Copy of letter to Vivienne Holm -Policy analyst – land information NZ –

Vivienne  You could have made a massive difference to  many lives by  asking questions in 2006 , instead I felt bullied by you  when you  concealed the corruption that was AWINZ.

AWINZ  was not   just any old organisation  there were only two private law enforcement organisations in New Zealand , AWINZ was one of them ( RNZSPCA the other )   AWINZ did not exist  you covered it up  and  12 years latter are still on the attack . I have had enough.

The purpose of this open letter is to get  some  issues into the open , you are a policy analyst employed by the  government directly  as a contractor  and  apparently as an employee For LINZ.

You are reportedly a lobbyist  and as such I see the  connection between  you and Wells .

see Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

As such it is in the public interest that you  act  with integrity and  that your actions are exposed .

As to integrity  it is my   professional opinion is that your  does not reach the threshold for a public servant  It is my considered opinion that a person with integrity would not seek to  damage some ones reputation  so that  corruption could be  concealed.

I am no longer a private Investigator , you are very much the reason for this, by  giving up  my career I am free from the constraints of the Private security Licencing authority ( PSPLA)which I believe you and your associates have been stirring up for years  in an attempt to discredit me . You say so  yourself in the complaint to the pspla COMPLAINT DATED 23 JANUARY 2018

Your  complaint in January   was in my opinion  totally  malicious and vexatious  yet I was  supposed  to travel to Wellington  the following week  so that you   could have a go at me in person  at a ” disciplinary ”  hearing.  presumably for the  defamation claim     you were setting me up for.

You have also   alleged that you are preparing  a defamation prosecution  but refuse to say how I have defamed you  or given an opportunity  to  make a correction  .I stand by everything I say as truth and Honest opinion .

In short your  actions  with  the PSPLA  appears to me to  have been  for no other reason that to bully and intimidate me .

I have never met you Vivienne  but for the past 12 years you have been beavering away in the  background to conceal serious government corruption . I suspect the link  with Neil Wells was that you   both advised on Policy and there appear secrets which need to be  kept , Like   protecting corruption rather than exposing it .

Last year I suspected  that Neil Wells was  the  corrupt barrister   who  is mentioned in this  decision for ripping off his client and then charging 7 grand to find the  money he  took , perhaps that unsettled you  because you   had gone all out to defend him  and  spent years with your former husband persecuting me, taking me to court for defamation when I was speaking the truth   but  by denying me  the  right  to a fair trial and a defence   you influenced the court and  a most defamatory judgement of me  emerged when the  judge believed the spin  the lies and  misinformation Nick Wright  put to the  court.

The  resulting Judgement has served you well     and has been rolled out by you and your mates for 12 years to create a false impression  that I am a nasty person, and you are the one who complains of defamation !  You have done everything you can    they should not believe my allegations of corruption.  It has worked so  far but then you  thought I would have given up by now , No I have not .  with the spotlight on  rape  or sexual violation    you will be next    this is  like being abused for 12 years   .

I suspect that  in fearing  that the tide was turning, you  made a complaint  against My Private Investigators licence , it was malicious vexatious  and as a result I have  given up  my licence as  it was obviously the draw card for your ongoing  attacks  by those I suspect that you have encouraged to  make complaints against me. Free from the PSPLA   I  have eliminated that  avenue for harassment .

You  first approached me at  9.45 Pm on Friday 2nd june  2006  you rang my home number   and told me  to change the name of the  legal trust which I was a trustee of  or you would make certain I would lose My Private investigator licence  , you followed this up   with  an email at 11 pm making  similar threats .

You were working from your home as a law clerk  at the time for Brookfields  which your then Husband Nick Wright was a partner  of  .

You now falsely  claim that you had a practicing certificate  but the law society  investigations  Here  and the decision here  prove  otherwise .

there is evidence that  you  lied to the  PSPLA when you said “I was not working as a law clerk in 2006.I was a lawyer. I had been a lawyer for about ten years, since late 1996.” this    reflects on your level of  integrity

One  has to wonder  why Neil Wells a Barrister  and Wyn Hoadley  a barrister  would instruct a resource management law clerk working from home on an alleged defamation matter  and why she is now rewriting the past about her   status as a law clerk. !

The trust which I was a  trustee of was the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  now called the  ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST, we had incorporated it to prove conclusively  that no other  legal entity existed by that name. The purpose of this was to support our suspicions that   the Approved Organisation  by the same name was a fraud.  see here Lifting the lid on lobbying in politics ..When lobbyists are handed control

You and Nick Wright contorted that to be something quite sinister alleging  that we were  competitors trading on the name and seeking to deprive   Wells of donations .  You had the ability to twist facts then   that skill you apparently have retained .

This post has been amended to remove the honest opinion of the writer at the time,  the writer now believes that  Vivienne Holm is helping to expose this corruption by giving her an opportunity  to  call all witnesses to court to address the defamation claim brought By Holm  . We are grateful for this opportunity and  apologize for the harsh words we used when  we  were pushed into a situation of  having defamation threats  made against us while having to  go to Wellington to be cross examined by the person making litigation threats. Documents in support as attached   .submissions in response and emails coa

Vivienne  Holm claims that “There was nothing unusually in my phone call or emails to Mrs Haden. In fact, forewarning people that you are about to take action against them unless is the ethical thing to do”  Really!  at 9.45 pm at night   when   this is what  the law society reported in their finding 

So why  not simply hang up  when I answered or say  sorry wrong number  but you went on to intimidate  and followed it up with threatening  emails  at 11 pm on Friday night!  You  used the names Vivienne Parre and Vivienne Wight at the time  you now use  Vivienne Holm and the email address karen161970@hotmail.com which I presume is  your middle name and date of birth ( not very clever )

You  never took any notice of  the letter  which the   registrar sent you in reply to  your complaint  see here 

You may not be aware of the significance of this  but when Neil Wells wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act he did so to facilitate his own business plan

AWINZ did not exist  despite the fact that Neil Wells had talked about it since  at least 1998 , Tom Didovich  was  working on this fraud with him  and paid for  the recruitment of trustees from council funds invoice-re-trustees  see also this file

In his application for coercive law enforcement powers on behalf of AWINZ   Neil Wells wrote on 22  november 1999

Now apparently, according to  you ,   I am a person of limited intelligence so I am asking you as a Policy analyst what   you think  a “charitable trust has been formed by way of trust deed ” means ?

I think that it means that a trust exists, don’t you ?  well  it might surprise you that when Neil Wells  made this application   it was three months  before the date   of the trust deed  he produced in 2006. The deed was “missing “until  june 2006 when miraculously there were two  ( but they were not the same )

Perhaps you can explain the legalities of a   group of people  applying for law enforcement powers through a trust which  does not exist and  does not have a deed,

How did the  trustees   pass a resolution  to  apply for   law enforcement powers ?

how  does the law of contracts apply in this instance  what liability would  there be  for the individuals in running such an organisation ..   NONE cause they were not involved

why did wells have to explain to these same trustees in 200  what being an approved organisation  meant, surely they would have known they  allegedly ran one for   6 years .. or did they ?

In correspondence to the minister   Neil Wells wrote in 2000.

A person such  as myself who according to your slanderous comment  has   ” limited intellectual capabilities”  this means  that

  1. there is a trust deed
  2. it has a clause 20 (a)  see the trust deed he produced   it only goes to 19   there is no 20  or 20 (a)
  3. there is only one copy( because if there had been two he could have sent a copy of the other one )
  4. It is  not available because the original has been sent  for registration .(  he knowe that only copies were sent  he lied )

The reality is that Neil Wells  deliberately lied to the minister  not one of those statements is true .

Wells knew how to incorporate a trust and there by  become a body corporate   ( for your information that is the process by which it becomes a legal person  in its own right and has existence  apart from the trustees )  Wells had incorporated two  just months earlier  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD  and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD

He knew that only copies  of the deed  were sent  and  in 2006  we had not only one trust deed we had two.. but wait for it they were  different  version 1  and version 2 

Version 2 was sent  to MAF  , the  front page and the signature pages are original and the middle  pages have been switched out.. Do policy  analysts  care about that, is that acceptable ? do you condone  that ?   are you fit to be a policy analyst ?Are you safe in a public role ?

All these things have been pointed out to you and Nick Wright over the  years but you and him  continued your vexatious attacks on me.

Have you not read section  4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act .. your duty is to the  rule of law   you were  an officer of the court , but you have stayed out of things  so that it would not reflect on your practicing certificate  you  are cunning .

You prepared the statement of claim  and Nick Wright  your ex husband another resource management lawyer took the matter to court  the intention was to get me to shut up and to change the name of our trust so that Neil Wells could cover up, it did not work   I wont be bullied

In my book that is using the law for an improper purpose . The law  society did not deal with you because it all happened in 2006  when the old legal practitioner legislation was still in place see the decision here Holm Decision 

It obviously became too much for Nick when he  became a committed patient  but despite this he continued to practice  law until  june 2011 when he was still acting past that date  despite not having a practicing certificate 

Nick  has now left law , I was particularly taken  with  the poem he read on his face book page  about the  wheels of sharp weapons returning.. so true

Getting back to you and your complaint   I fully addressed this with the private security Licensing authority  , But no matter what I  said the matter was set down for a ” disciplinary hearing ” even before  you had served papers on me   MY response   is here 

When ever you submit  more  information you introduce more  misinformation and childish action   as can be seen in your  Vivienne Holm submissions in reply

On the one hand you are complaining that I was inaccurate,   for the  first time since 2011  you allege that there is an  issue, then when I  correct it for  you, you    scream to the PSPLA  .. “she has changed it  she is disobeying  the pspla.”

For the record the PSPLA had no authority over me and my blogs they are not part of my private investigators business, In reality there is no difference to  the situation with Wyn Hoadley   see the decision re her  Hoadley decision  and her response Hoadley response

I have no legal  obligation to the PSPLA with regards to my actions  for companies which were not under my PI licence .

You are  right  not to  respond to   my  submissions, to do so would  cause you to put your foot in it further .

If you think I am defaming you   tell me   how and where      , too may of the complaints to the PSPLA  are too similar  you have been  there all along  ensuring that I am never out of court.   How childish can you get  for  the allegations about me speaking to your kids    They came to the door  in 2006  I asked for their mother..  you even managed to make that sound like  the crime of the century .

Not long after I  had an anonymous complaint  to the PPLA from Suzie Dawson  who coincidentally  claimed I had used  those same frightful words when her daughter answered the phone .. Have I been set up or what Suzie Dawson a blast from the past may she fare well in Russia

I will not give up until You are  convicted     as a lawyer  your obligation was to the rule of law  you  have been a lawyer off an on since   since 1996  you cannot plead ignorance  and I have every reason to believe  that  you have   coordinated the attacks on  me  to discredit me

It all started with the   Statement of claim which you  and your then husband Nick Wright  filed   for the  fictional AWINZ

The very first  paragraph to the court   is a lie   and the lies  just get better as they go along, there was no need to prove any of this   Nick just stood there  and lied  i was denied a defence  and that is called JUSTICE !

You did not check to see if AWINZ existed  You had evidence that we had legitimate  trust  had body corporate status  but you  gave the fictional AWINZ life by calling it  AWINZ 2000, in terms of corruption  you take the cake

Neil Wells  conspired with  MAF to ensure that information was withheld  until after the  court proceedings were concluded, he was then advised that the information was being released  this  vital evidence included the audit report  which  proved that AWNZ was a sham .

This  was later  confirmed by Neil Wells to the law society  with this letter 

What is missing is that  the application for  approved status under the legislation which Wells had written  and advised on , was made  by AWINZ  on 22 November 1999.  so how could  trustees who have not formed a trust make such an application  ?

Quite clearly that application was not made by these trustees  only Wells signature was on the  application . AWINZ was treated by MAF and crown law to be a legal entity  in its own right . as you can see the  signatory of this crown law  opinion is none other than the solicitor for MPI  Peter Mc Carthy

the trust deed   which first  saw daylight  in 2006 after being reported missing at an alleged meeting  on  10 May  states  that the trustees  required to be reappointed after three years

the  alleged trustees of this  2000 trust did not  hold assets ,, no bank account existed until 2005    and no  meeting had occured  since it inception despite requiring to have four meetings per year . Perhaps you  can tell me how this fits in with a legitimate trust ?

Wyn Hoadley in her response to the law society Hoadley response  states ” I had been approached several years prior to this by Mr Neil Wells regarding my possible involvement with AWINZ.”  this again proves that AWINZ was nothing more than Neil Wells , how can one person  make such decisions without the other trustees in a properly run trust ?
Wyn Hoadley goes on to say 

So this  woman   who is supposedly a Barrister  seeks legal advice from a  resource management  law clerk working from HOME ! Yes they did expect it to be resolved  quickly because the tool of resolution was intimidation  your specialty

Wyn Hoadley also  falsely claims that  AWINZ  resolved to seek  professional legal advice .. so where is the resolution   it is not in the   minutes!  

Wyn  was also not appointed by any legal  method   she was appointed??? under a section which does not appear in the trust deed   and at a time the deed was missing.. so what was she   binding herself into ????  would you become a trustee of a trust when you don’t know what the terms are ????   it simply defies belief.  These people are lawyers  !!!!!! or should I say Liars

By writing this open letter I will give you the opportunity to  address the   malicious attack on me  which you state in  paragraphs 22 and 23  of your complaint , ie  to  take away  any credibility my PI licence could  give.

The good news   is that  a PI licence doesn’t give any credibility , take  Translegal   and its  director  Gary Swan for example they  have a PI licence   yet  swear affidavits of service for fictional document services , that is something  which is apparently condoned .see this  and these Translegal document server jailed .      Translegal services NZ ltd contracts criminals to serve documents.

Nor  does my PI licence give me any powers, the ability to find addresses,attention to detail   and ability to  find  information  is a skill I have,   a skill which apparently you  lack despite  you claiming that I have ” limited Intellectual capabilities ” the skill you have is in my opinion  in being a corrupt  former lawyer  specialising in intimidation  and  discrediting  people to  win at any cost.

I will be happy to publish any comment you wish to make    By not replying  within 5 days you are  confirming to the accuracy of this post

 

Historical references  https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/3122-parre-and-canwest-radioworks-ltd-2005-016

Samuel North Convicted of directing a Phoenix company

On 1 March 2018, Samuel North appeared at Wellington District Court in front of Judge Mill for his sentencing indication.

Judge Mill indicated the matter was of moderate seriousness and that a community based sentence would be imposed.

Samuel  North accepted the sentence indication and entered guilty pleas to two charges of being a director of a phoenix company.

Samuel  North was convicted and sentenced to 200 hours of community work.

We believe that Samuel is now working   at the Petone ale house  hopefully all those  owed  money by him  will be repaid

 

 

 July 9 2015   Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

August 27 2015 Muse on Allen a case study of the dangers of NZ companies

August 28 2015 Muse on Allen limited lack of compliance with the companies act-OIA

March 6 2016 Muse Eatery & Bar – a Phoenix rising ?

September  7 2016 Muse Eatery is it or is it not connected to Muse on Allen ?or what does this say about Samuel Norths integrity ?

February  4 2018 The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

February  21 2018 Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

March 1 2018   Convicted

386ADirector of failed company must not be director, etc, of phoenix company with same or substantially similar name

(1)Except with the permission of the court, or unless one of the exceptions in sections 386D to 386F applies, a director of a failed company must not, for a period of 5 years after the date of commencement of the liquidation of the failed company,—

(a)be a director of a phoenix company; or
(b)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the promotion, formation, or management of a phoenix company; or
(c)directly or indirectly be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of a business that has the same name as the failed company’s pre-liquidation name or a similar name.

(2)A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out insection 373(4).

Muse Eatery Catering Limited Samuel North liquidators first report

The liquidators first report has been released  for catering limited the company which ran Muse eatery , it can be found  here 

The liquidators Palliser  were appointed  by resolution of the shareholder.  The shareholder HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED 

is a trust into which  Samuel North transferred his assets  and his  share holding  in catering limited   22 April 2016  .

Samuel   has  done his apprenticeship in   companies and   when He was investigated  in 2015  it was revealed that he had breached some 30 companies act provisions.

But the  companies act  does not appear to be  well enforced and even    while  Samule was opperating what in our opinion ( based on a truck load of evidence )  was  a  Phoenix company.

It comes as a bit of a surprise that  the liquidator    states  that there are no assets ,    we have to  ask what was it then that was removed from the premises and captured on film .

There was a flat  deck truck belonging to Bramco   and  another truck    belonging to castle  parcels  DDF 834 

and  at least two other cars  ERQ249   and  KKF271

what did they take away thin air ?

the creditors are listed as

ASB Bank PO Box 35 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Carrello del Gelato PO Box 6818 Marion Square Wellington, 6141
CPC (New Zealand) Limited PO Box 90535 Victoria Street West Auckland, 1142
Deloitte Accountants 115033 Auckland, 1140
EVEVE New Zealand Limited PO Box 3992 Shortland Street Auckland, 1140
Executive Laundry WellingtonLimited 9 Sydney Street Petone Lower Hutt, 5012
Farm Fresh Distributors Limited 128d Park Road Miramar Wellington
Fish Factory Limited PO Box 68-409 Newton Auckland
Gilmours Wellington PO Box 38891 Wellington Mail Centre Wellington, 5045
Lee Fish New Zealand Limited PO Box 33077 Taka puna Auckland, 0740
Mediaworks Radio Limited PO Box 11441 Manners Street Wellington, 6142
Mediterranean Foods (WGTN) Limited Street 42 Constable Newtown Wellington, 6021                                                                                                      Nova Energy Po Box 404 Whakatane, 3158
Powershop NZ PO Box 7651 Newtown Wellington, 6242
Regional Wine and Spirits 15 Ellice Street Mount Victoria Wellington, 6011Private Bag 92
Rentokil Initial Limited 905 Onehunga Auckland, 1643
Six Barrel Soda Company PO Box 11884 Manners Street Wellington
T Leaf Limited PO Box 33139 Petone Lower Hutt, 5046
The Clareville Bakery Limited 3340 SH2 Clareville Carterton, 5713
Waste Management PO Box 204253 High brook Auckland,2161

We note that this list does not include grab one or groupon   who were still selling ” deals”  after  the doors closed

We hope that those    who attend the watershed meeting appoint their own liquidator

Liquidators have an obligation  to report   potential  breaches of legislation ,   we will be   very  happy to assist .

We hope that some one looks for the truck loads of assets  which Samuel  spirited away .

Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

 Just three weeks after  Samuel North closed the  doors to Muse eatery   the company catering Limited which  operated the business muse eatery  has  gone into liquidation  .

It would appear that the share holder

HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand

has placed the company into liquidation  and appointed their own liquidators .

Samuel North was the share holder of the company but   moved  the share holding into a trust in  april 2016  .  It has all been very predictable  and North continued to sell Grab one   and groupon deals  even after he knew he was closing, we  believe that this is  fraudulent.

Our suggestion is that if you  are owed money that you  attend the liquidators  watershed  meeting  when it is announced and  ensure that independent  liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one  appointed by North )   .

When a company  appoints its own liquidators  the  liquidation is   likely not to be  as transparent  or fair as it would be  if the liquidator is working for  a creditor .

It is our honest opinion  that the Liquidators will   sell on the   Chattels, at a nominal price and  the phoenix will  fly again   when North purchases them .

Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and  it is believed that many of its  assets actually belonged to muse.

We have  been contacted  by many persons   who are  owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are  former staff members who  have unresolved  grievances .

Samuel north has removed the  face book page, the  linked in page  and the web site .

samuel north _ LinkedIn

samuel north _ LinkedIn messages

samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators

samuel north _ LinkedIn 2

Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn

the old web site is still viewable  here 

Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.

Any one knowing  where North is please send an email to us through our comment section  and we will share the information  but will keep your  details confidential

We will happily  collate information to  ensure that Justice is  done

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation

Update

Samuel North  has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz>   and is bleating defamation

We Hope the   barrister gets  paid .

Malcolm North from the ministry of social development , Bullies us again

An email  from Malcolm North  has been  forwarded to me, it  is grossly defamatory  and bullying and  alleges  that Samuel terminated his lease.  we would like to hear from any one at MSD ( ministry of  social development), is he also a bully at work  because he certainly is in emails, again speculating and threatening  by stating ” I have spoken to xxxxxx employer about his behaviour so don’t expect him to be employed for much longer‘ it is noted that his email had this  disclaimer ——————————- This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry. ——————————-” does that indicate that he sent the email from the ministy of social developments servers and using his Muserestaurant email address.  Not a good look

But getting back to the statement   that Samuel terminated his lease, this  generally requires a ” notice period ” so when di dhe give notice and how did this  line up with the  Grab one and groupon offers? https://new.grabone.co.nz/restaurants-bars-cafes/european-restaurants/p/muse-eatery-and-bar-13   and   https://www.grouponnz.co.nz/deals/muse-bar-and-eatery   

the pdf   copies downloaded tonight are  here  Muse Eatery and Bar • GrabOne NZ and here    Muse Eatery & Bar – Up To 60% Off – Wellington _ Groupon

We first heard the rumour that Muse was closing on the 18th  January , this is  just 10 days after   the   deals were offered on line  .  If you have an uncertain future   then 10 days out would you offer  deals . These offers are valid till end of march and  early april  as shown on the PDF’s  so where are they  going to  be honoured if  Samuel knew all along that he had  terminated  the  lease .

at least 80 people  spent $99  on groupon  =$7,920    at least  10 people  spent $195  on groupon  =$1,950   total $9,870

86 people bought the  grab one deal at $69 =5,934  total for the two deals potentially outstanding  $15,804

We look forward to hearing from the landlord.   The land lord in Allen street was left out of pocket according to liquidators papers  time will tell if  the name of this land lord will ultimately  appear on the liquidation papers for catering company .

The web page which   was paid up  until the 16 th February was pulled  5 February and now defaults to  the web serves page , The face book page was taken down   last week .So if the web page and Face book pages were pulled  why not pull these deals ?   Why  leave them up why no formal announcement .

We have  heard from  reliable  sources  that  there  are substantial  debts .

Any one out of pocket  with a provable  debt please contact us we are coordinating  a group action .

we will keep you posted  we know there is more to come

The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

 Hard on the heals of  Five Boroughs  another  restaurant has closed its doors.

This one however  did not come as a surprise to us,  as rumours had been flowing freely that Samuel North was going to close the doors at the end of the month.

Transparency took the precaution of notifying  key people so that  the evidence of the intent was there .

This is not the first time that   boy wonder  Samuel  North has closed shop he did this with  Muse on Allen,  took all the   Branded crockery cutlery and any thing that was not tacked  down and started a new business leaving massive debts in his wake.

Our people in Wellington managed to capture the action  as it unfolded . we wonder

1.if the staff knew that they  would turn up for work and ind the contents  gone ,

2. If the land lord knew of if he is going to be out of pocket just like the last one

3. was the stuff  Samuels to take  he had  previously said it belonged to  the premises

4. where  was it all going

5. Are the grab ones  which are still being  sold going to be repaid ?

6. are  the groupons still going to be sold 

Guess these pictures will be of use for  the liquidator   we believe that once again IRD have  been left out of pocket ,well timed  Samuel  we believe that the 7th feb may have been D day for tax payment   so it appears that   to prevent   liquidators  recovering  assets  you have  got in  first.   we wonder where the next  phoenix will rise ? The company Muse eatery   traded under  wsa  Catering Limited.   The face book page for muse was pulled last week  .

Samuel was last seen   in the castle parcels van   shown below ..  he had a convoy  but  , Sam it was not  unseen. and . will you refund the   Grab ones ?  was it not a tad   fraudulent to keep selling them   when you  and every one else in wellington  ( it seems ) knew that you were going to  do a runner.

 

 

The secret Law Society Disciplinary Committees

Following on from the previous post

As we saw   the law society   nurtures and disciplines its own members, this  can be like the  mother of a very spoilt  child  , if the child is a favourite its a case  of  Now Johnny you go and be a good boy mummy will be very cross if you do that again .  or if  the child  is  not liked  a step  child or a foreign lawyer for example  then   there will be a crucifixion   so that a message is sent to the  others and to show that the system is working .

The  disciplinary side of the law society is  undertaken  through statute, the lawyers and conveyancers act .

The conflicting roles of the law society are set in statute .. statute is written by lawyers   and  as with the animal welfare  Act, there is concrete evidence that statutes are written  and advised on by lawyers .

(The animal welfare act , no 1 bill was written by Barrister Neil Wells  to facilitate his own business plan, he advised on this as independent advisor to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest   )

The resulting swiss cheese legislation has sufficient holes for the lawyers to crawl through  and evade the intention of the law.

section 65  sets out the  Regulatory functions 

The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—

(a)to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:

(b)to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:

(c)to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:

(d)to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:

(e)to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.

It is my experience that the  law society  is very poor at holding lawyers accountable to the rule of  Law    and that is where  our entire justice system falls  down . Close enough is not good enough , lawyers  are officers of the court and as such   have higher obligations to truth and honesty  than the average Joe Bloggs  , and we all know that  many lawyers  don’t know the definition of truth.

In a recent decision from the law society the society stated that

The lawyer is an agent for the client in conducting the client’s affairs. The lawyer is obliged to follow the instructions of the client where it is consistent with their professional duties. The lawyer has a duty of absolute loyalty to the client and may not have regard for the interests of third parties except insofar as they are consistent with his or her own instructions and relevant to the protection and promotion of the interests of his or her own client.”

This may be true  but  this is surely limited to   being an officer of the court first  this  is spelled out in  section 4  of the act

the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

This  to me at least makes it clear that the  lawyers primary obligations are to the court  and  he has a duty not to mislead the court or to use the court for an improper purpose .

Time and time again we see   that lawyers  are not being held accountable   to the rule of law  and because they know that  this particular bit of the rules is purposely overlooked they use it  to abuse the use of the court.

In these hard time of lawyers being paid upward of $250  per hour  its about winning ,  no matter how. When   a group of  people   are backing each other up and  no one is being  held accountable to the rule of law then  injustice   reigns.

As a result  it is our observation  that the new Zealand courts have become extremely unsafe .

When a lawyer  steps out of line the first step is to  make a complaint to the law society .

We made a complaint against a lawyer in April 2016, the  quote above came from the decision which was delivered by an anonymous group of people represented with the name and signature of only  one barrister who signed the decision  on 28 November 2017 .

Law  society  disciplinary  committees  are made up of up to seven lawyer members and two lay members , however  the standards committees appear to work   from a position of total anonymity aside from a requirement to notify the minister of the appointment 

Standards committees are set up under section  126  of the act , they appear to be  are totally anonymous  and  are in reality not a legal structure which is capable of being sued or suing,  but   they are regularly represented in court proceedings as if they have  every right of a legal or natural person .

Standard committees in effect are nothing more than  a trading name given to a  group of unidentified persons  , at best it is an unincorporated group and the  rules in law dictate that  they  should be treated as naming the individuals  as members of the what ever trust  or committee.

The decisions  of the committees are listed here look at them the  majority have the lawyers names anonymised despite the fact that many lawyers  who have come to their attention  have  committed real crimes and have never been held accountable  in  another court .

There is a good chance that the  lawyers on the   disciplinary committees   are connected to  the  lawyer  under review  due to them  belonging to a secondary alliance   whihc many law firms  have formed for example

 NZ LAW Limited which is according to the companies office  jointly owned by 55 lawyers , this  from this link 

This is not the only   law firm made up  of many others , there are also  LAW ALLIANCE NZ LIMITED 34 share holders   and LARGE LAW FIRMS GROUP LIMITED 9 share holders  and probably more .

All in all there is nothing at all transparent about  the disciplinary process  , it behind closed doors and as seen  with the example   takes  a very long time for a complain to come out the other end  1 year 7 months   in the example above .

the decision is delivered with this  note

Decisions of the Standards Committee must remain confidential between the parties unless the Standards Committee directs otherwise. The Standards Committee has made no such direction in relation to this matter.

But  despite the  fact that  they decide to back their lawyer members up  for not  complying with the rule of law  there is  an avenue open to appeal their decision  and that is through  the LCRO       and that is even more fascinating.. to be continued

 

Why the New Zealand justice system is prone to corruption

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

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

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

this from the  Courts of New Zealand web  page  

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

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

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

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

Of the 7 associate judges  four were recommended by Finlayson.

Appointment of judges in the UK 

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

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

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

The New Zealand Law society 

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

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

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

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

 

 

A tale of two companies Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited and Tamaki Regeneration Limited

There appears to be an awful lot of confusion with the  Tamaki Regeneration  project

first of all  the web site is called http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/ but the web site is owned by Tamaki Redevelopment Co

Tamaki redevelopment company limited was set up in in 2012 following the signing of a heads of agreement between auckland council and    two ministers of  the crown

Tamaki Redevelopment company was set up with share holding from the crown and   council and the shareholders adopted a Constitution this 31 page document was  drafted and filed by the company secretary  Simpson Grierson . The comprehensive constitution was amended in 2014 to this version Amendment of Constitution a 27 page document , we are uncertain as to the input of the crown shareholders into that document , it was again filed by the undefined  trading name  simpson Grierson .On 14 March 2016 the  constitution is replaced by the 25 page document  Revocation and Adoption of Constitution what is of note   is that this constitution unlike the two former ones has no obligation to the heads of agreement .

on 11 November 2015  Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  became the sole  share holder of a new company called Tamaki Regeneration  Limited and of a company called THA GP  Limited .

THA Gp limited subsequently became   the  general partner in a limited partnership  called Tamaki Housing association  Limited partnership (  19 january 2016)  these bodies remain as  subsidiaries of Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  and we will just put them to one side for now

we  will now look at   the  government  web sites and   special announcements

9 FEBRUARY, 2016 John Key  Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament

 In March this year, 2,800 Housing New Zealand homes will be transferred to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company.This will result in at least 7,500 new homes in that area over the next 10 to 15 years, of which more than a third will be for social housing.The transfer of Housing New Zealand properties to community housing providers in Invercargill and Tauranga will happen later this year.

 

25 FEBRUARY, 2016  Bill English Speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University – State of the Economy

The Tamaki Redevelopment Company will become the owner of 2,800 former Housing New Zealand houses at the end of March, which the company plans to redevelop into around 7,500 houses.

Note that  up to this stage the   housing new zealand stock was going to be transferred to Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited  which has   been abbreviated in correspondence as TRC

then on

31 MARCH, 2016   Bill English, Nick Smith Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed

The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Note that he states that the houses will go to Tamaki regeneration Limited, but he called it Tamaki Regeneration company  TRC.   He goes on to say

The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.

But  Tamaki Housing is a subsidiary of  Tamaki redevelopment company  limited  TRC not of Tamaki regeneration limited TRL  he then adds to the confusion and states

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Yes Tamaki Redevelopment company limited was set up to  lead the regeneration  programme     not TRL  which at this date  was   a subsidiary of TRC .

On 14 April the shares of Tamaki regeneration limited are increased from 100  to   1631161218 and the shareholders are updated Particulars of Shareholding

What is of concern is that it appears that the ministers   believe that  the  properties are going to the company of which council and  crown are the share holders , the company which was set up for the transformation project  the company which is the ultimate holding company for Tamaki Housing Limited partnership . but..

The reality  is that the  assets have gone to an entirely different company one which  the  crown had no input in to the constitution, a company which is a stand alone . 

Now let us look at the  annual reports of tamaki redevelopment company  Limited   this is the 2015 report note that the company is referred to  as TRC .

The annual report states

page 5

The New Zealand Cabinet agreed that the ownership and management of approximately 2,800 social homes currently held by Housing NZ in
Tāmaki will be transferred to TRC by 31 March 2016

Page 6

On 1 April 2016, TRC will own and manage all current social homes of approximately 2,800 in the Tāmaki area.

We are respectful of the responsibility and mandate provided to us by Shareholders to look after the most vulnerable families in our rohe. At the same time, this will be an opportunity to catalyse community led action and move at pace to achieve our objective of making Tāmaki an awesome place to live. 

and

Whilst Housing NZ and TRC have different mandates, the commitment by both organisations to ensure a seamless transfer and prepare TRC for
1 April 2016 is unwavering. 

In the  2016   annual report  the  confusion continues the report is entitled TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT 2016  .

page 2

TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC) HAS BEEN MANDATED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND AUCKLAND
COUNCIL, TO REPLACE 2500 SOCIAL HOUSES WITH 7500 MIXED-TENURE HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.

There is no such company as tamaki regeneration company  limited.  There is Tamaki regeneration Limited  company number 5840214 

and Tamaki redevelopment company limited 3937662

The name Tamaki regeneration company is  used twice   and in both  instances it is tied to the  abbreviation TRC

page 9

Tāmaki Regeneration Company will bring about transformational change to achieve four equally important objectives – social transformation, economic development, placemaking and housing resources.

Through its shareholders, the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council,TRC will replace 2500 social houses in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt. England and
Panmure creating 7500 mixed-tenure homes over a period of 10-15 years.

Tamaki regeneration limited  the  owner of the properties  has no share holding  of council

to add to the confusion on page 18  a  TRC legal group is created. a legal group  has no statutory definition or legal existence   .

Tamaki regeneration Limited is referred to as TRL  .  Through the annual report  references are made to the transfer of the properties to  TRC ( pages 6,10,12,23)   this is incorrect they  were transferred to TRL

The confusion is such  that  courts have been misled  with regards to ownership   see  Open letter to Robert Gapes Simpson Grierson

this has resulted in  a fundamentally flawed decision  due to the court  basing the decision on the   lawyer’s flawed  submission.  The lawyer a member of simpson Grierson law firm, the  company secretary   told the court that  Tamaki regeneration limites was a subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment company limited.   we ask How can a lawyer  and the company secretary  get it so wrong and what does this say about the integrity of the  management of the company’s affairs  by the secretary .

Of even greater concern is that  it appears that the Ministers  and   treasury were not involved in the setting up of this new crown entity  and had no input into the constitution.

Considering the fact that 2800  houses were transferred into this company of mixed identity and dubious origins  it is something that  we the public need to be concerned about

we note that in the  2015  annual report Mr Holyoake page 6  states “TRC and its partners must also own the lapses or mistakes.”   we therefore hope that   full transparency is applied and that  this  mess is  corrected to remove  any   doubt as to  who had a mandate to receive the houses  and how they came to be in the possession of a company other than the one  Government intended the stock to go to .

We note that  several of the directors are property developments  and one states as his  interests ” Potential development opportunities in and around Glen Innes”  an other lists directorship in Tāmaki Investment Trust Company Ltd

To those who care about   crown assets  it would appear that  foxes are guarding the  hen house   we have to ensure that they   do not  get fat  and  accountability and transparency is how we wish to achieve that .

 

The state of corruption : New Zealand

Further open letter to David Mc Neill  Corruption , Whistleblowers  and Transparency

David,

Since responding to your reply  to  my first open letter  a number of people have approached me and  have asked me to put questions to   you as a director of transparency  International .

Could you  any  one else from Transparency International NZ please respond  with your observations

You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you  ask  “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”

These statements indicate to me that  you  and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.

it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells

   it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed  and  about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when  issues of corruption are brought to their attention   .

Unfortunately  Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt  Public service in the world , if this was the case I would  still expect to  find corruption   but I would  expect that there were  policies and  methods  in place throughout  the  public sector which would ensure integrity   and  systems of accountability .

Jose Ugay  , your international president used an equation  which I have been fond of

Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .

If you were to apply this to our public sector  you would  quickly find that   accountability  is  almost totally absent and discretion being  the use of the  unreasonable complainant conduct manual  , totally out of hand

I have actually come across  items where it stated  that  due to the relatively  corruption free environment  such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be  the least corrupt .

Of the 2013 Integrity report  ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for  for  compiling,   she said

Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.

It was not  coincidence that TINZ was at the time   funded by  the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written.  see here  To me this appears to be a conflict of interest  which in itself is corrupt .

Now if  TINZ  had taken the trouble to  listen to the  issues which I and other  whistleblowers  had raised  rather than treating us as a villains then  the person  conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then    the results would not have  been so glowing .

In an impartial and thorough  evaluation of integrity in the public service an  important aspect would be   to monitor  public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to  whistleblowers and evaluating their  experience based on the evidence  that  they have to support their claim  .

The reality is that the public sector does not know  what  investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons  and not the issue. 

It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and  short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence  plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and  perception of integrity of persons  are  what is accepted and  considered. Of course if they want to get rid of  the person involved then   any complaint will do .

The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse  conclusion could of course be  implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator  becomes the whistleblower  and become  unpopular at work  .

So what does the public sector do they turn to   manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by   your gold  partner   the ombudsman’s office .

There  a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages   and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct  138 Pages Yes that’s  right there is no manual on how to investigate

What do you think the “Go to” resource  will  be , which one   allows them to  get the head ache off the desk  and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it  “the  unreasonable complaint manual”   its the thickest and  was copied from Australia minus the  essential resource  “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy”  .

In NZ  and our manual  simply refers  the user to locate the  model policy on  the Australian web site. This essential  part of the  document which is missing in NZ  stipulates that  each organisation  should rely   on their organisations own policies for  unreasonable complainants.

So with that part missing  so are the policies in our  public sector  and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call  on unreasonable complainants and   how they are defined.

While I accept that there are fruit loops out there  at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated.  and if a complaint is properly  and fairly  evaluated then people  don’t get cross if they are shown   why their complaint comes unstuck .

But we work  in terms of economy  and its not economic to look at ll complaints  so    throw up a brick wall and  very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person.  Problem solved

The essential  Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy  which is missing in New Zealand  specifies

3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.

So this is how the ” investigation  ” in our public sector  is conducted

  1. Get complaint
  2. go to the person  allegedly accused and run it past them
  3. accept what they say about the person making the complaint who    after consulting the   alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person  and   go to the check list
  4.  The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”.   the  perpetrator has already given a good  explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
  5. The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”..  well how can there be a valid issue when the   complainant  is reportedly just a nasty person  the whole thing has to be a set up and we know  the  alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
  6. The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.”  Substance  has already established from our trusted colleague and  based on what he/she tells us there is  no substance
  7. For good measure   the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14  and the early warning  signs UCC? page 16   and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower  , on issues of genuine public interest  can tick  many of these boxes

So let us see how this applied to me

I had been on a trust  with Neil Wells  , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions   due to the trust being  in danger of becoming insolvent  .

He removed me from the trust  by telling lies .  I  sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control   to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .

Lyn Macdonald   who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer  saw that I was a private Investigator  , she too had been bullied by wells and he later   got her kicked out of her job for associating with me .  she asked me to find out  who or what AWINZ was  , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise  animal welfare  over her council paid duties.

I  searched for AWINZ but could  not find  any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council  I found that although both had a MOU  with  AWINZ( MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF) neither had a copy of  a trust deed .

I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated  that  AWINZ had to be a real  or legal person .  This was 2006 and  registers were not that easily searched  so with  others we formed and  incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .  we did not expect to  be successful  but we were, this proved  conclusively that   the entiy  which Neil wells claimed to  operate was fictional.

Here I have to explain something about names  and trusts

  1. an unincorporated trust    can be a group of people  who are trustees in a trust which they  then give a name , the legal name for that trust is  (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
  2. An incorporated trust    can use the name of the trust and  trade  in that name without referring to the  trustees  as the  trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had  previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these  were all legal persons  in their own name .

 

The application which Neil Wells  filed  with MAF  to obtain law enforcement  powers under the legislation  which he had  drafted and advised on  was fraudulent  it categorically stated

since the trust had not been   formed  but  was allegedly in the process  of being incorporated  the application should have been in the names of  the four people  shown  as trustees of AWINZ  and each should have  at least signed the trust deed  and  each would have to take  responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document  committing to that role.

The reality was that the  trust did not exist   as there was no trust deed .

Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister   In this short paragraph   he  tells the following lies 

  1. Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
  2. The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
  3. the trust deed  which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier   only goes to 19

Just this little bit of information should make   the investigators look more closely  but Wells was  well connected to MAF and was  known to ministers  he was even able to write caucus papers .

When I   raised concerns  with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up   he selected the people wisely

Graeme Coutts  .. a non questioning JP  who worked in the office beside  Wells and beside the  RNZSPCA  his name had been on the original application .

Wyn Hoadley  QSM..    great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always  reputable

Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control  who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council  . Tom Didovich  was in this up to his neck  and went out to get the  signatures of the   alleged trustees when the deed was    missing.. probably  missing because hit had never been signed .

So  in my situation

I was  made out  by wells as some fruit loop  who  was disgruntled about her removal from a trust

Wells was a respected barrister  wrote legislation and  lots of friends in very high places

so  Maf and  Council threw up brick walls   and  I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and  also  his  desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to  Joanna Tuckwell  who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.

Wells took me to court for  defamation ,  his lawyers  Brookfields  did not check to see if there was a trust deed  before commencing proceedings  ,  Nick Wright a resource management lawyer  started the proceedings by having his  then wife harass me , they  then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the   fed the court  a lot of BS  and Voila  a judgement which   they could wave around to   discredit me and  use to apparently legitimise  AWINZ .

every one happy  except that Wells  kept attacking me subversively  and saw to it that  I lost my ability to earn a living   through private investigations .

when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out  and  knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct  to   have the investigation into AWINZ opened.

Had the public sector   acted with integrity  they would have left people aside and investigated the  Very simple  issue

Did  AWINZ exist …No it did not   no one had a trust deed prior to 2006    By that stage  it had  been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years

Was the application  for approved status  fraudulent… Yes it  was

can you see   that we have a problem ?

If we conceal corruption and give  the public sectors resources  which help  conceal corruption  then we have no corruption  .

You report  that there is integrity in the public sector  and by   refusing to look  beyond the perception  which you help create . whistleblowers  and their families have their lives destroyed .

You don’t have to   support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate  integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that   proper  and fair complaint measures are available  and that    the issues are dealt with   .

I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up  are  easily Labeled  Uncooperative complainants  because that way we remain  the least corrupt  and after all ask any economist  .. that’s good for business.

so in the end the question is

are you going to look at the integrity of the public service  with regards to how they  deal with  complaints

Are you going to allow whistleblowers to  be members of transparency International New Zealand

will you monitor   the complaint making process ?

will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors

Where is the transparency in your accounts     you have $400,000 of your 500,000   expenses written off as  other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to  how much   and  why be conflicted   when  you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .