Whistleblowers, Government and SPCA

The headline reads Kiwi whistleblowers left vulnerable by ‘weak, patchy, and out-of-date’ legislation

How true   but then there  are also a large number of  whistleblowers  who are not even covered  by this legislation and  when it comes to ranking  second rate citizens those who  blow the whistle on  wrongdoing in the public sector are  at the bottom of the list .

The whistleblower legislation only relates to employees see Protected Disclosure act 

If you are not an employee and report corruption in New Zealand   then you are treated as an unreasonable person  and  the ombudsmen has put out a manual to deal with  people just like you  .

By being labeled as an unreasonable person  no one in government has to listen to you or look at your evidence as you are after all  Unreasonable .  It is apparently Quite unreasonable in New Zealand to  say   sorry but I think this is corrupt .

That which is not seen , is not questioned   is therefore never unravelled  and  so New Zealand remains corruption free , all nicely concealed.

The unreasonable conduct   leaflet deals with   people who  get angry and frustrated  so all  the   Public sector agency has to do  is  throw up brick walls and leave the  person banging their head against it.  Eventually the person will scream  ” my head hurts ”  and the  agency can then point and say see I knew it all  along an unreasonable complainant.

If you visit the page  Good administration guides you will note that

Good decision making  is 10 pages long

Effective complaint handling 23 pages

and Managing unreasonable complainant conduct is 123 pages long

the  ironic thing is that there is no corresponding manual for  unreasonable conduct from public sector agencies.

As a Private investigator I have found that the no 1 failing of our public sector agencies  is the failure to  verify .

  1. No one checked to see if the animal welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)existed  before giving it  law enforcement powers ,
  2. the lawyers   prosecuting me for defamation never checked that  a trust deed for AWINZ existed or if this was actually the law enforcement trust which they were representing and not a similarly named trust set up with the intention to conceal the fact that AWINZ was fictitious
  3.  The police did not check to see if there was actually an order before charging me with 5 counts of breaching an order made under section 240  Lawyers and conveyancers act  .
  4.  and I could go on

The  runner up failure  goes to failure to  stick to the law. 

  1. the law applies to us not the the government agencies they have the ability to make things up.. might is right

And in  number three place  there  is  lack of  accountability everyone is looking after their mates  after all that is what mates are for  and in NZ our public service is practically incestuous and   funds  Transparency International to ensure that  integrity is always  rated as high.

To understand why this is  you have to first accept that New Zealand has adopted a business  approach to governance , like a large  supermarket installing  self checkouts  the approach is that the  inevitable losses are cost less than the the wages of  the staff  which would otherwise be employed.

It is therefore   better to ignore the  corruption than it is to deal  with it.. prosecution is not cheap and exposed corruption  could damage  the nations reputation and affect the share market which we  are so focused on .

This aspect is is  covered in the UCC manual  at figure 1  as can be seen this list  is  far longer list than the effects on the person  with a bit of luck they may commit suicide and the problem will be gone but the $$$ saving is there.

So all you need  is for the complainant  to be under a lot of external pressure  e.g being sued for defamation and being denied  a defence of truth and honest opinion  , hitting a brick wall  with public sector  agencies who are determined to cover up the wrong doing and/or neglect  of their  fellow workers   and the   whistleblower  is left to be attacked for ever more.

When the complainant thinks that the   public sector agency  is not grasping what is going on and sends in more evidence they are doomed  as one of the criteria for listing a person as a UCC is in chapter 4 ,

This document is by no means  unique it appears that it was  totally copied from the NSW ombudsman’s office.   The difference is that there they have a commission against corruption …  in New Zealand we don’t  and  there is no one independent who looks at   the complaints of Whistle blowers .. Its all too easy Whistleblowers are deemed  Unreasonable complainants and persecuted .

In My case it has been going on for 11 years  and it is still  going on with   unseen cowards beavering away in the background making certain that I stay silent.The police have said it is too serious for them and the  SFO say that there is not sufficient capital involved . All along my character has been under attack  I  am  bad and the perpetrator of this massive  public fraud (which is now  culminating in turning the RNZSPCA’s member societies and  branches into one large expectorate ) has been concealed because the lawyer involved is Holier than thou

I recently read  a Law society article Censured Lawyer  gets name suppression I wrote an article  speculating on who this was  as  due to the circumstances of the events it appeared to me that this was the one and the same person who had sued me for defamation  and  misled the court over the identity of  the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand a law enforcement authority which had no legal existence  but which had been given   coercive legal powers  following a fraudulent application  for Approved status under the legislation  which this  censured lawyer had written.  The legislation was initially  to  fulfill his business plan of creating a  inspectorate that could prosecute people for animal neglect, that all sounds pretty good   but  now that the RNZSPCA has filed its constitution  show its objectives  as being to give animals a better life  . This  would mean that i am a prime candidate for prosecution  as my cat  always believes that what she is getting is  not good enough .

The animal welfare bill was  initially written by this corrupt lawyer , he later advised on the  the two bills which were considered  and did not declare his conflict of interest , he created offences which are  strict liability and  Basically subjective  being that they are in the opinion of the  inspector . It is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation  especially in the hands of a private body .

12 Animal welfare offences

A person commits an offence who, being the owner of, or a person in charge of, an animal,—(a)fails to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 10; or(b)fails, in the case of an animal that is ill or injured, to comply, in relation to the animal, with section 11; or(c)kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

10 Obligation in relation to physical, health, and behavioural needs of animals

The owner of an animal, and every person in charge of an animal, must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in a manner that is in accordance with both—(a)good practice; and(b)scientific knowledge.

11 Obligation to alleviate pain or distress of ill or injured animals

(1)The owner of an animal that is ill or injured, and every person in charge of such an animal, must ensure that the animal receives treatment that alleviates any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress being suffered by the animal.

(2)This section does not—(a)limit section 10; or(b)require a person to keep an animal alive when it is in such a condition that it is suffering unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

the  real clincher comes in section 13

13Strict liability

(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.

Penalties

A person who commits an offence against section 12 or section 14(1) or section 14(2) or section 21(1) or section 21(2) or section 22(2) or section 23(1) or section 23(2) is liable on conviction,—(a)in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding$50,000 or to both; or b)in the case of a body corporate to a fine not exceeding $250,000.

The act is water tight  relies on the opinion of the inspector  and  has virtually no defence.  If you go to a lawyer and make an appointment   for next week you are too late as your defence has to be filed within  7 days .

The legislation is a licence to print money ,  You cannot turn off the life support of a loved one   but if you  think your dog is comfortable and want to keep  it alive you  will be prosecuted for not  having put him down .

When you have been  attacked by a person as long as I have you get to know the way they work  and think  and I recognise the fact that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand was the trial for amalgamating  the SPCA’s  and the things which have been done over the years  have been trials to  set this one spca in action .

An associate of mine had his horse seized by Sarah Elliott- Warren  who had been  working for AWINZ , was a lecturer at Unitec   teaching  animal welfare inspectors, went to the SPCA  and took over the management of several SPCA’s. The reoports that I had with regards to the horse was that $3,000 grazing fees were demanded  when the  horse was grazed  by Elliot on  family property, when the owner could not find the cash  the horse was put down . The protocol for disposing of animals is  set out here 

Sarah  worked on the lord of the rings project  for the fictional AWINZ   this is the american humane societies    letter regarding the investigation where  animals were both hurt and   died .

The Letter  where this  excerpt appears is here 

it also goes on  to say “There appears to be a very unusual relationship between the SPCA and AWINZ. If the SPCA has
‘ tent”. for reward, a warranted inspector to AWINZ and that inspector was present in order to exercise powers under the AWA, then in my view the arrangement is against the spirit of the AWA.”

The fact that  the  barrister  who wrote  the legislation and   has set the  SPCA up for this change ( he states that he was responsible  for amalgamating them all under the RNZSPCA )  is less than honest can be found here  and here

Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No. 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 24 [PDF, 46 KB]Decision on liability (6 September 2016)

Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [PDF, 42 KB]Reasons of the Tribunal for decision on penalty (24 November 2016)

When you read these decisions you will note   that this man  is playing the poor   “stressed out me” card ,

He did exactly the same in  2008  when he  attacked me  and has  kept up his attack all these years .

In reality  reading the decision he ripped his client off to the tune of  20,000  he was  wanting to  transfer the rest of her assets   to his   animal welfare charity which  did not exist .

He still operates other  charities which  other trustees believe were wound up .

The  one spca is not about   better care for animals it is about $$  and this corrupt  former  Barrister is totally behind this .

I have been blogging about this  for years  fallen on deaf ears he remains the hero  Me the villain even to the extent that I am now charged with 5 offences of breaching a fictional order  for suppression .

The   connections between  AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have always plagued me and the fact that there is now a very desperate attempt to silence me   makes me believe that my suspicions are well founded . All I had available to me when I named the  Barrister was this 

I would love some one to tell me where  the suppression order is in the decisions  relating to mr M  especially the suppression order under section  240, this again is a  claim fabricated by the corrupt mr M  see here

In 2010  I wrote about the Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ and  I also explained the missing  funds  from the waikato RNZSPCA in various articles

It will come as no surprise that this  same bent  former lawyer set up the programme for training the  Inspectors who   are all too keen to  take on the role as the SPCA as a law enforcement body . He is still connected Graeme coutts a “trustee” of the the  cover up trust AWINZ  works  alongside the RNZSPCA on the same floor, Tom didovich another trustee  worked for  the SPCA . Arnja dale   who has now been appointed Chief Scientific Officer is one and the same Arnja who took over  the Unitec inspector training from  the corrupt  barrister .

It appears to me that there are a lot of people stuck in jobs with limited financial future , By developing the inspectorate  they will be writing their own  salaries .The point they miss is that  their  direction will depend on making animals  suffer , there is therefore no  $$ incentive for them to teach people to look after animals  as they  would be out of a job .

I have seen the spin and the secrecy behind this   but then  I am probably an unreasonable person  so lets ignore  me and just wait and see .

Who is behind the attack on Paula Bennett ?

I was sent an email a few days ago , it drew my attention to the  filthy letter which had been posted by someone  and attacking Paula Bennett, the letter was allegedly  written by one Ashley Farrell and   was nothing more than a verbal attack and provided no evidence of  any alleged wrong doing other than the writers say so .

It appears that  no attempt has been made to deal with these historic  allegations through any  accepted  means  and  to me they  appear to be nothing more than  what I expect to be one of many attacks on   National  .

The web site behind this  appears to be  http://mediawhores.co.nz, this site was originally set up in 2012 as part of the occupy auckland  movement .  the address  of the registrant  shown at that time was   aotea square.

At about that time I was being  defamed by a Suzie Dawson who also ran a website registered to aotea square , I asked her to remove the content and  she responded  by making false allegations to  the private security   authority   alleging that I was stalking her and her daughter.

The last I heard she was   in Russia  and now from the safety of russia , has taken over  as the  so called leader  of the  Internet party and thus far its only candidate   .

The internet party currently appears to have Sarah Illingworth (Internet Party Communications Director and Party Secretary) promoting the party from the safe distance of the UK   For detail , please see her CV. She states that she physically  resides in the UK  but falsely gives an address in wellington  on the web site  this address  belongs to none other than the web registrant Jo Booth

the company the  web site is registered to is  IP Phase 1 Ltd  which according to the  companies register was struck off 17 May 2017.   as an  Activist working for “TRUTH and JUSTICE ” Suzie  you have bombed out  rather badly here .Suzie Dawson on her Face book page posted this .

Her old web site media savvy  in my opinion  very much resembled the  mediawhores web site   and with the type of thing being posted I am not surprised that she  is domiciled in Russia

The person allegedly behind the  mediawhores web site is Cohen GLASS 

He had a company WIRELESS MEDIA LIMITED this site is still live and is registered to Vocus Communications   which is he same company as mediawhores is registerd to . The address for  wireless media is 17B Farnham Street which appears to be a postal  depot .

The new director for the company ethos media   which  Glass  set up  on 30 march 2016  has now been handed over to  a new director

Sarah Edmonds  who resides in a hotel in  Hamilton and used the same post office box company as her registered office .

Cohen  resigned as director and share holder  and  six share holders replaced him I wonder if the shareholders know that the director is  elusive, ethosmedia.co.nz is registered to  Julian Glass  who uses the same address  and  phone number as Cohen Glass

Knowing what I know about  Suzie Dawson   and her associates I would not be at all surprised if the current attack on Paula is  being carried out   through anonymity and stool pigeons    by the internet party .  It’s just my honest opinion, I can feel it in my bones and its somthing that I know Suzie would  do   after all she did it to me .

New Zealand companies an international joke ? Terry Hay must think so !

Many years ago a lawyer asked me to help him locate a director and liquidator of a firm called  fresh prepared limited 

The director was allegedly   Sanjay Patel 133 Captain Springs Rd, Onehunga.  Consent of Director

Sanjay Patel appointed a liquidator Babuhai Patel who happened to use the PO box right next to  that of the former proxy director  Lynn Pryor

Both Sanjay and Babuhai  were fictional   and  Terry Hay and  Lynne Pryor  were both charged with  fraud offences  .

The 22 fraud offences for Terry Hay are here 

Hay  skipped the country and  Pryor was convicted of one charge  as the blame was shifted onto Hay .The news items are here Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt.

Hay being well connected   got the  charges dropped  21.1. 2013 see here 

He wasted no time promoting himself as a successful  business man  no doubt including  teaching the tricks of  the trade  with regards to the  NZ companies office

Today I  discovered that  Hay has featured in the New Zealand courts again,  funding  litigation again .

This  time in   employment matters where  LSG sky chef  inherited  employees from the  firm   one being  Terry Hays brother in law.

the employment court  matter can be found here

It was  with interest that I noted that  PRI FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED had been  restored to the  the register  this was  following a court  order LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LTD v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ANOR [2016] NZHC 2407 [10 October 2016]
The company was restored on  12 october Restoration Certificate and two days later  the so called  director  sought to have it deregistered again IRD Letter.
The person posing as  director a Mr Drake who last claimed to live in Honolulu ( if he exists) moved the  address of service  of the company from  viaduct  harbour avenue  to Stewart Island.
A simple phone call  to   the lodge revealed that this  man of mystery had once again  fooled the   companies  registrar  .
so much  for having to have a Local director  all it takes  is an address which you can pick up from the internet and your away.
Terry  Hay registered as the shareholder as Terrance Hays

The registrar is once again   looking to remove the company from the  register ..  for  rich foreigners our company office is nothing  more than a useful tool  to  use  and abuse  from a safe distance away .

While Mr Hay was  comfortably ensconced in his Honolulu home  he sues the arse off unsuspecting Kiwis , some how that is so  wrong .

Its time we did more than register  companies .. how about checking and  stringently enforcing the company rules .

Companies  , trusts and societies are totally abused .   No one checks  and whistleblowers get shot  .. so    wonder why its so open to abuse.

SPCA New Zealand is it still the same old trusted name ?

There is an old Hatchet that has been in our family  for many years , it  has been handed down from father to son and has served  loyally each generation . The head was sharpened a few times and then the handle broke  so  it had a new  handle  , then the head   was beyond sharpening and it  got a new head , I think it has had five new Handel  now and three new heads.  But its still the same old trusty Hatchet.. despite the fact that the handle is now  varnished and the head is blue .

What has this got to do with the SPCA.. well everything

Look up Wikipedia  this is the definition shown

A Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is a common name for non-profit animal welfare organizations around the world. The oldest SPCA organization is the RSPCA, which was founded in England in 1824. SPCA organizations operate independently of each other and campaign for animal welfare, assist in the prevention of cruelty to animals cases, rehabilitation and finding homes for maltreated and unwanted animals that can be reestablished into new homes. Policies regarding animal euthanasia, handling feral cats, and similar issues vary by organization.

As you can see this fits in pretty closely with the old constitution purpose which has existed since 1995

The Objects for which the Royal Society is established are:
(a) To prevent cruelty to animals by:(i) Encouraging and sustaining an intelligent public opinion regarding man’s duty to animals;
(ii) Enforcing where practicable the laws which exist for animals’protection;
(iii) Promoting further legislation for the protection of animals, as may be appropriate;
(iv) Any other ways and means as the Royal Society may deem appropriate.
(b) To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies;
(c) To promote Branches in districts where there is no Branch or Member Society in existence;
(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or in the interests of animals and their welfare

the new constitution which has just been adopted MJC-101622-1-4205-1 RNZSPCA Constitution Final Adopted 17 June 2017

4. Purposes
4.1 The purposes of SPCA are to create a better life for, and prevent cruelty to and neglect of, Animals and in particular to:
a. be the lead organisation for Animal welfare in New Zealand;
b. educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities including developing and delivering programmes and activities;
c. establish and maintain facilities and provide services primarily throughout New Zealand and, if it considers it necessary to do so, also Australia and the Pacific Islands, to improve the welfare of Animals using standards, policies and practices based on best practice and scientific knowledge;
d. promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;
e. act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.

the proposed branch constitution   is also has the objects   changed  MJC-101622-1-4206-1 RNZSPCA Branch Rules Final 17 June 2017  but   since they  are looking at winding up the   branches  the  wording of the constitution is   basically irrelevant as  once   this is adopted the  branch will be wound up and  cease to exist  under the  one policy  following this transition MJC-101622-1-4207-1 RNZSPCA Transition Regulations Final

A new CEO  is being recruited Final Position Description CEO SPCA to do the  dirty work  of  transitioning from a society which exists to prevent cruelty  to animals to one which    rely on  animals suffering for an income stream.

To me this appears to be a juxtaposition , as the stated  aim of “act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals”   cannot occur  unless  animals are harmed  and since there is a financial benefit in enforcing  the act the SPCA may no longer act  to PREVENT   cruelty  as  from an accountants point of view   the $$$  occurs when animals are harmed.

Mr Trainer is an accountant,  ex  Ernest and Young , is he going to spend  some of the 25 million on educating people and  prevention methods or is he  going to make  $$$ for the society by prosecution  ?   What would an accountant  do ????

Of course  they would “promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;” as this will ensure more  stringent levels of compliance   and more $$$

I have to wonder why  Andrea Midgen  wore two hats for this time, was it because  her two hats suited this part of the transition , despite it  being a gross  conflict of interest, why not    advertise for an  independent CEO  10 months ago  ????All too contrived my  my sense of comfort.

So if you are the   applicant  for the position of  the new CEO  responding to this email please be aware that you will be  assisting in the destruction of  what was once a  trusty old society .

From: RNZSPCA Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@spca.nz>
To: Gordon Trainer <Gordon.Trainer@spca.nz>
Cc: Kira Schaffler <kira.schaffler@spca.nz>
Date: 23 June 2017 at 14:06
Subject: Message from Gordon Trainer, RNZSPCA President – Recruitment: RNZSPCA CEO

Recruitment – RNZSPCA CEO

To: Centre Managers/CEOs, Chairs
CC: National Office staff and RNZSPCA Board

 Please forward this email to your Committee/Board and to the staff/volunteers in your Centre

 Dear all

Following the strong vote in favour of the One SPCA entity at the AGM on Saturday 17 June, the Board has decided to initiate the process for the recruitment of a permanent CEO for the RNZSPCA. As you are aware Andrea Midgen has been ‘double-hatting’ for the past 10 months as both the CEO of Auckland SPCA and the Acting CEO of RNZSPCA.

The CEO of RNZSPCA is probably the most critical role in our new structure and it would be highly advantageous to have a confirmed CEO in the role during the months leading up to “Day 1” (1 November 2017) to ensure strong and focused leadership during the transition phase to One SPCA.

We have made a decision that, in the first instance, we will open this role to applications from internal candidates only, i.e. employees within the SPCAs across the country. If we are unable to find a suitable candidate from amongst our ranks we will then go to the wider external market.

As you can see from the attached position description this role requires (amongst other things):

–          Strong leadership skills and proven experience in managing and developing leadership teams

–          Experience in leading change

–          Good all-round management competencies

–          Strong financial and commercial acumen and experience, and

–          A collaborative working style with a track record of building effective relationships.

We have asked Kira Schaffler as the Project Manager for the One SPCA project to coordinate the initial steps of the internal recruitment process. Kira has extensive experience in the recruitment and appointment of executives and will provide a strictly confidential coordination point for initial applications.

Our planned timetable for this process is as follows:

Internal candidates submit their CVs to Kira Schaffler. All applications will be treated in the strictest confidence By 14 July
Remuneration, People Dev & Nominations Committee (sub-Committee of the Board) interviews short-listed candidates and recommends preferred candidate to the Board By 28 July
Appointment of CEO By 11 August

Please forward this email to your staff and volunteers in your Centres. It’s important that all employees are kept informed about the recruitment process for this key leadership role in our future SPCA.

If you have any queries about the process please contact Kira Schaffler on 021 924 845 or kira.schaffler@spca.nz who will be able to answer your questions on a strictly confidential basis.

Regards

Gordon Trainer

RNZSPCA President

 

Open letter to the Charities Services with regards to the RNZSPCA change of purpose

I wish to file this formal complaint with the charities Services  

on the grounds

  • significant financial loss to the charity, or the illegal or corrupt use of the charity’s funds or resources;
  • serious harm to beneficiaries (especially to vulnerable beneficiaries);
  • charities deliberately being used for private pecuniary profit or to abuse New Zealand’s tax laws;
  • where a charity’s independence may be compromised;
  • serious wrongdoing by a charity, its officers/trustees or employees, that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of the charitable sector;
  • serious non-compliance in a charity which could constitute serious risk to  public interest;
  • damaging public trust and confidence in Charities Services  as an effective regulator

I am a  member of the Hawkes bay  branch of the RNZSPCA ,  That branch is one of  the many members which make up the RNZSPCA.

Recently I attended a meeting of  Taupo residents  and Taupo branch members who were concerned   about being disenfranchised  from  their  society  .

What the Taupo  members and I have in common  is that as members  we have not been able to vote on  the one SPCA proposal

It appears  that there is a group of people who  have taken upon themselves to promote  the one SPCA concept  but have manipulated the   branches and  member societies in such a way as to ensure that their  objective of   disestablishing the   smaller society and taking their   assets is achieved.

Andrea Midgen  has now filed a new constitution which was allegedly passed last week in circumstances  which stretch  the  concept of democracy  as delegates  for at least 15  societies   had no mandate  from the members who  they purported to represent .

The new constitution for he RNZSPCA  which went  live today   differs entirely from the   previous  constitutions and  has  adopted new objectives for  the society  this now reads

4.1 The purposes of SPCA are to create a better life for, and prevent cruelty to and neglect of, Animals in New Zealand and in particular to:

a. be the lead organisation for Animal welfare in New Zealand;

b.educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities including developing and delivering programmes and activities;

c.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals using standards, policies and practices based on best practice and scientific knowledge;

d.promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards;

e.act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, including taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals

Since the  objectives of the society  have changed  they may now  no longer qualify for charitable status

I note that   in particular they wish to provide a better life for animals  ..  this probably needs to be read in conjunction with this  you tube recording which  demonstrates the   wastage of   donated charitable funds.   Providing a better life could include buying a better car for the owner of the  animal  something which according to this  recording  has happened in the past .

To be the lead Animal welfare  organisation .. sounds like empire building, in the other  hand Andrea Midgens boss, Gordon trainer has already registered a company called  SPCA Aotearoa.  this brings about a potential of conflict of interest for her  as acting CEO of the RNZSPCA and raises the question  is she acting for the RNZSPCA or for her employer  the  Auckland SPCA and sole  share holder of  SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd

Gordon Trainer  is the sole director  of SPCA Aotearoa  Ltd  he  is also the only person  from the Auckland SPCA  who   has  control of some sort of the   25 million dollars which unsuspecting benefactors have left the the SPCA and which has found its way to the   Auckland SPCA. In  the mean time  smaller branches burdened by extra financial  commitments by being billed to take on an employee of the RNZSPCA choosing , have been   wound up

educate New Zealanders about their Animal welfare responsibilities  , they are currently  euthanizing more animals than ever before  , they  are spending more on   human  resources  and corporate wages  particularly looking at getting the inspectorate   going and prosecuting more new  Zealanders.    so is education  going to be through prosecution ?  It has to be of note that it is the SPCA   and not the RNZSPCA  who have the team of lawyers on board .

.establish and maintain facilities and provide services throughout New Zealand to improve the welfare of Animals, since the one spca movement began a number of  local SPCA”s have  been  disestablished , their buildings sold  and   as a result  there are fewer SPCA’a than before , e.g. Te Kuiti, Waikato  , Te Awamutu  etc

promote and advocate for Animal welfare legislation and standards  again their objectives appear to be more in line with a law enforcement authority than a charity  whose beneficiaries are animals

act as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, The government  has responsibilities for animal welfare this is primarily   performed through the MPI and the police .   A former  RNZPSCA  president , Neil Wells ,who was also a barrister wrote the bill for  animal welfare act and was  Independent adviser  to the select committee  and  did not declare his conflict of interest when he included  the provisions for the concept  of  Approved organisations.

Mr Wells went on to   set up his own ” approved organisation  The animal welfare institute of new Zealand   which in reality did not exist and was just a trading name for himself.  He relied on  what I have found to be a fraudulent application, followed by misleading information to the minister there is more just search this site  using the  key word AWINZ

The persons who have been behind this drive for the  SPCA to develop the inspectorate just happen to former  MPI inspectors . this   whole concept is not about  being a charity but  about starting a law enforcement group  using  the 25 million or so ,this has been   side lined into trusts.

These funds  which were given to the SPCA have been deprived  from the true  beneficiaries , the animals.   there appears to be a massive misappropriation of charitable funds  because  people dont realize that the SPCA  has been hijacked.

The new powers are equally   frightening

establish a Board, commissions, committees. forums, and other groups, including consultative groups,and to delegate its powers and functions to such groups;

be an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with such powers and .authority as specified under that Act

invest, lend, advance or otherwise deal with monies and secure the payment of such monies with or without charges, or guarantees; ( these are charitable funds ! )

produce, develop. create, own, licence and otherwise exploit. use and protect Intellectual Property;

purchase or otherwise acquire all or any part of the property, assets and liabilities of any one or more companies, institutions, trusts, incorporated societies or organisations whose activities or objects are similar (in whole or in part} to those of SPCA, or with which SPCA is authorised to merge or amalgamate,or for any purpose designed to benefit SPCA;

And this is the bit where   I believe SPCA aotearoa comes in

establish, acquire, carry on or participate in any business or enterprise which fulfills the Purposes of SPCA (in whole or part);

q. be a member of, affiliate or be associated in any other way with, any organisation which has objects which are similar, in whole or in part, to the Purposes of SPCA; and.

With the   change in the objectives   the transformation is complete   below is the  former purpose  for comparison

OBJECTS

  1. The Objects for which the Royal Society is established are:

(a) To prevent cruelty to animals by:

(i) Encouraging and sustaining an intelligent public opinion regarding man’s duty to animals;

(ii) Enforcing where practicable the laws which exist for animals’protection;

(iii) Promoting further legislation for the protection of animals, as may be appropriate;

(iv) Any other ways and means as the Royal Society may deem appropriate.

(b) To co-ordinate the activities of the various Branches and Member Societies;

(c) To promote Branches in districts where there is no Branch or Member Society in existence;

(d) To generally do all such acts and things as shall or may be for the benefit of Branches or Member Societies or in the interests of animals and their welfare.

Evidence  that the RNZSPCA has not  been acting  in accordance with its former objectives  can be found   by looking at

  1. the increase of euthanasia this is not in the interest of animals
  2. the closure of branches which could have been saved  with charitable funds which according to this recording have been misappropriated 
  3. the   replacement of volunteers with paid RNZSPCA staff and then passing  the   costs on to the branch so as to  cause financial hardship  which is then used to  wind up the   society
  4. the unlawful ” administration of  incorporated societies “
  5. by denying members the right to contact  other members and by  calling only a SGM when it suits the RNZSPCA but not  calling a  AGM in three years ( Taupo) or allowing  new people to become members.  This is not  acting in the benefit of branches
  6. there is a gross conflict of interest between the  Auckland SPCA   and the RNZSPCA  . there has been a  historical    fight for power , it now appears to me ,  that the  Auckland SPCA   which has posed as the SPCA see here   has succeeded   in taking control of money and is now taking over the  RNZSPCA  and  will pass that control   through to   itself  by virtue of  this new constitution .

all that is required is  for the  smaller branches to   wind up and the Auckland SPCA will   take over  the RNZSPCA  and put it under the umbrella of SPCA aotearoa.  Public money  corporate wages private gain and a private law enforcement power  with strict liability offences and a  licence to print money .. certainly not  acting charitably  in my opinion

Constitutions  for branches taken into administration , (for which there is no legal provision) , have been unlawfully filed  to ensure that the latest constitutions  state  that on winding up or dissolution the assets go to the RNZSPCA.

I have been told that  well over 2 million dollars of charitable funds have been used for this restructuring. Money which could have been put to good use  by saving branches which have been closed down   by  people other than the members.

The new constitution allows for the   new organisation , (that is what it is   as the  whole constitution appears to have been replaced in one go) to pick and choose its members

the emphasis is  on   the inspectorate   and it is  not  coincidental that   Mr Wells who wrote the legislation also set up the training program at Unitec for inspectors,  so by  becoming inspector focused there is a financial spin off for others  but what has been forgotten is that before a prosecution can occur  an animal has to suffer . so the  society for prevention of  cruelty no longer fulfills its   traditional  role  having instead become an enforcement agency  and therefore by definition is no longer a charity .

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I therefore request an urgent revue of the RNZSPCA   with regards to its charitable status, misappropriation of charitable fund and the grounds stated above

I have posted this on transparency in the interest of transparency .

 

URGENT : For the attention of all SPCA/ RNZSPCA members

If you are a member of  any of the following  then you  need to  read this

and listen  to this  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHcgXhoBlf0

16/09/1907 CANTERBURY BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
23/12/1912 NORTH TARANAKI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
19/10/1926 THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED
13/12/1926 THE MANAWATU BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
23/05/1932 WAIKATO BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
16/03/1933 THE WHANGAREI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
11/09/1933 THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
21/09/1936 SOUTH CANTERBURY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
9/06/1942 NELSON BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NZ SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
19/09/1945 MID CANTERBURY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
19/02/1947 THE OTAGO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
16/05/1948 THE MARLBOROUGH BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
25/06/1948 THE ROTORUA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
6/07/1951 TE KUITI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
13/06/1956 HAWKES BAY BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
27/11/1957 THE GISBORNE SPCA INCORPORATED
14/09/1959 THE CENTRAL KING COUNTRY BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
15/11/1960 THE MOTUEKA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
28/11/1961 TAUPO BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
4/12/1961 THAMES BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NZ SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
29/05/1962 THE HOROWHENUA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
20/06/1963 UPPER HUTT SPCA INCORPORATED
20/08/1963 DANNEVIRKE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
18/09/1964 THE WHAKATANE BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
10/12/1964 THE OPOTIKI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
15/03/1965 TAURANGA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
16/06/1967 THE HASTINGS & DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
4/08/1967 THE KAWERAU BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
17/05/1968 THE WAIHI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
10/04/1970 THE NORTH OTAGO BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
22/06/1971 THE WAIHEKE ISLAND BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
1/03/1977 BULLER SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
25/03/1980 THE FEILDING & DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
14/04/1982 GREYMOUTH BRANCH OF ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
30/03/1983 SOUTH TARANAKI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
2/09/1983 WELLINGTON SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
7/09/1984 THE HOKITIKA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
13/11/1984 THE TURANGI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
30/04/1987 SOUTHLAND BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
27/11/1987 THE CENTRAL HAWKES BAY BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
24/03/1989 THE FEILDING & DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
17/05/1989 THE GOLDEN BAY BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
24/11/1989 THE BAY OF ISLANDS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED
9/03/1992 GORE AND DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
10/09/1996 KAITAIA AND DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
7/06/2004 THE WANGANUI BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
28/09/2004 THE SOUTH WAIKATO BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
9/06/2005 WAIRARAPA BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED

 

The first  column is the date  of incorporation of your society

the second is the legal name of your society

All of the  above are deemed by the Legal persons in their own right  and the sole control of each is by its respective  members .

The legislation which is relevant is the Incorporated Societies Act 1908

An incorporated society must have at least 15 members , the members   file their constitution and run their  society according to the constitution.

As can be seen by the dates of formation  various communities had  individuals who came together and formed the   intention of  forming a local SPCA for the common good of the community

Often farmer brown gave a corner paddock  and  the  local  trades men go together and constructed a premises for the  volunteers to  work out of    . The societies were names  the  “what ever”  society for prevention of cruelty to animals, the assets  came from the community and were for the benefit of that community .

Each society acted independently  until  a federation was  formed which lent a common voice and  support structure to all .

Neil Wells  was involved in action which appears to have substituted the  Federation  for the RNZSPCA , possibly by  a name change which is no longer recorded  at the   registry  of societies.He also wrote the animal welfare act and made the provision for inspectors to  be employed by the RNZSPCA  and  introduced  offences which are almost impossible to  defend ( strict liability )

The federation  disappeared and the RNZSPCA became the national body  effectively having    one representative from each of the  member societies.

A move then occurred  to change member societies into branches  and a number of branches were taken over by stealth by  a group of persons  whose objective was to   disenfranchise the members and substitute   their own  constitution for that previously  accepted and passed  by the members.  Hence the members no longer   had control of their own society  it was some one else’s rules

The  particular victims of this mover   are  the following branches

KAITAIA AND DISTRICTS BRANCH OF THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED
Taupo Branch of The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
Te Kuiti Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals, Incorporated
The Bay Of Islands Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Bay Of Islands Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Central King Country Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Feilding and Districts Branch of the Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Hokitika Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Horowhenua Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Marlborough Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Te Awamutu Branch of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
The Thames Branch Of The Society Of Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Waihi Branch of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
The Wairoa Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
The Wanganui Branch of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
Waikato Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
Wairarapa Branch Of Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Inc

Persons posing as   officers of these  societies did so without any mandate from the members , they effectively took over the assets of that society  and dealt with them as though they had  a right to do so. In some instances property   including real estate was sold , there is no evidence as to where the   funds went .

There is no provision in law which would support this action and in reality I believe that  these persons are  committing  fraud  by holding themselves out  as having legitimacy over the asserts and running of the   societies they have taken over.

These persons  who include the following  have had absolutely no legal    right to act in the manner  which they have  yet have bamboozled volunteers  and members alike , taking advantage of the  fact that most  ordinary citizens don’t know  that the  people  from  the so called Head office  who they trust   were actually setting them up to take over  their society and asset strip the local community .

Andrea Midgen
Bice Awan
Clive Poles Smith
David Broderick
Francine Shields
Gordon Sean Cooney
Gordon Trainer
Marie Hall
Robyn O’Fee
Sean Cooney
Stephen Glassey
Theresa Gattung

those  above have been assisted by  those who should know  better  Geoff Sutton employed by the RNZSPCA  is a former MPI man and he  and his mate Alan Wilson ( also x MPI)  are very keen  to see the  inspectorate kick into play as this would ensure them a position in the new  order. These persons  have a vested interest as they have been assured a position in the new order and are looking after their own financial interest in the new structure

It has to be remembered that the” P” stands for prevention     not for prosecution  and by the time prosecution occurs  the animal has already suffered .

so essentially   the  SPCA  is no longer functioning  as the society it was set up  for   and instead  being a society which relies on animal abuse for its existence.

In Britain the  SPCA  is out of control   a great   face book page to follow on that one is the shg

an article on the  dangers of the SPCA inspectorate is https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/off-the-leash/#  Does the RSPCA think it’s the FBI?

Dozens of ordinary householders have been convicted, fined and even tagged for offences such as killing squirrels in their gardens, or not arranging adequate veterinary care for a sick pet. Those animal owners who fall foul of the RSPCA include the elderly, sick, bewildered or poor. Some of the prosecutions have been little short of farcical. Householders who kill garden pests have been convicted on the basis that the only humane way to dispatch a squirrel is to take it to the vets for a £70 lethal injection. Worse, there is a growing suspicion that not all RSPCA evidence of cruelty is what it seems.

an other article sent to me was  this What’s gone wrong with the RSPCA? How a cherished charity which symbolised Britain’s love for animals has been hijacked by zealots who care more about pets than humans (and has now lost its third chief in five years)

Wake up NZ    we need to   educate  people and care for  the animals  . Those taking control are lawyers and accountants    it is a power game  and   more animals than ever will be put  down and   caring owners will be the target of prosecutions.

If you do nothing  then you are part of the problem , Please  help prevent cruelty  not make  cruelty the  aim of  financial gain.

Please contact me   we are working  on something  that will hopefully restore integrity to the  SPCA’s nation wide

 

SPCA AOTEAROA LIMITED is this the monopoly model for the SPCA ?

You can help by speaking out    please do not remain silent on this one ! 

While assisting some people with their dilemma of the local branch of the RNZSPCA, I came across  a company called  SPCA AOTEAROA LIMITED (5343361) Registered

The company is allegedly owned by The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated   but  despite  the fact that it was incorporated  30 June 2014  no mention of this company can be found in the annual reports    2015 annual report   or the  2016 annual report.

Mr Trainer files his own  directors form , showing that he is self appointed   he does this through the auspices of his  own company Lomond group limited

Having noted that  the  Auckland SPCA  prefers to use the  generic name SPCA and  its  chairman  Gordon Trainer is also the national president of the RNZSPCA

Gordon trainer was co opted to the national board  September 2015  and it would appear  on what I can see , that he became  president   when he had already set the wheels for  SPCA aotearoa in motion .

What is  the difference you may well ask   well it is an important one  summed up on the RNZSPCA web site

There are  some 40  incorporated societies which are  members or branches of the RNZSPCA , The RNZSPCA  is the national body    on which all of the individual branches and member societies have  a representation  . Those persons who are the appointed members to the RNZSPCA  then select  their  office bearers from their number.

But what so often happens   is that one  person  becomes  entrenched in the role  and that is where the propensity for going off the rails occurs.

For many years Bob Kerridge has been   both the  chairman of the Auckland SPCA and the  national  president of the RNZSPCA  , he was  followed by Gordon Trainer.

Now the SPCA Auckland would be the  first one to admit that  throughout the country there is much confusion about   the number of SPCA’s  many think there is only one.

The reality is  that the Auckland SPCA is  the equivalent status of any of the branches, it is a member society which just happens to  hold the reins through its chair man.

Further confusion arises though the RNZSPCA’s own web site  where  the royal society refers to itself as  SPCA and  has actually registered the  a logo  

The donate page on the RNZSPCA web site makes you  think that you are donating to the SPCA   and in the mean time   the   Auckland SPCA  which is  now apparently driving the take over bid   registers documents at the  Registrars office as 

this is simply achieved by leaving the  real  name off by dropping the word Auckland.

This particular  example was signed By Andrea Midgen  who is now travelling the country and telling societies  that once amalgamation takes place they will have to change their names if they are not part of the one SPCA.

So  simply put the  confusion as to the entity “SPCA”  is no accident  and people  who leave   funds to  the SPCA   in their will  do so with the best of intentions and frequently with the expectation that it will support the  SPCA activities  where they live . Instead   the  funds go to  the Auckland SPCA and  are   shuffled off into Auckland SPCA trust

The wording of trust deeds is important   and in this case the wording of the SPCA trust is such that  the  funds do not have to go to the  the Auckland SPCA, RNZSPCA branches   etc  but   simply for the  purposes as set out here 

This means that the  funds can also go to Community Cat Coalition Incorporated or New Zealand Companion Animal Council Incorporated but apparently it does not go to  RNZSPCA branches which have felt the financial burden of having a paid employee thrust upon them by   the national body .

Financial hardship  is one way of making    groups change their view  on autonomy and by   creating financial pressures  on a society   control can be gained.   the Te Awamutu  Branch   reportedly  was wound up  in this manner   and Waikato closed its doors despite that  fact the $400,000 appears to have  shifted sideways from a trust where the RNZSPCA branch was once a trustee .

So the  whole one SPCA thing  looks very much as a  being contrived and driven by The SPCA,  Millions of dollars which shoul dhave gone to animal s have gone on corporate wages fro this restructuring.

The SPCA’s which have been closed could have  survived if the money paid to consultants had  found  its way to the  volunteers who  were using it for de sexing and  re homing of animals

INSPECTORATE

In March this year    an article appeared in the law society news  Anita Killeen: SPCA Auckland Pro Bono Panel of Prosecutors

In the New Year, I met the Chairman and the Board of the SPCA Auckland and gave a presentation that included a proposal to take charge of developing an initiative I believed would save the organisation money and further its goals. The Board appointed me as a Director in early 2009, and, shortly after, I implemented the strategy which is now known as the Pro Bono Panel of Prosecutors for the SPCA Auckland.

Note that this is only For Auckland.

But the   appointment  of inspectors is through the  animal welfare act   to the RNZSPCA

The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

Rumour has it that  the   one SPCA is all about  developing the inspectorate and apparently also about giving  work to a lot of  well meaning lawyers who have been sold half a story .

The animal welfare act  is a very dangerous piece of legislation a  law paper can be found here

The author of the paper   was also  apparently fooled with  the SPCA/ RNZSPCA  concept as only the SPCA gets a mention

What the author points out  about strict liability offences is   a very serious point.  In a strict liability offence the  Inspector only needs to think that your  limping Moggie needs to have gone to the vet and you  could  well be up for a massive fine .

Run with a team of lawyers  and  over zealous  inspectors  no animal owner will be safe and I fear that more animals than ever will be put down .

It will be a licence to print money  by the  monopoly which   appears to be being set up  by  bullying the  volunteers who have been  the very fabric of society out  to set up their own  organisations in their area   but will live in fear of  being  be wound up by  the    inspectors of the  mighty monopoly.

Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – Accountability

The SPCA  will be the only   private law enforcement authority .  I know the problems well I saw it with AWINZ.

Why cant   SPCA staff simply call on  MPI or Police to  take action  and prosecute .The SPCA has a vital role in education and  support services for animals

The whole fact of SPCA is about to change and as one person said

THIS WEEKEND ANIMAL WELFARE IN NZ DIED

There is nothing open and transparent about this Take over  , it is contrived, manipulated  and deceitful . There is no ability for   whole societies to be taken over  by a group of people   and those   who are posing  as  members of a society taken over by stealth should be held  accountable  to the full extent of the law , they have no legal right to file constitutions   on behalf of the members and   run  up financial burdens for the society , each should be personally responsible..  Isn’t that what Andrea Midgen said ? So why should she not be responsible for the actions on the half dozen or so  incorporated societies she claims to have  rights over when  there is no  mandate from members.

The SPCA is being corporatised ,  its  going to be  big business  , it will kill volunteering, community  groups and  will make animal lovers live in fear of persecution .   the funds which  have been given to local communities  to set up shelters  will be liquidated into corporate   wages for  accountants lawyers and consultants .

The animals will be  just  a commodity  and  in my opinion  it will be a fundamental abuse of animals to use them for the $$$ game

This is of national importance and   I certainly hope that  there will be a public investigation into this as  to me it appears that there is a gross misappropriation of charitable funds .

I also hope that  the charities commission  will  remove the charitable status of an organisation so apparently  driven for profit.

 

 

 

Open letter to Andrea Midgen .One SPCA what is the rush? a positive change for who $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

There have been power games between the SPCA and the RNZSPCA   since    Adam was a boy  the

222889 THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED  formed  19/10/1926

218546  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED formed 11/09/1933

I have already  covered off the in fighting in  the  late 70’s  and the fact that   the law enforcement powers of the inspectorate was   only given the the RNZSPCA and speculation has been that the SPCA,  a member society has always wanted to take over the RNZSPCA . From what I have seen in this last week that appears to be very much the  case.

There is significant blurring of boundaries between the SPCA and the RNZSPCA, this I believe is intentional with $$$$$ in mind

The  legal name of the Auckland  member society is  The society  for the prevention  of cruelty to animals Auckland  yet you refer to yourselves as  .

 You , Andrea signed as CEO for this  entity on  the latest rules filed at the  companies office

you  use the logo  which is in reality registered to the  Royal society  see here  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Thursday night I attended a meeting  and was confused when I heard that you would be there  as you are the CEO of a member society of the RNZSPCA  and without providing any evidence as to your lawful appointment  as  acting CEO of  the RNZSPCA, you addressed a group of  Taupo people about the RNZSPCA  amalgamating into one.   I suspect the reality is   that this about the SPCA  taking over the  RNZSPCA and its  member societies and   branches.

The locals who attended expressed concerns that  despite the fact that a number of them had been volunteers at the SPCA they had been denied the opportunity to become members  and had been told that  no new members were being accepted  until after the one SPCA vote had been taken.

It appears that the person in charge of the Taupo SPCA and in control of the membership list is One Geoffrey Sutton who is actually a paid employee of the RNZSPCA .

I  also noted that  you  had become an alleged officer of the  Taupo SPCA  by  the  filing of  a document  just days before  the meeting claiming that you had been an officer of the Taupo  society since September 2016. The method of your appointment is to say the least  dubious   as we were  discovered that the society had not  had a meeting of members  in three years so I have to question  how you could possible have a mandate from the members .

The unique thing about incorporated societies is that   the members are always  in control  of their society  yet it appears that the RNZSPCA and the SPCA have taken over the governance and control  of various  societies without  any  formal mandate to do so .

Constitutions have been filed with the registrar , circumventing  both  the prescribed formal processes and the resolutions of the members

Further you are the CEO  of the SPCA   and  now claim to be the acting CEO  of  the RNZSPCA, is this not a conflict of interest as the SPCA  appears to be paying your wages . I have always found that  who ever  pays a person has their loyalty   so who are you acting for  and how are you legally  appointed for  the RNZSPCA

I also note that Jennifer Temple , project and change  Co ordinator mentioned here  is  also actually  an employee of SPCA  . so my question is  who is driving this One SPCA ?

On 5 September 2016   you not only became  a  Officer of the  Taupo SPCA but also  the  Thames , Wairarapa, Te kuiti, central King country  branches and on  23 January 2017  the Waikato branch. This may require  some explanation  and you may have to provide a legal basis  for these appointments  as there certainly does not appear to be any provision under the   Incorporated societies act which would have allowed for such an event.

You claim that

 

you   have association with these branches due to the fact that they are under administration,   could you please  advise where under the   Incorporated society act you have any power to  disenfranchise the members of an incorporated society and take charge of their assets.  You may wish to follow this link  following  to be  informed as to the apparent lack of  legitimacy of ” administration

I also need to point out that the  constitutions which you appear to rely on   generally  appear to have been filed  with the registrar by  means other than the formal requirement of being accepted  by  a AGM  and the process of filing  these constitutions  may  actually be  in  breach of the  act and you and your  associates may be committing fraud by  pretending that you have the lawful capacity to file these  documents.

It was pointed out at the meeting that  The Taupo branch  Operated  in a positive financial manner  until the  RNZSPCA ” placed the branch into administration ” Since then the number of staff have increased and the results have dropped back and   losses occurred.

I am personally aware  that  such tactics have been used on  societies which have been wound up   and when they were wound up they were not wound up by the members, but  by the persons who  posed as members and arranged for the assets to be taken out of the district in which they were gifted and used for SPCA functions else where.

This brings me on to the “poverty “which the SPCA pleads    this does not take into account the  25 million in The Auckland SPCA Trust.

I note that the trustees are

Mark Vickerman    Barrister

Bob Kerridge  Former  director

Benjamin D’Arcy Palmer    Life line  director

Gordon Trainer   current director SPCA  and sole  director of  SPCA Aotearoa Limited

Donald Brian  Bendall   accountant

While   small SPCA’s  struggle on this massive pot of money is   increasing annually   should some one not see where this money comes from, are these bequests which are  being made   from all over the country and ending up in the coffers of  this trust which appears  not to  share. Given the confusion that you yourself have introduced  in the  companies register as shown above it is  of no surprise that the general public and the lawyers and trustees of bequests are also confused.

The annual report is of significance it shows  the trust funds 

It also provides this blurb about the  donations 1 million a year is certainly generous  when   the income form legacies is well in excess of this  

 and what is up with SPCA Aotearoa Limited   formed 30 Jun 2014

Why is there  no mention  of this in the 2015 annual report   or the  2016 annual report and why  were the societies  lawyers not involved in setting it up  and  just Mr Trainer  a director  with the SPCA  Auckland sole share holder .. Odd I thought

Back to Taupo

Geoff has now called a SGM to   give a perception of  legitimacy to the  resolution to become  one SPCA yet  in three years has  not called an AGM and has  actually been  obstructive in allowing members to contact each other  so that the members  themselves could  arrange for an AGM and elect a new committee.

It appears that  with all these  high  flyers involved   that  the SPCA  is actually the   entity taking over the RNZSPCA  branches and its member societies . I personally  believe  that this is to expand the  Inspectorate   and  enforce the  strict liability offences under the act.  It will be licence to print money .

At the meeting  Andrea,  You attempted to  strike fear into the  gathering by telling the  people that   as employers of inspectors the  individual societies would have to mitigate  significant  health and safety issues  , but why have an inspectorate at all  ? the police can be called up on to assist in any instance of animal welfare  concerns

Every constable is, by virtue of his or her office, deemed to be an inspector appointed to act generally throughout New Zealand for the general purposes of this Act.

It appears to me  that this is all about money, the   involvement of   former Ernst and young Tax accountants  and their lawyer friends prove  this  to me   and   from a personal perspective I am concerned that funds that  have been given to a local SPCA’s  for  animal welfare in the area  are  being misappropriated for  uses other than   for which it was donated. I  therefore believe that this  is not about  animal this is about power and control .

It is not as if the  SPCA is broke  the money has been shifted side ways into  trusts another example is  the Waikato SPCA  has been closed yet its money has been moved side ways

On the other hand  the local branches are  being lumbered with financial   obligations by the RNZSPCA  such as the wages of   the likes of Geoff Sutton   and work which was previously done by Volunteers.

Waikato has  had a trust which  had the Waikato branch as a trustee, it was later removed  and that trust has been  struck off and  presumably transferred its funds to a similarly named trust  see THE WAIKATO SPCA TRUST  and SPCA WAIKATO TRUST BOARD some where in this transaction  some $400,000  has   been  whisked  away from the  branch  see There is profit in animals .. or why is the RNZSPCA restructuring and what is Neil Wells connection. and The Waikato SPCA is being forced to close as it struggles with financial woes.

How much of the 25 million  sitting in the  Auckland SPCA account was actually given to Waikato , but because lawyers were unaware the money has ended up in the one and only nest egg

I think it is time for a massive audit  before you start   winding up smaller  entities  due to financial pressures.

As the person who  is  fronting this  ” amalgamation ”  I am asking you Andrea to make certain that   it is all   above board. There is no rush, by creating   urgency you could be   the whole country up for one massive  financial scam.

I will be happy to publish any explanation you give.

The future  of animal welfare in New Zealand hinges on your integrity  will you do the right thing ?

The dangers of one SPCA

The SPCA  is  voting on the One SPCA concept this week this is their power point

One SPCA Regional Meetings Master All Centres

Neil Wells has worked  hard over the years to change the structure of the  SPCA ,

in  a job application he proudly states

Undertaking a constitutional reform of the SPCA as National President of the Royal New Zealand SPCA by drawing 45 independent SPCAs into a national society, and as National Director by establishing the first National Office in Auckland.

this was just prior to  drafting the animal welfare act and in the act provided only for  the RNZSPCA to have  the ability to   employ inspectors . His intent appeared to be  that he would be training the inspectors  and  thus have control over enforcement and provide himself with $$$$ .

That was phase one  they are now  working on Phase 2

Over the past few years he has been   amalgamating  SPCAs and when he became chair man of te Kuiti  he set about changing the name of the  SPCA  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

In the brief time that Wells was chairman of the Te Kuiti SPCA he purchased a building . this property has now been sold  at an apparent loss .

the interesting thing is that  he purchased it from his neighbours  Wells lives at 1308  and the previous owners of the building live at 1338 

 

see title documents here Comprehensive Title and Transaction Report

The previous owners were  Sstjnr Limited  owned by Steven Henry RICKARDS and Sarah Edith RICKARDS 

We have to question how it was sold as the local  Te Kuiti branch appears not  to have had any involvement. No meeting of the members was called when the chair walked out , the  RNZSPCA simply walked in and took over

Why is it so dangerous for  the spca  to have control.

Look at the legislation which Neil wells advised on and drafted.

the concern of  the  attorney general  with the  first bill was that it infringed on the bill of rights see here 

the  new legislation  now states

13Strict liability

(1)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.

(1A)In a prosecution for an offence against section 12 committed after the commencement of this subsection, evidence that a relevant code of welfare was in existence at the time of the alleged offence and that a relevant minimum standard established by that code was not complied with is rebuttable evidence that the person charged with the offence failed to comply with, or contravened, the provision of this Act to which the offence relates.

(2)Subject to subsection (3), it is a defence in any prosecution for an offence against section 12 if the defendant proves—

(a)that, in relation to the animal to which the prosecution relates, the defendant took,—

(i)in the case of an offence against section 12(a), all reasonable steps to comply with section 10; or

(ii)in the case of an offence against section 12(b), all reasonable steps to comply with section 11; or

(iii)in the case of an offence against section 12(c), all reasonable steps not to commit a breach of section 12(c); or

(b)that the act or omission constituting the offence took place in circumstances of stress or emergency, and was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or

(c)that there was in existence at the time of the alleged offence a relevant code of welfare and that the minimum standards established by the code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

(3)Except with the leave of the court, subsection (2) does not apply unless, within 7 days after the service of the summons, or within such further time as the court may allow, the defendant has delivered to the prosecutor a written notice—

(a)stating that the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2); and

(b)specifying—

(i)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(a), the reasonable steps that the defendant will claim to have taken; or

(ii)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(b), the circumstances of stress or emergency, and the reasons why the act or omission was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or

(iii)where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(c), the relevant code of welfare that was in existence at the time of the alleged offence, and the facts that show that the minimum standards established by that code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

Section 13(1A): inserted, on 19 December 2002, by section 4 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 53).

This means  that an inspector can make   allegations based on their opinion   and   unless you  file a defence within 7 days  you   are  guilty  

No other legislation in New Zealand has such a draconian   provision  ,  this is legislation written   to  provide $$$$$$$$

 

 

Smear campaigns a well practiced form of attack

History often repeats  and the  view is frequently clearest when looking back

The SPCA’s Public relations officer mentioned in the article along side is now none other than Mrs Christine Wells

from the events of this last week   and of the past 11 years I can see a trend emerging.   Neil Wells Good ..Grace Haden    Bad.

By smearing a person  and throwing a lot of mud  there is  the  hope that some of it will stick  and people do tend to say  where there is smoke there is fire , well sometimes  the apparition of the fire is actually a smoke screen.

Mud slinging can only be addresses with truth  and facts  and so often the person doing he slinging  does so to keep the focus off himself.

To look at what Mr Wells has been involved in  we need to look at the trusts which he  has operated with total  disregard of the law.

You have to remember that  He was a barrister  , by definition and officer of the court and a person  legally charged to uphold the rule of Law in New Zealand

Fundamental obligations of lawyers

Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

we have seen Neil Wells CV   it makes no mention   of the NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH  of which Neil Wells was a trustee

In 2006 when  donation flyers were being sent out By Neil Wells  via Wyn Hoadley soliciting donations he claimed  in June 2006 that AWINZ administers the NZ fund for Humane research ( lord Dowding fund )

The reality was that all those involved in the  NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH were either dead or believed that the  fund had been  wound up  , except Neil wells who was still soliciting  donations for this  long forgotten trust

The Lord Dowding fund  was  not even administers by the  NEW ZEALAND FUND FOR HUMANE RESEARCH but by Mrs Heather through a  trust called BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED In 2000 it was struck off but still had  well over $100,ooo  in its coffers  which Neil Wells Solicits  for his fictional AWINZ in  2005   the letter is found here

Interestingly enough the  bank account  at  the national bank mount Albert  only had one signatory  and had no trust deed associated with it. the one signatory was  Neil Wells. He assures the secretary  that ” Any funds from The Lord Dowding Fund would be kept as a special trust fund within AWINZ to be applied according to the original tenets of the Fund.”  Signed By Neil Wells Trustee . The reality is that AWINZ had no legal existence   it  did not have trustees  and it did not operate as a trust  it was like   The fund for humane research  something Neil Wells took upon himself to call a trust .

as mentioned earlier the Lord Dowding fund  was used to sue me  the  charities records show  how  the sum has changed  over the years  from 98,000   to   22,000  yet Neil wells has  some how made a personal profit of 57,000 and not repaid the  money he used to sue me .

the interesting thing is that  the trust which  obtains the money doesn’t  legally exist  and there are so many holes in this  trust structure that a truck  would  fall through.

The origins of AWINZ .

Neil Wells   after leaving  the world society quits in a row over the kaimanawa horses  see the decision here  and sets up shop as solicitor sole, I suspect that he found  business slow and approaches Waitakere city council to  work on a project to amalgamate dog and stock control with animal welfare .

In the defamation hearing  in 2007 Neil wells falsely claimed that the council  had approached him with regards to amalgamating the two functions  but the  documents I have  clearly prove that  he  misled the court  on this point  ( and many others )  I call it perjury .

IN 1994 he  approaches  the Waitakere city council  with his idea of  combining  animal welfare and animal control and suggests to the council that they could set up an SPCA type organisation.

His no 1 accomplice Tom Didovich   the  manager of dog control in Waitakere  helps push the   venture  see 

Neil Wells has taken some initiatives with respect to enhancing our animal welfare services by proposing the establishment of a pilot programme whereby our staff fulfill the role of animal welfare inspectors by providing an SPCA type operation.

Wells quickly turns this into  lobbying for  new animal welfare legislation 

In a parallel move  Wells  promotes himself as  a ” consultant for Waitakere city council ” To Maf  David Bayvel  who he knows well and has already  done groundwork with .

While on the one hand  Wells  claims to be acting as ” consultant ”  on the other  he is  looking at ways  to make  money for himself  by facilitating the interface between animal control and animal welfare 

This point is not  lost on the  the SPCA who  write 

By august that  95 council officers were appointed as Inspectors .

Neil Wells then  lobby’s councils up and down the country to   encourage them to  consider his proposal  this is a sample letter   he does this using a very impressive letter head which is just a pseudonym for himself .

By mid January 1996 less than two weeks after  sending a proposal to councils over the holiday period , he has put together his business plan for the territorial animal welfare authority

Neil Wells  gets Didovich to prepare a ” blurb sheet to make it appear that  this is an initiative of the council

but by 1997  the local government  NZ  lets it be  known that they are not supportive of Wells idea

During this time  Wells  is busy writing new legislation to facilitate his plan and  in september 1997 the Hodgson bill is produced     Wells has inserted a new  clause providing for  Territorial bodies to be compliance  Bodies

The No 1 bill is rejected as it   infringes on the bill of rights , the powers which wells was  seeking for the inspectors  appear to be draconian  and so  A second bill is  introduced   and  the two bills are integrated into one, Neil Wells is taken on as the  ” independent adviser to the select committee .  He does this without declaring his conflict of interest.

In September 1997 the Hodgson bill was referred to us. The Government decided to introduce its own bill to remedy laps in that bill and in earlier Government policy work on
animal welfare decided that it would be more effective and efficient to consider the two bills together, and delayed consideration of the Hodgson bill in order to do this.

In early 1998   Wells promotes the concept of a trust     and suggests that the council be  involved  and provides a flow of  funds  diagram he appears to make this move to circumvent the intention of the legislation following the introduction of the second bill.

Wells has already preempted the formation of a trust and tom Didovich then pushes this to council 

While the bill is  still being discussed Wells  liaises with various people   to  overcome any hurdles that the  legislation may throw up 

He first comes up with the name AWINZ  in Mid 1998  while the legislation is still being drafted and he states

For this exercise let’s assume that there will be a new charitable trust formed, independent of Waitakere City, to be known as the
Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ). AWINZ could be that national body and would be responsible to MAF Reg through a memorandum of understanding or contract.

….It is possibly premature to propose Part 2 at this stage as there needs to be a little more certainty in terms of what is in the Bill, when will AWINZ be up and running, what transitional  procedures can be used for Waitakere City.

He presents and advisory board  document    and attaches a draft trust deed   , he  alleges that this trust will be set up by the council and The founding trustees will be appointed by the Waitakere city council 

He gets Didovich to gather people the criteria being  that they should be  well know to  give the trust ” credibility ”   and so some people are called together  and Wells is paid for their meeting.

Wells again take advantage of year end and sends the   unexecuted deed to Maf 

It has to be noted that  the deed  makes it clear that Waitakere city  is allegedly a trustee under the deed

You may have noted that crucial events take place at christmas time  this is a very good tactic as things get rushed through or overlooked.

More to come  about the AWINZ  trust deception and why Neil Wells is so fearful that one day  some one may believe me

In the mean time  I found the evidence that wells brought the  independent SPCA’s together   in  a job application at waitakere city council  he states

Undertaking a constitutional reform of the SPCA as National President of the Royal New Zealand SPCA by drawing 45 independent SPCAs into a national society, and as National Director by establishing the first National Office in Auckland.

Interestingly with this job application he does not disclose to Waitakere city council his gross conflict of interest   that by taking the  position he will be contracting to himself 

but that is the nature of  the beast