be  held accountable  to the law  to the same extent. If I have the book thrown at me  for breaching a order whihc is   invisible    just  weeks after  mr M makes a complaint , why  has our government not done anything about the corruption I reported   11 years ago .   Are we all equal before the law  or  are some more equal than others?

While I  received a warning shot through the head  and the lawyer in the law society article   gets a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket  for a criminal offence apparently sanctioned by the    the law society process.  He should have been referred to police for prosecution under the crimes act . It  would appear to me  that that the law society  looks after its own it is an association after all .

A law degree does not make a person honest.   we should all be answerable to the law  to the same  extent  and whistle-blowers should not be crucified and lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court should be held  accountable to the law to a very high degree.

time for change  lets make it an election issue

There is profit in animals .. or why is the RNZSPCA restructuring and what is Neil Wells connection.

The  Poster  shown along side comes from a 1998 document  which was presented to the Waitakere city council  by Neil Wells  when he was first  promoting himself and the concept of a  trust to the Waitakere city council  . He has not been devoting his life to animal welfare  out of any charitable purpose  his fees were shown to be  $19950 for a three month project  ( this was in 1998 )see page 17 . But his ultimate  goal was gold . Something got in the way .. me   well Neil if you had not sued me, denied me a right to justice and continued to  impose in my life  you may have got away with the perfect fraud.

On the occasion of the publication of this poster , he calls the proposed  trust   ” national animal welfare trust of new Zealand ”  He was to later incorporate a trust by the name of the national animal welfare trust with a Canadian  gentle man  Michael Edward O’Sullivan the trust still exists I  don’t think it functions but it proves at least that Neil wells knew the process of incorporating trust  the trust deed is located here . It was registered 28 July 1999 ( it also proves that he lied to the minister in correspondence but more on that later  )

Currently the RNZSPCA  is  talking about  amalgamating its  various branches , this is, I believe  again  due to   the profit in animals.  Events like the Betty Napier  trust  where 1 million dollars was left to a region  left   various  branches fighting over the spoils.

So Instead of planting a tree and using the fruits they chopped the  funds up and  burnt it in a very short time , I would speculate boldly on  hefty consultant fees  .

Historically the SPCA gets a lot of bequests , but with more charities the spoils are  smaller  and those   who want corporate wages (while  volunteers slave away over  cat trays) are constantly wanting more .

I have it on good authority  that Neil Wells was one such person  he  could not even wait  for the poor old duck to pass on before he started dipping into her funds and in my sincere opinion everything he did  he apparently did for $$$ not for the love of animals .

Wells uses people  e.g  Sarah Elliot  has been  associated with him for a very long time  and a search on her name shows her up to her neck in the  activity of the  RNZSPCA take over and the mysterious  administration tactics used to  take over  control   of incorporated societies. . Sarah Elliot worked on the lord of the rings trilogy in  1999  supposedly for the fictional AWINZ     see also the  AHA investigation

I am going to refer to the following documents found on the  incorporated societies web site

Rules, Alteration to Inc Soc Rules, Full 10-MAY-1995 10:46:02 10001612817 Rules, Alteration to Inc Soc Rules, Full 713.6 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 26-JUL-1983 11:52:34 10042395684 Alteration Of Rules 59.6 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 15-JUN-1981 09:05:00 10042395742 Alteration Of Rules 1123.7 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 11-SEP-1979 11:58:56 10042395731 Alteration Of Rules 467.1 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 05-SEP-1975 12:21:52 10042395844 Alteration Of Rules

the 1975  document is actually the constitution of  the federation   it is signed on the margins  and at the bottom By Neil Wells

the 1979  Constitution is again that of the federation filed   for the RNZSPCA

Wells had been the president of the  RNZSPCA  He left the SPCA rather    allegedly left in 1978   but obviously still had involvement in 1979  and 1981 as his signature appears  on the   alteration of rules  During this time he was obtaining his law  degree  CV attached to this letter   I believe it was funded by the the RNZSPCA . He returned and  appears to commence the restructure of the  RNZSPCA  contemporaneously  with the setting up of AWINZ 

In my experience I have noticed that Wells works  with a process of making small changes and suggesting that things exist  when they actually do not, He makes mistakes and over sights  which  are intentional and all part of his  plan to bring about a  massive change  one step at a time

Basically Wells signed the constitution changes  between 75 & 83   and the next big one was signed by  Graeme Coutts

I believe he was responsible for  dissolving the federation which had been formed on 09-AUG-1965 .  The federation  was formed when  various  the  various societies set up one  the federation to provide a link between the various bodies .

1995 saw the next big change  this was at the time that Neil Wells was  at the time when Neil Wells was   promoting his concept of territorial animal welfare offices  a link between councils and animal welfare .

the membership criteria for the organisation which was

restricted to the branches  and the   member societies   now had a  further four categories  annual members, corporate members  Life members and honorary life members .  The RNZSPCA   was now no longer  a body whihc was controlled by the member societies and  Branches. It had taken on a life of its own .

 

It is  interesting that this constitution change occurred when Neil wells  had an office on the same floor as the RNZSPCA along with the JP  who witnessed the changes Graeme Coutts 

 

Graeme Coutts  will become more significant as we go along .  evidence of their  offices being on the same floor is  here   .  see contacts RNZSPCA     and company records for Coutts    for Neil Wells see bottom of first page on this document

When the RNZSPCA shifted, Graeme Coutts shifted with them and was again in an  office   adjacent to the RNZSPCA. The address is   shown on the  annual return  in 2004 which is signed off by Mr Joe Bloggs ( are you kidding me ? what happened to transparency  )

Wells went on to write the animal welfare bill and advised on it and made provisions for his own business plan  and made the fraudulent application to the minister in the name of AWINZ .

in 2006  when we proved conclusively  that AWINZ did not  not exist , Neil Wells created  an identically named trust   and  roping in  Barrister Wyn Hoadley who did not ask any questions and appears to know nothing of the laws surrounding trusts .

Wells  set up a new trust  also called AWINZ and because the names were the same  falsely alleged that this trust was the law enforcement body .

Wyn Hoadley had been on the animal welfare advisory board   was a QSM, a  title which put her beyond question  . this is  after all about  reputation and not about evidence .

And so she was appointed to the the alleged board of the fictional AWINZ at a time when the trust deed was missing ( that was no surprise the ink was probably  still drying ) and without  following  prescribed procedure under the  charitable trust act. see  the minutes   all was going well but then  Nuala Grove and  Sarah Giltrap who Wells had alleged were trustees got cold feet and resigned .

Nuala  I believe was the   widow of a former Judge and  Sarah Giltrap the  daughter in Law of the Giltrap  family.  again  by using  well known people there is a protection as these people  trust and believe barristers and like little animals  they don’t ask too many questions and stand by when a whistle-blower is beaten to pulp.

So in desperation Tom Didovich became the  fourth trustee  Tom Didovich was the manager of dog and stock control in Waitakere  who had been a  naughty boy and  had to resign. Wells took his job   to conceal the plot that was in the making .

Tom Didovich went to the RNZSPCA and worked there for a while before becoming a Councillor  at talking works   see the post Talking Works Tom Didovich!   Tom is very much an accessory to this fraud  having  given consents to MAF on behalf of  Waitakere city council  way beyond his pay station .

Neil Wells Moved to Te Kuiti  and  organised the demise of the local SPCA  again coming up with  false identities  see

The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.

Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction

Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA committee resigns

Now on the agenda is the amalgamation of all the local SPCA’s   this is akin to asset stripping   the process is  back to front  and No one will be able to convince me that Neil Wells is not behind this some how.

see Open letter to Maria Clarke lawyer for the RNZSPCA

Members in local SPCAs are not allowed to know  who the other members are, there are many branches which have been  placed into ” administration ” when no such facility exists . Its a power game    more information  to come  on why the  Animal welfare act is so very dangerous.

In the mean time  I would love some one to supply me with any notices which give legitimacy to the 1995  and 2015   constitution changes , the local  Branches were asked to adopt these changes    in the end this was all about    $$$$ in animals

next  up  how to move $400,000  side ways.. the  Waikato spca  or is that the  spca Waikato   why the SPCA pleads poverty

 

Waitakere council Fraud Public office for private pecuniary gain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence  will follow   there is a ton of it    the buildings above  are council buildings which Neil Wells re branded to appear like his  fake animal welfare trust

the logo at the top right is the logo he used on his  fake trusts letter heads . It made every one think that it was a real organisation   and owned the property  it was in fact the council pound. Where Neil wells  was manager  he got the job without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest  see his job application  here  and the  documents he had signed in his capacity  for the fake trust MOU waitakere 

MAF in a an audit had trouble differentiating  the  approved organisation from the council  see  the audit report

 

 

 

Helping the Napier Police catch real criminals ..

Good Morning  Detective Simcox

I am so pleased that you are not busy with real crime  this means that you  will have time to look at this old file

step 1. Please  obtain the police file which I   provided to the police many years ago and remains   untouched

I will go through the steps to help you under stand it  Please note there are links in this document which open up the evidence

the first part of the  complaint relates to   the circumstances of setting up AWINZ

to help you understand  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  had coercive law enforcement powers  under the animal welfare act

see section 120  of the animal welfare act 

an approved organisation is approved organisation means an organisation declared, under section 121, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act

121Approved organisations

(1)The Minister may from time to time, on the application of any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in theGazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

(2)The application must include—

(a)the full name and address of the applicant; and
(b)the area in which the applicant will, if declared to be an approved organisation, operate as an approved organisation; and
(c)information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 122.

The RNZSPCA is an approved Organisation  m the RNZSPCA is an incorporated society and therefore by definition  a legal person .

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand  on the other hand was a totally fictional organisation in 1999 and did not exist in any other form than as a name which Neil Wells, the author of the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act and ” independent  adviser” to the select committee.

In a hand book written  for animal welfare students  by Mr Wells he  himself  gives  an outline of what approved organisations are note that  it states “In deciding whether to recognise an organisation, the Bill provides that the Minister must be satisfied that an organisation meets specific criteria including adequate provision for training of Inspectors, robust accountability, financial and management arrangements and absence of conflicts of interest.”

He was motivated to   extend the power of  animal welfare enforcement  beyond the police,  and the RNZSPCA because he  had been voted off the RNZSPCA  he had developed his own business plan   to amalgamate dog and stock control  a local body  responsibility  with  animal welfare a central government   responsibility  he called this plan  the Territorial animal welfare 

while writing he bill and advising on the new legislation  he starts feeding the name AWINZ to MAF  and pretending that it exists  an early concept of his plan  was shown by him as shown below or at the link 

Where the diagram  shows Wells and associates this part later became the fictional AWINZ .

In 1998 Wells promotes AWINZ by way of borchure each time inferring that AWINZ exists  bu the reality is that id does not exist .

When the  bill is about to pass into law he writes to MAF  and  files a notice of intent for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority  under the new act

this notice   falsely claims that the applicant is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .

He also includes   his cover sheet showing that he is a barrister . A barrister would  know that  only real and legal persons can make applications. He fraudulently signs it  “For the Board of Trustees of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ”  He knew that there was no  board, or trustees  and this was all part of the  overall fraud on the government.

Maf sets out the criteria for approved organisations  the discussion shows that this  excludes individuals  it specifically   states ..

 this posed a problem for wells as there was no trust   so He made  his formal application  on 22 November 1999 making multiple fraudulent assertions that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand exists and that he himself is a trustee.

He attaches  a un-executed trust deed and  falsely states  that the trust has been formed by way of trust deed  and is being registered under  Part 11 of the charitable trust act .

the significance of incorporation is  set out here  , it makes a  trust comprising of a group of people a legal entity in its own right

AWINZ was not a trust  it did not have a signed trust deed  , it was  a total fiction, it could not apply for incorporation   because the first thing it needed was a trust deed.

more on the fraudulent application   tomorrow .

Your home work for today is to  learn to understand what a trust is and  the effect of  incorporation

also  crimes act 1961  240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

in that Neil wells  obtained law enforcement powers for himself through   deception

Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—

(a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(c)induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or

Please let me know  if there is something you don’t understand   happy to help

More tomorrow

Nicholas Simcox of Napier Police bullies Whistleblower because he refuses to investigate serious fraud.

I was just going to bed and checked my emails  and saw the  following from  Nicholas Simcox , I will respond by way of open letter and again copying in the prosecution section .

 

From: SIMCOX, Nicholas [mailto:Nicholas.Simcox@Police.Govt.NZ]
Sent: Monday, 29 May 2017 8:29 p.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: Blog 24/05/2017

Evening Ms Haden

I am writing to advise that by attaching the letter from the Ministry of Justice to your blog, you have again breached the suppression order. You need to remove this letter immediately. You have also breached your Court bail conditions and if you do not remove the post, you run the risk of being arrested for breaching your conditions of bail and will be put back before the Court.

I will be filing a further breach of suppression order charge for your next Court appearance date on 7 June 2017.

Regards

Nicholas SIMCOX | Detective | CIB | Crime Squad 4 | NAPIER

My  open letter response to   Nicholas Simcox is

I am very disappointed in your ability to investigate.

It proves to me  why in  over 11 years the police  have not been able to progress the serious fraud   that I have reported with regards to   a fraudulent application for law enforcement powers  under the animal welfare act .

You have charged  me  with four counts of  breaching a suppression order made under the lawyers and conveyancers act  act.

You have quoted the sections as being  breaching an order made under section 240 (1) (c)

I asked for a copy of the order and you sent me  an almost  entirely redacted document  see here alleged suppression order

I hate to have  to tell you how to do your job but the way it works is that there has  to be an order before any one can breach the order.

I would be surprised if   the   office of legal council   from the MOJ  sent this letter to you , it has not been addressed to the police and I would hope that a lawyer would know   that  if a statute states

 240 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:

(a)an order prohibiting the publication of any report or account of any part of any proceedings before it, whether held in public or in private:
(b)an order prohibiting the publication of the whole or any part of any books, papers, or documents produced at any hearing:
(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.
Basically this means that an order has to be made by the tribunal  under “a”  ” b”  or “c ” so where is that order ?

In the on line  version of the document of the document  you appear to rely on ,the full text can be read   it is found here  https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016nzlcdt34-waikatobayofplenty-standardscommittee-v-mr-m.pdf  ..published on the tribunals web site ,( which I found only after you provided me with the   case number) you will note that   there is no order under section 240 (1)  ( a )  (b)  or (c)  so I am really confused as to how you came to inserting an alleged  charge under section  240 1 (c) in the charge document as such an order was never made.

You appear to rely on this document letter to police from justice   which  you gave to me with the persons name  inserted.  Dis you then not breach a suppression order as well .  I note that this is a letter from the  case manager to   their lawyers  not   a complain to the police . You have not  advised how you got to have the complaint , there appears to be no complainant.

The other little technicality is that  no one can breach an order which has not been made .

263Publication

(1)Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).

Please urgently provide me  with the order that you are referring to  .  If you cannot provide an order then you will have to withdraw the charges.

Keeping a practitioners name confidential for the purpose of the tribunal is restricted to those  involved in the processes.  I was not part of that process , I speculated  the identity of the   lawyer  from a new item  and you have  helped  confirm that it was him.

Please read the full   decision  it will show you  the kind of person Mr M  is  and will also reveal to you that the only orders made were

Consequential Orders

[29] We consider that it is proper for the order for repayment of the fee rendered to the complainant by the practitioner, in the sum of $3,648.94, be refunded to the complainant.

[30] We decline to make an order for compensation to cover the costs of subsequent legal advice for the complainant. There are a number of reasons for this. The invoices include attendances at the Citizens Advice Bureau, attendances in relation to the matters for which the complainant will have received value in terms of general legal advice which she would have been required to pay for in any event. Finally, we do not wish to encourage complainants to engage counsel once a complaint is made, given that they are then represented by the Standards Committee counsel and there is a risk of duplication of costs and unfairness thereby to the lawyer concerned. We accept that in this case the complainant was somewhat impaired, however we do not consider this ought to change our approach in this matter.

I suggest that you  also read my bail conditions  it states that  I was not to publish his name  , I therefore would like you to  clarify the   threat of arrest  .   I have not published his name.

I would   further  By way of discovery like to know who the  complainant was  as  who ever it was ,has made a false complaint .  there is no evidence of a complaint and a clerk for the tribunal is not in any position to   dictate to you the   act and section which they  think were breached that letter   is an internal communication,  the only breach of a suppression order is by the  person  releasing that letter to you  and you by releasing that letter to me .

Please do not confuse suppression with  publication  it could be career limiting. I think your out of your depth..It pays to research.

I will be pursuing damages if you do not  immediately provide me with a copy of the order made under section 240 (1) (c) .

If you cannot produce it then  you will have to  withdraw the charges as I cannot breach a fictional order . I will be suing for damages  you are seeking to damage my reputation .

I see your threats as bullying  I have not breached bail  I was bailable as of right and should not have had any  restrictions imposed , the restrictions are that I  must not publish his name or his clients name in relation to he suppression order . I don’t even know who his client was  so how could I possibly breach that  .

Any way in charging me with  the sections you have the charge should read   “did breach a non publication order “.  but  that is where you come unstuck there is no order  and neither is there an offence for breaching suppression  if there was a suppression order .

I look forward to receiving a copy before 10 am tomorrow morning

Go and catch a few real criminals  or spend some time looking at   the fraud complaint which relates to  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand I will help with a daily blog to provide you with the evidence you should be looking at .

regards Grace Haden

 

 

Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The officer in charge  prosecutions   pps.napier@police.govt.nz, copy to minister of justice

This morning I appeared in the  Napier district court

I have been charged with four counts  of ” while a suppression order was in place  Published the name of a person who has been  granted  name suppression”

I have been  bailed  to appear in two weeks time The conditions are to live in the house where I live any way  and not to publish the name of the Practitioner and his former client  with relation to the suppression order .

the  four offences being  as this  one  but on the dates 

18 April 2017  the  post being Was XXXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone?  ( now sanitized to  comply with bail conditions )

9 May 2017 Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs

17th May 2017 Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

22nd May  2017 Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower

The problem is  in the discovery  which you have supplied me  does not support the charges .  letter to police from justice        alleged suppression order

As a former police prosecutor  I identify the matters which you have to prove  as being

  1. that there was a  legal suppression order
  2. that the suppression order was with regards to the person named
  3. That I knew it was the person named  referred to in  the  article and not just speculation

to that end  you were  to provide me by way of discovery a suppression order, this is the first issue

If you were to search the lawyers and conveyances act  you will note that   there is no scope   for  suppression orders in that legislation .  The word suppression only appears three times see this 

being

This makes it clear that  there can be no orders for  Name suppression  under the lawyers and conveyances act 

Yet the charge sheet clearly states  that there was a suppression order and I breached it .

The alleged suppression order  that was supplied to me  was almost  totally redacted   showing only two paragraphs

From the redacted version  I  presume that   you rely  on paragraph 28  for  the existence of a  order   yet it states only

” [28] Given that there is no risk to the public posed by this practitioner in the future,we consider that the combination of factors referred to above do, in this unusual set of
circumstances, justify the permanent name suppression of the practitioner, his former client and any identifying details.”

this left me to wonder if there  was an order some where else in the document.   How that I had a court number I ws able to search the tribunals web site and located the full underacted   document the on  the Justice web site  see this link here

reading this document we note that the law society opposed the  the suppression  application  and under   orders   there is no mention of any order  in terms of section 240(1) (c)  and it could well be that the suppression was given   for the purposes of  their published  decision    only.

As such there appears to be no evidence of existence   of an order under section  240(1) (c)  being

240 Restrictions on publication

(1)If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:……

(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.

Since  no such order exists  so it would appear that I have been wrongly charged as  no one can breach an order which has not been made and  section 263 states

Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).

Until  I received the  discovery today I was unaware of  the content of the decision  I was merely commenting on a news item on the law society web site .  “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer

I was not at the hearing  and the information I had was nothing I gained from any  tribunal process but knew from my own involvement with mr X

Mr XXXX is in the habit of telling the  government and other people what to do and they accept that what he tells them  is true  Because he was a barrister. he continually gives false information and again he  has made out  to the case manager  for the tribunal * that there was a decision in his favour when none existed.   As Usual No one checks .

the full version of the decision states

He has been an advisor to Government.

His reputation with  government is such that  he is trusted  to the point that  the trust in him  allows him to perpetrate offences   such as making a fraudulent application to the minister of agriculture for a fictional trust to   be granted law enforcement powers  under the legislation  which he advised on  and wrote to facilitate his own business plan

I have 12 years  of experience of this   and this again is an example of mr XXX saying jump and every one says how high  and again he   gets to  get away with  his crimes. This time he has had me charged when there are no grounds   and because  he says so.

If only 1/10th  of the  effort had gone into him that has gone into me then he would be behind bars.

I will be providing transparency to  this matter through this site  using this  site . I am a whistle blower and in 11 years the police have not acted yet   mr X writes to  the ministry of justice and  within two weeks I am charged with  four offences I could not have  committed .

I look forward to   whistle blowers being taken seriously , I don’t care about mr XXX  health  he did not care about me when  he destroyed my family and repeatedly tried to bankrupt me, his dirty tactics  are un unprecedented.    His ability to call  the authorities to  action show the the regard they have for him and  how   the bias  wold   possibly have prevented investigations in to his  very public fraud  .

I note that this week is anti bullying week  and I can assure you I feel bullied.

Your officers have to ensure that the ingredients of an offence are met  and they fall well short  even to the  extent of supplying me a  redacted document when the full version is publicly available.

Request to prosecutions

Due to your lack of  evidence  I request that

  1. the charges are withdrawn forth with
  2. That I receive an apology
  3. that the police deal with the historic file   relating  to the fraudulent application for law enforcement powers
  4. the use of the  civil court to conceal criminal action
  5. and the identity fraud  practiced   using  various AWINZ trusts.
  6. there is more  e.g. misappropriation of charitable  funds   but   in the fist instance  please  provide the order or  withdraw   the   charges.

Should you continue with the prosecution  I  will be pleading not  guilty  and  will seek indemnity costs for my legal representation  . loss of income  and stress caused.

regards Grace Haden

 

 

*as provided by police in discovery

Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower

Whose side are the police on  !!    this after noon I received a phone call from Detective Simcox  he told me that he wanted to talk to me about the breach of suppression order. I asked him who it was regarding and he told me he could not say so  as this would breach the suppression order.  I replied that not being able to tell me who it is in relation to would make things very  interesting .

He then said that it was with regards to a lawyer  who I had mentioned in blogs and who had had his name suppressed by the law society  .  I said XXXXX  he said yes.  To which I   roared with laughter and said thank you for confirming my suspicions.

He asked if he could come and speak to me about it , I said there was no point  I did not believe that I had breached an order as I had never seen one and did not know what  the scope of it was if there was one  and  I was not a party to the hearing.

I told him to send me a copy of any order and on receipt I would immediately comply  with it .

I  invited him to come round on the condition that he would investigate the frauds  relating to Mr XXXXXX, but he said he would not be  doing that .

Less than 10 minutes later  I was served  a summons. Two cops came to my door  to deliver it . I told them that the summons  did not fairly inform me of   a charge  it simply said  that on 18 April, 9 May and 17 May  I breached a suppression order  under the lawyers and conveyances act

the posts which they are referring to are

Was XXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone? I have since taken this down and amended the following

Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs

Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

This obviously means that the police have read these posts   and are choosing to defend a fraudster  and crucify a whistle blower. this is despite the fact that  I have had complaints in with the SFO and police for years    see letter from Bill Searle  AWINZ corruption letter sfo & sfo letter and  sfo email

Auckland University Law Professor Bill Hodge said it was ”ironic” that someone from the legal profession should be keeping their name secret when openness was one of the key attributes of a democratic legal system.

”Justice is a public virtue. It should not be like a priesthood with secret rites behind closed doors and in secret chambers.”

Hodge said if lawyers faced allegations relating to conduct then they deserved to be known by the public.

”People should be able to take those into account when choosing a lawyer. Clients should be able to make an informed decision.”

He said lawyers, like any other profession, should be subject to open court action.

Hodge said he disagreed with the argument that a lawyer’s reputation would be tarnished even if he or she was cleared.

”They can tell the truth about that too. People will judge them with the view that they were wrongly charged.”

The Government has recently moved to tighten up name suppressions which it said were being granted ”too readily and inconsistently”.

The Criminal Procedure Bill was passed in October and comes into effect in March.

It clarifies that ”wealth, reputation or public awareness” should not be taken into account when judges grant name suppression see more 

Ironically the comment made by a police woman  on a police file about me in 2012  was so confidential that I was not allowed to see it  yet it ended up having an impact on my career in 2017 and splashed all over the papers.

this is just so in line with my last post re whistle blowers

What makes it even more interesting is that there is no such offence as breaching a suppression order , pity they had to be in such a rush  and were not able to check the law before they dashed off to serve me .

the summons was under section 28 criminal Procedure act

28 Summons in relation to charge may be served

(1)A constable or any other person may issue and serve a summons on a person if that constable or other person—

(a)has good cause to suspect that the person has committed an offence

Now   Good cause to suspect  can only come after  identifying the act and section

It would appear that in his haste   detective Simcox  did not identify   any  offence   or even investigate that there was  one.  will be interesting to see what he comes up with  .. will keep you posted.

Have just spoke to  detective Simcox  who informs me that I have breached section  241 c of the lawyers and conveyancers act and section  263 1 & 2 .

Obviously this is being driven by some one who  want to see my Private investigator licence revoked    section  241  doe snot even apply to any one other then lawyers   and relates to appearing before the disciplinary tribunal

section 263  relates to   the breach of an order to that end I have invited him to send me a copy of the order and on receipt of it  and  noting its validity I will remove all content which is in breach of the order .  he told me that  he  knew it existed , I told him that after 15 years in the police Iknew that cops can tell lies and that I want a copy  of the order so that I could see for myself.  I cannot comply with an order if I don’t know it exists  or what the order is.

he said  he would check with the legal team   , I  told him if  I don’t know what the order is then I do have  a lawful excuse.

Strangely enough   wouldn’t it have been  good police work if   Simcox or some one had said   here is an order  it appears your  in breach of it  . rather than  we are  going to prosecute you   were not   giving you any info…

I have now spoken to  his boss senior sergeant  Darren Pritchard.   I explained the background with he who must not be named and asked for  a copy of the suppression order, he said that he did not have a copy of it  but I would get one as soon as they had it.  I  told him that I was prepared to take  the name down   but I should not be charged as I have not got a copy of the suppression order  and don’t know the terms .    he said I would get things under discovery.

I am totally astounded that the police act so quickly  for me  naming  now a confirmed corrupt lawyer . The   complaint was made  by the ministry of justice  who on their web site say this about corruption  https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/bribery-corruption/

and https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/bribery-corruption/how-to-report/

I think I have just proved   how dangerous New Zealand is with regards to exposing corruption.

Corruption In New Zealand .. Practiced and concealed at highest levels.

A news item was sent on to me this morning Whistleblowers tell of ‘incredible’ day their jobs were axed

The workers at the Ministry of transport noticed  false invoices raised their concern  and lost their jobs. The boss Martin Matthews apparently did not act despite  widespread concerns  he  has now been appointed  Auditor General.

As we have shown earlier the auditor generals office is the Platinum supporter of Transparency International NZ who work so had to ensure that New Zealand retains its ” least perceived corruption status” .

As for integrity there is none .. as integrity would reveal that there is fraud and corruption in  New Zealand  and  by  far the easiest way to avoid fraud and corruption is  not to define them   or have policies whihc  seek to identify them

Currently the New Zealand police do not generally investigate fraud, it is handed  to the SFO who have a very high threshold  in $$$$

Its all based on economics  meaning that   we can turn a blind eye to  losses which would cost less than they would to  police and prosecute.

This may be a  great business model  in the first year but  what happens in the second and third when  those without  stringent ethics realize that  they can do  such things and not be caught .. well   it becomes a free for all.. I know about such things because I am a MUM .

Let a kid get away with something and it become s the norm . so where do you set the threshold   for theft , fraud..  is there a $ value or is the very act  of fraud  and theft  and offence   .. bit like Parking .. park 10 minutes over time you  are fined  but  you can   commit all the fraud you like and get away with it .

If you are caught out and are fortunate enough to belong to a wider network   and have friends in high places then  you are protected. Bit Like Mr Gavin Hunt of signature homes  who had his very own tame judge  sit on the case.

Justice Woolford  has not just a share holder in a company Hunt directed but  Woolford became a   shareholder when the company was  formed and the  shareholders appoint the directors Hunt’s directors certificate  is dated 28 August 06 and Woolford’s 29 August 06.  this  is a massive project meaning that the two would have been known to each other in more than a passing manner.

If our courts have integrity the judges would not place themselves in a position of conflict of interest.

If our public service has integrity then those who  raise concerns would be listened to  and not fired.

If our building industry had integrity  all  large building firms would set a standard  for performance and ensure compliance.

If our laws were written to be enforced then the companies act would be honoured by the court in proceedigns and  blatant breaches of the companies act would not be condoned , e.g  the transfer of shares booting out of directors  false accounting   more on this later .

New Zealand’s  laws give us protection   but   when they are not  enforced and people are not held accountable to the law then  the law truly is an ass and facilitates  corruption .

Lawyers and judges and high ranking  public servants  cannot condone breach’s of the law   to do so in terms of criminal  law makes them an accessory after the fact  .

Its time   judges lawyers and public service started  observing  the criminal law.

Integrity of the High court of New Zealand .. how low is the Bar ? was Judge Woolford conflicted ? will it be ignored ?

As a private Investigator who has now  officially been Labeled a conspiracy theorist , this a blatant attack by the press to discredit me  and proves that I must be pushing the right buttons . I find it difficult not to speak up  when I see signs of lack of integrity and this is such a case

My integrity has been  attacked through the press  in 2017 based on an opinion of a police  woman who only spoke to me on the phone  in  2012. Based on her statement and a couple of other things like telling a lawyer to act according to law and telling another lawyer to get evidence before attacking people in court ,  the private security  Licencing authority, Mr Gill  refused to renew my  certificate of approval. claiming that

” The applicant appears to hold very strong views on many matters and she is adamant that there is some form of conspiracy afoot, but in the absence of any evidence to support this theory it appears to boil down to a long-held obsession which can only harm her ability to carry out her duties as a private investigator in a rational  and professional manner.

To me this sets the threshold of  expected  integrity  in our society  and  courts and by my reckoning an open  invitation  for me to prove what is wrong with NZ . BTW the police woman’s  comment was so sensitive that it was witheld from me under  the privacy act but released to the  Private security  authority  who not only judged me on it  but  acted on it .

Apparently  the threshold for  denying me my certificate of approval is pretty dam low . So low that I  feel confident that there are those who want to discredit me because I am on the right track to exposing corruption in New Zealand .

To that end a simple  due diligence for a client  into Residential Indemnity limited has uncovered  what appears to be a gross conflict of interest on behalf of a Judge . ( more on residential immunity later )

The court judgements which I found very interesting  there are  a number of them  but these are   of note

the presiding judge in this matter is  https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/high-court/judges/#the-honourable-justice-woolford

The Honourable Justice Woolford
2010, based in Auckland

Justice Woolford graduated LLB (Hons) from Auckland University and BA  in Japanese in 1977 as well as attaining a BCL from Oxford University in 1981.  He was admitted to the Bar in 1977.  He held positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Wellington, Singapore and New York 1981-85.  Justice Woolford returned to Auckland to work for Meredith Connell in 1986 and became a partner with that firm from 1987 until the current appointment. Justice Woolford is based in Auckland.

see also http://www.kiwisfirst.com/judge-file-index/high-court-justice-mark-woolford/

A search of the  companies office shows that Mark Woolford  was appointed as Judge  by our current government   in 2010.  the  web site for Meridith Connell  in 2009  shows  Mark Woolford as one of the partners .

A further search of the companies office   reveals that he is involved in the following companies

ACTIONSTEP LICENSING AUSTRALIA LIMITED (1957071)

ACTIONSTEP LICENSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (1848648)

ACTIONSTEP LICENSING CANADA LIMITED (1859351) 

 BEST BUDDIES LIMITED (597639)

WOOLBUR PROPERTIES LIMITED (1858712)  

INCLUSIV NATURALS LIMITED (3190627)

ACTIONSTEP LIMITED (1859348)

The court action in the above reports relates  to  signature homes  which  has contracted under its generic trading name but the real company   contracted with in this instance is  one   Gavin Leslie HUNT  a full list of his company associations is found here 

Hunt is also  also  director and  an ultimate share holder of the other two company defendants  who  incidentally all work under the same trading name .. another one of  my  identity fraud conspiracies  whihc I am again proving to be true .

LASQUE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED formerly trading as SIGNATURE HOMES First Defendant

SIGNATURE RESIDENTIAL LIMITED trading as SIGNATURE HOMES Second Defendant

SIGNATURE HOMES LIMITED trading as SIGNATURE HOMES Third Defendant

Lasque Construction  went into  liquidation  29 July 2016 and was wound up  14 feb 2017.  resolution  the liquidation was to be completed by  30 November 2016 .

This  appears to be a well practiced  ploy by companies before the court  the court number  CIV-2012-404-7500  indicates that the proceedings were commenced in 2012. This is a way  of perverting justice  its the  legal equivalent of  killing  the company  but others live on  using the same trading name … but more on that later too .

But getting back to the apparent  conflict of interest a detailed  search of the companies which  Mr Hunt directs reveals ACTIONSTEP LIMITED (1859348)  which he  directs with Angus FLETCHER ex-husband of former Auckland mayor Christine Fletcher and Brother of Hugh Fletcher  who is The chief justice  dame Sian Elias husband .

At the recent franchise of the year awards   Signature homes won Westpac supreme franchise system of the year  the  blurb stated

Founded by Fletcher Challenge in 1983, the company was sold in 1995 to Gavin and Anneta Hunt, who had been involved with the business right from the start.

SIGNATURE HOMES LIMITED was formed in 1974 as Fletcher Dempsey , it wad renamed Signature homes  before getting a name change just prior to liquidation   in 1995

Signature homes  is there fore well connected  to NZ judiciary and  it would appear the business relation ship extends to  Mr Gavin Hunt being the director  of Actionstep  and the subsidiaries it owns  ACTIONSTEP HOSTING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED , ACTIONSTEP LICENSING AUSTRALIA LIMITED, ACTIONSTEP LICENSING CANADA LIMITEDACTIONSTEP LICENSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDACTIONSTEP NEW ZEALAND LIMITED .

What is action step ?   well it appears on  Google as this

Wikipedia  provides this

Actionstep was created by Ted Jordan, CEO of Actionstep, in 2004.[1] It was first used commercially in 2005 by a New Zealand construction franchise as well as a law firm. Actionstep soon expanded into central government and a wider range of small business users (mainly in New Zealand and Australia).

As the company grew, many of their new customers were coming from law firms (which benefited from the workflow and document assembly features). Actionstep decided to customize the product and focus on the needs to legal professionals. Features such as trust accounting were added to the product to round out the offering to law firms. More recently Actionstep has integrated with number of key technologies such as Gmail, HotDocs, Outlook, and Microsoft Office. Actionstep still retains a solid base of customers in New Zealand, however the fastest growing market is in the United States where the company now has physical presence and employees.

Now getting back to  the conflict of interest issue in the decision dated  18 August 2015   it would appear that  WOOLFORD J  totally accepted the  evidence of  Mr Gavin Hunt over the people who  had ended up with a leaky home thanks to signature .   Woolford does not appear to have declared his conflict in interest he  has been a shareholder in actionstep since it was founded see share holder consent here Woolford shareholding .  As an original  shareholder   he would have been fully aware of the  founding directors  of which Hunt is one .

I wonder how this  is going to be glossed over  . mean time  I am in line for being put out of  my   work because   we dig deep   to discredit me, yet judges can knowingly sit on matters where they know the other party   rule in their favour and   just watch nothing will happen

I will try to contact the Kellys and tell them to take this to the office of the judicial  conduct commissioner .www.jcc.govt.nz

If a PI who has no obligations to the rule of  law  and only has  obligations to the  act  has  to be denied  her right to earn a crust  what threshold should we apply to judges ?

 

 

Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

In this  the ” perceived  ” least corrupt county in the world  it is very unwise to be a whistle-blower.  Believe me I know.

The events surrounding  Joanne Harrison Transport Ministry fraud case   and see here  and here  and here have again highlightes the plight of whistle -blowers

 MoT fraudster’s ‘destructive streak’
Joanne Harrison’s $725,000 ‘web of deception’ revealed
Fresh claims prompt call for new investigation into Transport Ministry fraudster

Three whistle-blowers at the MoT were treated “abysmally”… Winston Peters

The outcome  may be different  but the story is basically the same as the animal welfare fraud that saw me crucified as a  Whistleblower even to the extent that  11 years later  a news item has to be published labeling me with names  which were used by a police woman in 2012 . Her comments were so confidential that the police refused to release them to me under  the privacy act but some how   they ended up in the news in 2017.

To me this shows the  massive undercurrent of how we deal with  Whistle-blowers in New Zealand .

In the instance of Joanne Harrison , her former boss  claimed that  he had ” handled the saga decisively, and investigated it thoroughly.” But despite this Joanne Harrison  was proved to be a fraudster  partly by invoicing Fake  companies.

My saga began in 2006  when I discovered that a fictional trust  had been given law enforcement powers, because no one checked to see if it existed  .

Like the  Harrison Case  we have the  former  boss taking on a higher role in Government.   That is what happened in  my case with AWINZ ( the Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .

Had Harrison been a lawyer  she would have taken her  whistle blowers to court for defamation.  For good measure  she would have manipulated the proceedings and had their defence of truth and honest opinion struck out ,  bankrupted them, discredited them and   she would have got away with it .

Our courts are  routinely used  to  legitimize fraud , if you have the money  and or connections anything is possible including a few extra words from the judge  totally slating your   whistle blowers reputation  .

Harrison was not so lucky , but so far  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts , Tom Didovich and  Neil Wells  have been able to get away with  their respective roles in the concealment of what  had the makings of a massive public fraud .

In the AWINZ matter a lawyers a crown law  gave a legal opinion in the application process for AWINZ to be granted statutory  law enforcement powers for  search seizure and  prosecution of animal welfare   offences, in the statute which Mr Wells  had  been  the author of the No 1 bill and  as ” independent” adviser to the select committee .

While the legal opinion may have been sound he never checked the  fundamental  ….Does the   trust actually exist   , Had he done so he would have found that  it did not  .

This  lawyer  went on to become chief  legal officer to  the  MPI.   So to admit that a fraud had occurred would have been to admit to his own negligence. see AWINZ deception  evidence   I also raised the question

Can MPI legally conceal fraud or does that make them an accessory after the fact?

Martin Matthews  the Controller and Auditor-General   will also find himself in this conflicted situation.

I have long been critical of Transparency International New Zealand  , they claim to be

Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) is the recognised New Zealand representative of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation against corruption. We are a not-for-profit incorporated society with charitable status. We are non-political and non-partisan.

We Are

The reality is that   Transparency International  is funded by the very people they measure . this means that there is no independence and  if TINZ was to write something bad about the  departments who   sponsor them then those who write  the reports will not be funded  .

It is useful to note that  the office of the auditor general is the corner stone  Platinum   partner . The  office of the auditor generals  is  effectively  ” independently ”  rated by Transparency International  who are sponsored by them .. CONFLICT of interest!

What happened to the petition for a commission against corruption ?   see the evidence  here Evidence in support of the Petition of Grace Haden and others 5 11

Had something been done in the past then  we could have had systems in place  to deal with  the likes of Joanna Harrison . But in reality in the ” economic ”  Business structure we  run, we can afford he losses  its cheaper than checking.

Well   I can tell you as a whistle-blower  it has not been economic for me, it  cost me my marriage, initially my family,  11 years   and  well over $300,000.

While the government can expend heaps on crucifying me   they cannot spend time looking at the facts   to do so would mean that  more like  mr Martin Matthews  would be removed from the security of their high paying jobs ad an old boys net work could very well crumble.

Note  NZ ratified the United nations convention against corruption 1 December   2015.  Nothing has been done to set up an independent commission against corruption

How many more whistle blowers  have to be under attack  ?     Time to support whistle -blowers