Search Results
Lawyer seeks help from Netsafe
December 8, 2016 | 
Author 
Yesterday I was approached by Net safe , who on behalf of Vivienne Holm sought changes to former blog posts, We are happy to make corrections but there is nothing to correct . We are interested however in addressing injustices and if she feels that the comment is an injustice then she can assist in correcting a far greater injustice before we look at the perception she has of tiny little one .
Background facts
About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand see also my affidavit
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC
Did David Neutze check the facts before he acted?
Is Wyn Hoadley fit to be a Lawyer, A trustee or a councillor?
How to get your litigation funded through the public purse
The following is my response to Net safe , The fact that Vivienne Holm and Malcolm North who has been harassing me, both worked at the ministry of social development is a fact that is not lost on me .
….Thank you net safe
The animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) had law enforcement powers which it obtained after an application was made to the then minister of agriculture on 22 November 1999 .
A blank trust deed had been attached to the application made by Neil Edward wells a barrister .
In reality ,No trust existed and no entity existed but the government gave AWINZ wide sweeping law enforcement powers akin to those held by the RNZSPCA, which includes search and seizure and ability to fine people .
Neil Wells who applied on behalf of AWINZ had written the no 1 bill for the new Animal welfare act and had inserted the sections to facilitate the application he subsequently made and he also advised on the act as “independent advisor” to the select committee without declaring his obvious conflict of interest of writing an act to facilitate his own business plan
In March 2006 an employee of Waitakere city council Lynne McDonald ( the bird lady ) approached me with the concern that she, a dog control officer, was required to “ volunteer “ her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over dog control . The building at the council had been rebranded and Neil wells her council manager from 2005 was the only person operating AWINZ for which he used a logo which was identical to the new branding of the council building .
Maf at the time of an audit acknowledged that the two entities appeared to merge and it was difficult to see where one began and the other finished. The council on the other hand denied that AWINZ operated from their premises . This was in reality a massive public fraud using public office for private pecuniary gain.
To prove that AWINZ did not exist several of us incorporated the name Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand .It is impossible to incorporate the identical name of an entity, we were successful there by conclusively proving that AWINZ the law enforcement authority did not exist .
Vivienne Holm Phoned me late at night and made threats against my Private investigators licence and there by my income and livelihood. She demanded that we had to give up the name AWINZ when intimidation did not work Her then husband Nick wright then took over the matter as Vivienne Holm at the time was working as a law clerk .
I called at her address to discuss a resolution and was promptly served with a trespass notice.
Now it has always puzzled me why a Law clerk was instructed , surely that is not usual and why was her first port of call be an intimidating phone call late on a Friday night .. I thought that a legitimately instructed person would use more transparent means rather than acting like a thug.
After her husband , a resource management lawyer , became involved Threats of legal action were made and out of the blue a trust deed materialised.
I was to find that the trust deed dated 1.3.2000 had been signed when the then dog control manager at Waitakere city council, Tom Didovich visited the various people who thought they were trustees.
However they never met never passed a resolution and certainly were not involved in the application for the “ approved organisation’ under section 121 of the animal welfare act ( which Neil wells had had such a massive part in ), the trust they were allegedly involved in held no assets and after three years the trustees who still had not met were not reappointed, hence this was a totally sham trust
Nick Wright took me to court for defamation , for saying that AWINZ was a sham trust, which it was and has proved to be . The defamation was allegedly of Neil Wells , I was denied the right to a statutory defence of truth and honest opinion and no finding has ever been made that I defamed Neil wells but I had to pay some $100,000 to him and his lawyer all for being a whistle-blower on serious corruption .
This went on for some 10 years the object was to bankrupt me . Neil wells in an email to MAF in 2007 said that this was his objective , he certainly tried hard enough
Nick wright who is reputedly the “Auckland lawyer who had “fallen on hard times”( http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/77079681/auckland-lawyer-awarded-14000-from-police-over-false-arrest-imprisonment) has ceased practicing and Brookfields continued their attack on me, I can only guess that if they had done the decent thing they would have seen some notable lawyers struck off for not checking the facts before filing matters in court and using their office contrary to the provisions of the Lawyers and conveyancers rules .
In the process of suing me they used dirty tactics because facts and evidence would not have won it for them . I have reason to believe that that also worked covertly on my marriage and ensured that my 23 years marriage and my family was destroyed. The lawyer who represented me was later found to be incompetent and I very much suspect he was working for the other side . So I lost , no way of winning when you have a lawyer who the law society acknowledged as being incompetent and for whom judges had no respect .
All in all this created a massive miscarriage of justice and one which I physically paid out well over $300,000 for and find it impossible to quantify the lost hours of work, health stress etc.
I believe that my post is totally accurate and that the fact of the date of her application for a practicing certificate is just a teensy weensy bit trivial compared to the years of suffering which I and my family have had to endure.
The good news is that I am happy to work with any one who helps put things right . When the AWINZ matter has been addressed and is history I can take down all the posts but while the injustice exists it requires exposure of the fact and the facts will remain in the public realm
I cannot understand why she claims that she cannot get a practicing certificate on this occasion , the email you sent is dated 19 September 2016 and states that she has held a practicing certificate from April 2015 to the present .
Practicing certificates renew at the end of June , The law society have just informed me that she does not currently hold a practicing certificate, her last one expired 25 November 2016, it appears that that is the date when she left the MSD
She may wish to help address the AWINZ injustice , once that has been sorted I can look at removing / altering blogs .
I do find it amusing perhaps coincidental perhaps not , that she was employed by MSD until 25 November where Malcolm North who has been harassing me, by email also works.
But getting back to xxxx I am happy to remove anything minor when a greater injustice has been resolved, she only needs to contact me and help me right the wrongs of the past that she was instrumental in in kicking off . A person with integrity would see that an as officer of the court xxx would have an overriding obligation to justice and if she cannot how integrity in putting the past right then she should not be asking me to change factual information .
In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this on Transparency.net.nz
this blog was updated in 2018 when xxxx made a malicious complaint to the Private security licensing authority about me.
she went back 12 years and made all sorts of scurrilous accusations against me. It would appear however that the lady from Net safe got he facts twisted and so what I wrote about xxxx trying to get a new practicing certificate in 2016 was inaccurate. what brought her out of the wood work in 2016 is a mystery she was having a go at me about a 2011 post .
the truth has to come out .
Update March 2013 Vivienne Holm is claiming defamation but is not revealing how the truth is lacking
the point of contention appears to be the statement that she was not working at brookfield and did not hold a current practicing certificate.
It appears that she was working from home , her husband at the time resource management partner of Brookfields took on the matter
The law society at the time told me that she did not have a practicing certificate and confirmed this in this document and this one
Vivienne Holm Has tried to retrospectively correct the law society but we do not accept that as evidence , we think that 12 years later is too late to re write history
Posted in 
New Zealand , how we facilitate sham trusts
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust 
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
I have written to the lawyers involved and again here and here, here, here , the law society by way of regarding the lawyers , the charities commission and again here and here
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
The people posing as trustees here, and here,here, here
attorney general here
I had questions asked in parliament Here wrote to ministers here and here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
NZ one of world’s least corrupt countries- its done with bogus trusts
Disparity in crime.. who you know matters
Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand
Questioning corruption in New Zealand.
Corruption in New Zealand – lack of support for whistleblowers
The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain
Liquidation as a tool of oppression
shooting the messenger
Why I am calling for an independent commission against corruption
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley Graeme Coutts & Tom Didovich
Wyn Graeme and Tom Open letter to Wyn Hoadley ,Graeme Coutts and Tom Didovich
I am addressing this to you as you are all members of the charity which is financing the legal action and supporting Neil Wells.
And to Wyn and Graeme as you are both individually and in your own capacity litigants represented by David Neutze independent of any involvement of any trust .
I am concerned that when I send an email to your lawyers and l CC you in , your lawyers do not respond back to you and only to Wells.
This to me is odd for a lawyer who is instructed by you and is corresponding on matters which pertain to you , this makes it obvious that you are distancing yourselves from the litigation .
This really makes me wonder if you understand what the trust is and what the trust is not. Basically that is what this litigation is all about.
I am concerned that each of you have been told not to speak to me. The story you have been fed has duped you to the extent that you have never questioned what is going on, had you questioned it it would have been painfully obvious that I have been made out to be the villain when in reality it is Mr Wells who is using you to re write history to turn his illegal actions into something more palatable.
The heart of the issue is the existence of AWINZ the law enforcement authority . Neil wells made an application in November 1999 , when no trust existed.
He gave false documents to the minister and caused him to act upon them as though they were true.
Neil Wells derived a benefit from this action .. this makes it fraud.
So by shifting the time frames and bringing other people into it he has sanitised the transaction to make it a legitimate action.
We have chronologies every where e.g if I was gay I could not get married this month it would not be legal and to claim legitimacy of a marriage this moth and getting a pecuniary benefit from it wold be fraud.
However when the law comes into force gay marriage is legitimate and the actions are sanctioned by law. The same time frames apply to parking driving from a certain age etc..
AWINZ the law enforcement authority did not exist.. Wells needed to cover up You have knowingly or through total neglect assisted in this .
Proof of Wells perjury to the court is below .. this is from the transcript in court .. He has lied to the court by shifting the time of the application from November 1999 to some other time when the application was supposedly made in a legitimate manner.
The only issue is that MAF do not have any record or knowledge of any other application and the minister in his letter to Wells 21 December makes it very clear that the application is based on the November 1999 application , this was three months before any trust deed was dated . the application was supported by a unsigned trust deed .
For more see the affidavit it has the evidence attached
The transcript reads these are three separate statements which totally influence the court .
The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”
When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”
“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then”
What is particularly serious for WYN and Graeme is that your lawyers are not representing you they are only representing Wells and by protecting his perjury they are exposing you to criminal charges. Have they spoken to you with regards to the email below and the affidavit attached to this email? May I suggest that your lawyers have a conflict of interest when it comes to representing you …unless of course you consent to their action of concealing Mr Wells perjury, in which case you become a party to this. ( see section 66 crimes act Parties are guilty of the offence )
I do not wish to file criminal charges against each and every one of you for being party to the various offences and for aiding and abetting the various actions of Neil Wells which I view as criminal offending but if you continue to support Wells and his actions then you leave me no choice
It is time that we bring this to an end 7 years , a marriage and $300,000 give me a lot to fight for and none of this would have happened had it not been for the support you gave both financially and through your silence.
I welcome the opportunity for any of you to speak to me so that we can resolve this matter, I can assure you that whoever assist will not be the subject of any litigation from me either civilly ,criminally or in your professional capacity.
I will also in return remove anything which I have posted and which pertains to you .
I invite you to speak to your own independent counsel and have them present but the deal is that you have to be truthful and help me bring a swift end to this mess.
Ellis J was extremely interested in my matter and reported that she found me credible , we have reached the turning point.
This is the last offer that I am extending to each and every one of you . You either stick with Wells or you look after your own neck .
I will deliver a copy of this to each and every one of you minus the attachments which you will have to get from this email .
I will also be publishing this on the Transparency web site so that there is permanent and public record of this offer.
This offer will expire 4pm Friday 26th July 2013 or as soon as liquidation proceedings are commenced by your lawyers .
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
From: Grace Haden [mailto:graceverisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 8 July 2013 5:11 p.m.
To: ‘David Neutze’; atkins@brookfields.co.nz
Cc: ‘dickey@brookfields.co.nz’; green@brookfields.co.nz; ‘johnston@brookfields.co.nz’
Subject: Hoadley wells Coutts
Please find here with the documents which I have filed for tomorrow affidavit
I draw your attention to the frauds in very simplistic terms as set out in the affidavit
1. Your clients had no standing.. You supplied a trust deed dated1.3.2000 for Coutts, wells ,Giltrap and Groves and used this to show that Wells Coutts and Hoadley had standing when in reality Hoadley had never been appointed as trustee .
2. There is also the fact that there was one lost trust deed now there are two originals
3. This affects the strike out Your clients had no standing and could not have brought the claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. This in turn would have ensured that I won the interlocutories not them and my defence would not have been struck out
4. Neil Wells had to re write history the application could not possibly have been made by the trust which formed on 1.3.2000 so Neil Wells said to the court
The Bills were not passed until October 1999 and the Act itself did not come into force until the 1 of January 2000, so MAF could not receive an application as an approved organisation until such time as the Act itself had commenced. So there was a lot of paper work and preparation done in 1999 but none of it could have any affect until we could lodge a formal application. Any correspondence with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention; there could not be a formal application at that time.”
When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application, that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”
“but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then”
Do you not think that this is perjury in light of the fact that MAF and the minister in official documents specifically mention that they rely on the application 22 November 1999! Have a look the evidence is there
Despite what must be an obvious miscarriage of justice to everyone except Brookfields you continue to wish to put me out of business and take the last of my funds while denying me a right to seek justice .
You are totally in breach of the rules and your continued action in this litigation despite rule 13.5.3 this suggests to me that you are not willing to uphold the rule of law.
Please also explain how Hoadley wells and Coutts became the law enforcement authority .. there certainly does not appear to be any legal basis for their claims .. how did it happen ????
If you had integrity and were honest lawyers you would be acting as officers of the court and be setting this injustice straight
Please note : I am not re litigating – just because my defence was struck out does not mean that your client can deceive the court perjury is perjury even if a defence is struck out
I am not being vexatious I have a right to have been judged on facts not fiction
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
The world as seen By Brookfileds Lawyers -Turning fiction into fact
Need some one to do the impossible ? turn fiction into Fact well look no further than David Neutze of Brookfields lawyers .
Problem : client Neil Wells had had written legislation for his own business plan and then made an application to the minister in a false name and falsely claimed that a trust was making the application when quite clearly no trust existed and no one had signed the application
So time rolls by and in 2006 Mr Wells is caught out by some questions which potentially exposed this as corruption so something had to be done fast , before he was fitted up for an orange jump suit.
So David Neutze to the rescue. Despite the fact that lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law (section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act) David saw a way of contorting facts figures and chronologies
The rule of law is defined by LexisNexis as “The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.”
It turns out that LexisNexis and David Neutze disagree on that interpretation.
David must be right because he has managed to get the support of the court at each court event and has successfully prevented me from placing evidence before the court while he has used nothing but procedures and manipulations of the law to secure victory for his clients Lawyers Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley and JP Graeme Coutts.
Contortion of Facts
It is always easy if you can put your side of the story and you stop the other side from putting evidence and facts before the court. so David filed a claim but did not file any supporting evidence.
He then got the court to act on this claim as though it was the truth , He manipulates proceedings so that high costs are awarded agaisnt the other party , then demands them at 2 weeks notice.
How many people could possibly come up with $18,000 in two weeks ???? could you ????
With my defence of truth and honest opinion struck out for being unable to find $18,000 in two weeks for a claim which was essentially agaisnt a trust and not me , the coast was clear for Neil Wells to tell the court what ever he wanted so that history could be re written. As a result no investigation has ever been conducted into AWINZ by any authority .. Get a court judgement and you can get off any crime.
the Fiction which Neutze changed into fact were
The application made by Neil Wells was suddenly made by an ” oral trust ” and because Neil Wells told the Judge that this application wasn’t the real application he said ” Any correspondence
with MAF in 1999 was simply on the basis of intention, there could not be a formal application at that time .” page 7 line 15
He went on to say ” When the Act was passed and we submitted a formal application , that was at the point that it was required by the trustees that we sign that Trust Deed in a I believe March of 2000.”
On page 10 he says ” In the formation of any Body Corporate or non Body Corporate there is a series of processes which ultimately create the existence of an organisation, and in the case of the Animal Welfare Institute, the various drafts of the Deed of Trust which were formulated in 1999 led up to the final Deed, but it was not necessary in our view to actually have the signed copy until we were ready to proceed in the year 2000 because we couldn’t formalise our application until then. “
Now this is what the Judge relied upon as being true. You must admit it sounds pretty convincing.. but what if it was not true ?
I have spent years trying to extract the actual application MAF have clearly indicated to me that the one and only application was the 22 November 1999 document and this is confirmed in the letter from the minister dated 18 December 2000 which clearly states that it was The application of 22 november which was relied upon.
what difference does this make.. Heaps
- Wells Lied to the minister
- there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
- Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
- Maf Never checked to see if an organization existed and did not check to see if those named actually knew what was going on.
Its like saying you have a degree when you fully intend to get one in the future, So if it was bad for John Davies and Mary-Anne Thompson to have false credentials How is it Ok for a law enforcement authority to be a fictional organization? And why have I been persecuted for asking the question .. “Why doesn’t the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand AWINZ exist ???? “
So David Neutze secures the judgment which by law becomes a new version of fact , so I find the evidence that Wells has told Porkies in court _ David Neutze to the rescue and stops me from telling the court that it has been lied to .
Are officers of the court supposed to do that ??? at least Neutze was honest when I got them all by the short and curlies when they liquidated my company on a false affidavit. he knew that that game was up then and did the decent thing.. but he cannot read his documents and say OMG my client has lied to the court and since I am an honest and respectable officer of the court I must right this injustice… No Neutze keeps on covering up and stops evidence from being presented.
I then find new evidence to prove that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were never the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand, their relationship was born from the need to create a trust when Maf was alerted to the lack of existence of their law enforcement authority . Now Wyn Hoadley is a former Mayor we could not possibly imply that she had done something improper.. so its much easier to Crucify me.
so the quick easy formula for re writing history is
- Hike up the costs on false claims
- Make a demand for payment and seek to have the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
- withdraw the false claims
- Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say the statement of claim is true
- then tell the court what ever you like and stop the other side from placing anything before the court which could alert the court to the fact that they have been lied to.
- No problem with police they don’t do perjury any way
this is called justice.
NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED AT ALL ! History re written !
Contorting facts # 2
This is not “ Pulling the Wool over the ministers eyes “
I have learned from Davis Neutze that you are not pulling the wool over the minister eyes when you:-
1. Make an application for law enforcement powers to the minister of Agriculture on 22 November 1999 and state that “ A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of trust as the “ animal Welfare institute of New Zealand’ AWINZ when no such deed exists.
2. Claim that a trust whose deed was allegedly signed on 1.3.2000 were the applicants for the application three months earlier despite the fact that none of the alleged trustees ever signed their name on the application .
3. Tell the minister that “ A copy of the signed deed of trust will follow. The original is being submitted to the ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with section 20(a) of the Deed. .
a. No trust deed is ever forwarded
b. Ministry of commerce does not register deeds the ministry of economic development does and they accept certified copies.
c. Section 20a does not exist in the trust deed which materialises in 2006
NB: the Neil Wells who wrote the letter had recently successfully registered two trusts with the ministry of economic developments. ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD.
One of the claims of defamation was that I had said that Neil wells Pulled the wool over the ministers eyes. .. well that statement certainly was worth the $57,500 and 41,00 cost .Susan Couch gets $300,000 for being crippled for life ,
Neil wells gets nearly 1/3 that for some one telling the truth about him. What is more he has used well over $100,000 of charitable fund s to get this money for him personally !
I was also mistaken to believe that to become trustees a person had to sign a trust deed or some document but according to David Neutze it is perfectly acceptable for a trust
1. not to meet at all –( not even to sign the trust deed ) despite claiming to be a law enforcement authority with coercive statutory powers
2. Ignore the requirement of its trust deed to meet no less than 4 time per year and record meeting instead once every two years .
3. Have no evidence of re appointment of trustees.
4. Have a meeting on 10 May 2006 and produce the minutes 20/5/2011 after having told MAF in 2008 that the governance documents are missing due to hard drive failure
5. Appoint a trustee through invisible means at a time when the trust deeds are missing. meeting on 10 May 2006
To supply a different copy of the alleged trust deed to MAF and claim it to be one and the same as this one
Manipulation of Chronologies
The chronologies of these events were a stumbling block so the process above was used to
| turn this | into this |
| application for law enforcement powers | create trust |
| approval process | application for law enforcement powers |
| law enforcement powers granted | approval process |
| contract with MAF | law enforcement powers granted |
| exposed | contract with Maf |
| draw up 2000 trust deed | become charity |
| take legal action | |
| draw up new trust deed | |
| become charity |
The difference is simple trusts need to exist before they can make an application .
In summary Wells who had written the bill for and advised on the legislation as an independent adviser to the select committee , made an application for law enforcement powers on 22 November 1999 and allegedly set up the trust which makes the application three months later on 1.3.2000, there is no evidence of this trust ever having met or functioned . Tom Didovich (Wells’s associate) went to each of the persons to get their signatures at their respective work or home addresses. It is note worthy that in 2006 the trust deed was missing, as it was in march 2006 right after it was signed and Neil Wells lied to the minister about having sent the deed off for registration
The second great manipulation of chronologies was with regards to the plaintiffs in the claim
Get three people together for the first time on 10 May 2006 and without any formal documentation adopted a trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand and have them file legal proceedings against a legally incorporated charitable trust ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST then registered as The animal welfare institute of New Zealand and make claims of passing off and breach of fair trade. this trust was a legal person in its own right registers from 27-APR-2006 three weeks before the first meeting of Hoadley Wells and Coutts.
Rather stupidly I presumed that their legal name ( if they had had a deed ) would be Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand or otherwise Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts trading as the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. While the incorporated legal entity would be called by its legal name which Is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand . perhaps we shoudl not let Neutze advise clients on contracts.. they woudl not be worth the paper they are written on if he cant identify who the real persons are and who are trustees.
- I also mistakenly believed that the group which existed first and legally had more rights to the name than the second informal group and that if they wished to contest the rights to the name they should have followed the advice of the ministry of economic developments
- and at least had some evidence that they were a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???
And
- By claiming to be a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley wells and Coutts suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
- they also sign a trust deed in December 2006 which is different in purpose to the original trust deed allegedly signed on 1.3.2000 and claim continuity of trust when the first trust has never met or acted together. AH! the magic of bits of paper with words on them.
- The trustees of the December 2006 trust become a charity and use charitable funds to pay for the legal proceedings classic identity fraud….. Tom is a butcher my brother is Tom he must therefore also be a butcher.
Confused.. yes you should be it makes no sense but the court has been led to believe its all kosher its what officers of the court do .. bet he even goes to church on Sunday.
Neutze Takes Maths and accounts to a new level .. a low level that is
In April 2012 I took a new claim agaisnt Hoadley Wells and Coutts for obtaining a judgment by fraud.
Not only did Neutze manage to get the claim struck out Judgment of Gibson 10.05.13 he also managed to get the Judge to call me Vexatious for attempting to seek justice , al the judge needed was for Neutze to place his victories before him. the mere fact that all the judges have rejected proceedings and all but one appeal was actually heard is beside the point.
That appeal was taken by my solicitor at the time Paddy Finnegan who I had to dismiss due to my marriage failing s due to the stress , My bank accounts wer frozen and justice was denied… in the stress of it all I battled on and I have found lay litigants don’t get a look n. lawyers can tell lies but lay litigants don’t get heard.
the cost order Neutze put in was the worst accounting I have seen for a long time see here costs application Brookfields
I have summarized what the issues are here
- CIV 2012-004-696 was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts each in their own capacity as individuals .
- The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on accounts made out to AWINZ
- AWINZ is the acronym used by the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a charitable trust formed on 5 December 2006. This trust was not and never has been a party to these proceedings.
- No other definition for AWINZ is provided and there is no evidence and never has been any evidence that Wells Hoadley and Coutts were ever AWINZ together.
- The accounts submitted , see costs application are for a number of proceedings in both the High and District Courts, the accounts are intermingled to such an extent that matters pertaining to one litigation has been billed against another.
- As pointed out to his honour Peter McCutcheon (18/5/2012) and Translegal (22/8/2012) for whom items appear on this set of accounts were never involved in the District Court proceedings.
- The items under the heading 31/7/12 refer to a set of accounts where not one of the items is Quantified as to value , it is therefore impossible to quantify cost claimed and the only conclusion is that and the sum of $369 is ‘made up” .
- The item 29 august which is claimed as $390 states “Attendance on file regarding strike out application;” whereas on the accounts on which this entry is based shows that this billing was for other matters as well yet the entire sum has been charged the indemnity cost application .
- The accounts dated 28/9/12 cannot be made to add up to $6232.50 this sum is in excess of $1035 of the total.
- There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
- Further the affidavit in support of the strike out which consisted of nothing but judgments which were readily available was charged out at $1805.
- The calculations for costs on the basis of the figures given in the attached accounts made out to AWINZ do not add up to the sum claimed . The total which can be established is $12,434 and this sum includes items which did not
- The lawyers for the defendants were aware of the fact that matters were charged out incorrectly as this was drawn to their attention through the submissions on costs, they did not choose to seek a correction and are therefore guilty of negligence.
In short If you can understand Maths better than law then you can deduce that their Maths and Law are on a Par. its best seen in this document Cost itemised
as can be seen there is a mere difference of some $4,000 and a lot of unquantifiable items thrown in at that.. would IRD accept such accounting.. don’t think so !!!!!
I must congratulate Mr Neutze he has proved that in New Zealand it is possible To win a court proceedings
1. with people who have no right to make a claim
- without producing any evidence at all
He has proved that you can take defamation proceedings and
1. not need to produce one statement allegedly made by the other party
2. Not show who these statements were made to
3. Not show any alleged words in context
4. Not allow the other party to prove the truth of the statements
5. Deny the accused any type of hearing including a formal proof
6. Strike out any action which the accused takes in an attempt to get justice
7. Produce false accounts to the court for indemnity costs and gets them ( $16,000) even though he falsehood is pointed out to the court
- Mislead the court and succeed.
The actions of Mr Neutze have been such that I have to question the integrity of the officers of the court and their responsibility to the law society I will once again make a complaint stand by and watch the law society condone this actions.
It should not cost a whistle blower on serious corruption the obscene sum that it has cost me
We don’t play Monopoly with people who cheat so why should we let lawyers cheat in court !n
This must surely be case law on how to win any case in New Zealand a country with proud sporting traditions clean and green but where “justice” keeps it all under wraps.
Do Brookfield’s lawyers support corruption? – a formal complaint
Over the past six years I have been before the court because I questioned corruption.
Not just any corruption this would have been the perfect public fraud.
The only thing which could save the perpetrators neck was to discredit me, the inadvertent whistle blower. So enter Brookfield’s with the solution.
I have advised Brookfields of the situation many times but because they are not an incorporated law firm as defined by the lawyers and conveyancers act , they apparently can get away with it .. another one of those silly loop holes in the law.
This how they physically did it and I am making this complaint to all the lawyers int eh practice int he hope that one may have a conscience with regards to the rules.
First to barristers make a complaint to a law clerk, the dedicated law clerk springs into action after hours and attempts to secure a result through intimidation. ( hyperlinks reveal each segment of the story )
When this fails The law clerk gets her husband Nick Wright involved he happens to be a partner at Brookfileds (You will note from the link that he claims he is a solicitor in a law practice but if you look him up on the register you will find that its actually just false advertising- shows integrity? )
Nick Wright gets David Neutze involved, David is apparently one of those types who signs anything without checking and then when he does find out about the very big oops ,will go out of his way to cover up even to the extent of filing bankruptcy and liquidation papers on someone who has him before the LCRO on claims of negligence .
While there are rules of conduct for lawyers you will find that even large law firms like Brookfield’s are happy to take your money to defend the indefensible even if it means ignoring the rules all together.
Brookfield’s were very clever they managed to win a defamation case without the need to produce those awkward documents which really don’t say what they have claimed they say. Read the blog How to win with no evidence .
Basically if you take a leaf out of David Neutze book you can win at anything using his formula .
- File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
- use interlocutories to trump up the costs,
- demand the costs in a short time frame
- Have the defence on the remaining matter struck out.
- With draw the fictional claims.
- Skip formal proof
- Go straight to Quantum
- Deny any opportunity for appeal
- Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
- Continue liquidation and bankruptcy action even though the judgment is challenged on having been obtained by fraud.
The strategy in a way is a bit like that demonstrated by Rowan Atkinson in the skit Fatal beating You take something trivial and escalate it and take something major and trivialise it.
It was good to see that Ben ATKINS did not turn up at the high court this week and for the first time in 6 years David Neutze turned up in person. It would seem that Ben recognises that there is fraud involved but Brookfileds management are still happy to see the bankruptcy and liquidation go through despite the facts.
The last time I saw Ben ,he was holding a folder which contained the affidavit which I filed in support of the claim of obtaining a judgment by fraud , the folder had the name of the fictional organisation AWINZ on it .
This brings about another question since the funds which were used to pay Brookfields are charitable funds ( as shown in the annual returns ) how come only Mr Wells is claiming it in his own name.. is that not money laundering.. are Brookfield’s now complicit to this criminal act as well? Or are they so fixed on civil matters that criminal matters don’t matter? where do they get the imunity from to be using their office for fraud?
We would love to her from Brookfields .. why are you immune to the rules ?
2 A lawyer is obliged to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice.
-
2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.
2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
Proper purpose
-
2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.1
Conflicting interests
-
5.4 A lawyer must not act or continue to act if there is a conflict or a risk of a conflict between the interests of the lawyer and the interests of a client for whom the lawyer is acting or proposing to act.
- 5.4.1 Where a lawyer has an interest that touches on the matter in respect of which regulated services are required, the existence of that interest must be disclosed to the client or prospective client irrespective of whether a conflict exists.
- 5.4.2 A lawyer must not act for a client in any transaction in which the lawyer has an interest unless the matter is not contentious and the interests of the lawyer and the client correspond in all respects.
Proper professional practice
11 A lawyer’s practice must be administered in a manner that ensures that the duties to the court and existing, prospective, and former clients are adhered to, and that the reputation of the legal profession is preserved.
Misleading and deceptive conduct
11.1 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive15 anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice.
Prevention of crime or fraud
-
11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.
4 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:
-
(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
-
(c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
-
(d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.— that is court first client second .
-
Open letter to Ben ATKINS lawyer of brookfields
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 April 2012 2:59 p.m.
To: ‘atkins@brookfields.co.nz’
Cc: ‘neutze@brookfields.co.nz’; ‘johnston@brookfields.co.nz’
Subject: Lawyers using their office for fraud.
Good afternoon Ben
I wish to make you aware that Mr Neutze is currently before the law complaints review office on my complaint .
I spoke to you at court this week and Noted that you had the affidavit which details how the fraud was perpetrated. As the officer dealing with the case you have an obligation to read the affidavit .
The affidavit should sufficiently warn you that you are dealing with gross corruption and fraud.
We are again scheduled to appear in court next week for the liquidation in which you have appeared for Mr Neutze.
It appears that Brookfield’s are allowing their offices to be used for fraud and you are facilitating it . That is their choice as to your involvement you have a choice too.
Mr Wells in the bankruptcy and insolvency matters is taking action to pervert the course of justice and for money laundering. I have filed a statement of claim seeking to rescind the decision on fraud.
If you turn up in court next week and continue to act on behalf of Mr Wells and not as an officer of the court with duties and responsibilities to your statutes and regulations, I will make a complaint to the law society .
I have warned you twice now , what you are doing is career limiting, you have to make your own ethical decisions.
If anyone else from Brookfileds turns up I will know that they have been instructed by Mr Neutze and will take action against him/her as well . Mr Neutze is being vexatious after all I have made complaints against his conduct and he has good reason to want to see me liquidated and bankrupted.
I have suffered 6 years of hell because David Neutze did not get the evidence before he filed a statement of claim. Lawyers acting under his direction produced no evidence of any form and misled the court as to discovery.
Mr wells in an attempt to exonerate himself and others including Mr Neutze produced documents to the law society which proved that the claims were meritless and an abuse of process.
I am making submission next week so that I can represent my company one of the reasons lawyers are preferred is because they have accountability .. I will ensure that you have that accountability , had lawyers been accountable to the rules from day one I would not be in the position I am in today.
A reminder of your rules
As officers of the court the barristers have fundamental obligations as set out in section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act 2006 and to the rules of professional conduct ,I refer to specific rules being Set out as follows :
- chapter 2 Rule of law and administration of justice 2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.
- 2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
- 2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.
- Assisting in fraud or crime 2.4 A lawyer must not advise a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows to be fraudulent or criminal, nor assist any person in an activity that the lawyer knows is fraudulent or criminal. A lawyer must not knowingly assist in the concealment of fraud or crime.
- Prevention of crime or fraud 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.
Above all refer to section 25 Crimes act 1961
I will be posting this on my Transparency web site along with the post , which is a copy of the open letter I sent to Mr Neutze as to his actions
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
Talking Works Tom Didovich!
Talking works Tom Didovich perhaps you need to admit to the corruption you are involved with , corruption which is bringing about a rise in dog registration fees … See Council to hike dog fees
I have been talking for years but you who claims that talking works ,have remained silent and now I find that you are a counselor for talking works. Which quite frankly I find quite hypocritical.
You see the real issue is that dog owners have been paying for a great deal more than dog control they have also been paying for animal welfare.And you are right in on this scam up to your neck , in fact it would not have got of the ground if it wasn’t for your involvement.
To differentiate between the two.. Dog control is a council responsibility and Animal welfare is carried out by the RNZSPCA, police and MAF.
Tom Didovich is a trustee of a trust called the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand , he became a trustee in 2006 but while he was the manager of dog and stock control at Waitakere city council actively campaigned to set up the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) and approved payments from the public purse to facilitate the origins of this trust ( full back ground can be found here with supporting documents )
When Tom Didovich left Waitakere his associate Neil wells took over and quickly changed the branding on the building , vehicle and gate
This coincided with a public fund raising campaign sent out with the dog registration papers the logo that Mr Wells used are shown on the top of the flyer which was printed in green
.donation request The letterhead was adjusted after I complained to the council and became
Do you not think that this logo and the 
signage on the buildings and vehicles are deceptively similar?
One is a council the other is a private enterprise run by the council manager. Who would guess that there were two entities being run “symbiotically” close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. And true to form there was no benefit to the public/ratepayers/dog owners just to you and Mr Wells. refer this letter to you from Neil Wells
It just so happened that Mr Wells had written the bill leading up to the animal welfare act and had been independent adviser to the select committee. When the law passed he made an application for AWINZ to become an approved organization with the ability to appoint inspectors who had statutory powers .
While Tom was manager he had ensured that all the dog and stock control officers had received training through Mr Wells who was paid By Mr Didovich from the councils dog control budget through his discretionary spending.
The dog control officers were required to Volunteer their time to the approved organization and prioritize the work to the approved organization. Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. So when you saw the van driving about Waitakere the staff and vehicle were not necessarily on council business they were on private business paid by you the rate payer and dog owners .
Problems arose in 2006 when Lyn Macdonald asked me to find out who or what the animal welfare institute of new Zealand was and I discovered that there were no trust deeds or anyone associated with AWINZ except Neil wells officially and Tom Didovich as support person.
On 27 April 2006 With two others we categorically proved that AWINZ did not exist by legally registering an identically named organization .
On 10 May 2006 Neil Wells claims to have had a meeting at which Wyn Hoadley is appointed trustee to the animal welfare institute of new Zealand, a trust which has not met, had lost its trust deed ( if it had ever had one before then ) and by a section which does not appear in a deed which is eventually produced .
WYN Hoadley Neil Wells and Graeme courts to legal action which started with a legal executive , now lawyer harassing me to force us to give up the name of the legally incorporated entity in which I was a trustee.
Her husband at the time Nick Wright then became involved and harassed our web host, he then prepared a letter which David Neutze of Brookfileds signed without checking the accuracy of it . How could they ever have claimed passing off? when they didn’t even get together before we had legitimately formed .
And so 6 years of court action which relied on words and NLP and not on evidence began. ( Neil wells through the proceedings referred to AWINZ as having legitimate business dealings when the reality was that it was no more than a leach off council services.
Tom Didovich turned up in court more often than any of the so called trustees and became a trustee by signing a deed in December 2006 when Neil Wells tried to get AWINZ charitable status but failed to do so due to lack of documentation.
This is a complex matter a perfect fraud more can be found on this at http://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com, some of the documents no longer open but we are going through and fixing that, if you are interested in a particular docuemtn please let me know and I will update the link or send you a copy.
More recent articles are on the anticorruption web site ANIMAL LAW MATTERS
But getting back to rise in dog registration , this is due to persons such as Tom Didovich and Neil Wells using council resources facility and staff for their own income.
Stop corruption and our costs will decrease.
Ask the question why is the dog control division of council adopting out pets 
, who is funding it and why?
why Have I not been able to expose this corruption of Public office for private gain
Tom its time to talk talking works !
Inability to question corruption in NZ – open letter to John Key
Mr Key Open letter
In 2006 I was asked to locate a law enforcement authority which had extensive legislative powers including prosecution and the retention of fines ( up to $250,000) under the animal welfare act.
It transpired that the “ organisation “ Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) had no existence beyond a trading name or alias for the man who had written the bill leading up to the act and who had also been an independent advisor to the select committee in the hearing stages.
Neither MAF nor the minister for Agriculture at the time checked to see if the organisation exited before giving it legislative powers .
Since then it’s been a cover up at the highest level .
In 5 years I have not been able to progress this matter.
I have tried every Possible means for having this corruption addressed and have found that I have been effectively stone walled. I am a former Police sergeant and am a licenced private Investigator my skills in this department are definitely more than the average.
My Local MP Rodney Hide did nothing he wouldn’t even see me about it and his portfolio was minister of local government.. it appears that he condoned the use of council staff for a private enterprise. Rodney knew about this matter even before the 2008 elections as he was actively helping me at that stage. http://transparency.net.nz/2011/05/03/is-corruption-in-waitakere-condoned-by-minister/
Your local National MP Cam Calder condoned it by saying “what does it matter if they are not registered if they are doing the work”. The point is that they were doing the work but were using council paid officers to do it and the money which came back went into privately held coffers.
Even former mayors and current councillors are involved in the cover up as are high profile lawyers
This morning I tried to speak to someone in your office about it and was told to put it in writing
How many times do we have to write in how many years before we get your attention.
Why is national actively concealing this corruption and why do citizens not have the ability to question what is going on. Only by accountability can we ensure that our country is truly corruption free.
Mr Key could I please get a response from you .. Do you condone corruption or do you seek accountability? Could you please assign someone to assist in this matter.
I have worked out why NZ is the least corrupt.. we simply don’t acknowledge it. Let’s ignore it and it will go away.
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
How could A non existent private law enforcement authority survive for so long? Why condone corruption in Waitakere City?
Open letter to Rodney Hide
Dear Rodney
In 2006 I questioned the existence of the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) which was a private law enforcement authority with extensive prosecution , search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act.
I was to find that the only person associated with AWINZ up until 2006 was Neil Wells the person who had written the bill leading up to the legislation and he had also been an independent advisor to the select committee in the time leading to the bill becoming legislation.
While you were in opposition and you were most helpful and even arranged for questions to be asked in Parliament [1]
The questions you asked were with regards to a trust which Mr Wells claimed AWINZ to be but it has now emerged that the trust which he claimed was AWINZ was nothing but a red herring and that AWINZ was nothing more than another name Mr Wells used for himself.
The time line goes like this
- Mr Wells writes the Bill which facilitates organisations other than the RNZSPCA to enforce animal welfare.
- Mr Wells becomes an independent advisor to the select committee in the bearing stages.
- Mr Wells makes an applicationfor AWINZ to become an approved organisation under the legislation which he has just contributed so much to .
- On page 2 of that document he states “ A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand “ (AWINZ). It is being registered under Pa r t II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”
- In correspondence with the minister and MAF Mr Wells makes false statements and avoids the production of a deed.[2]
- In 2006 Neither Waitakere City or MAF have any documents which have details of the other trustees and there are no documents which give Mr Wells consent for persons to act on their behalf either jointly or severally .
- There are not trust deeds on file which back up the MOU’s being one with MAF which Mr Wells signed as a trustee and the other with waitakere dog control which he signed on behalf of a non-existent organisation Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand.
- In early 2006 There were no organisations registered anywhere by the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand and Mr Wells was operating this “ organisation from his place of work Waitakere city council dog control where he was now manager.
- By incorporating the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand on 27 April 2006 we categorically proved that No other organisation by that name existed.
- Mr Wells then started a cover up campaign[3] , evidence which has come out recently proves that Mr Wells was in fact AWINZ and that no other person was involved in the running of it.
Mr Wells was the dog and stock control manager at Waitakere city council, using the name AWINZ to disguise the fact that he contracted to himself he performed services which were as follows.
- The staff under Mr Wells control at Waitakere dog and stock control were trained by him to be animal welfare officers.
- They were warranted on recommendation of AWINZ
- In their paid time for the council if they came across an animal welfare matter in the course of their duties or were asked to attend an animal welfare matter ( which took priority over council work ) they would attend take, action and reported the circumstances to their council boss Neil Wells manager.
- He would pass it to the head of AWINZ – Neil wells for authority to prosecute
- He passed it to the barrister for AWINZ Neil wells who would do the paperwork and court work
- The money which came back by virtue of section 171 AWA was handed back to Neil Wells who ran a bank account in the name of Animal welfare institute of new Zealand for that purpose. Fines under the animal welfare act could be up to $250,000.
I was relieved when you won the seat , You had been so supportive when you were in opposition I thought Good something will happen now.
Instead I have not been able to get near you and was told by one of your support staff that it is now conflict of interest for you to be involved.
Rodney I would very much like to know
- why it is a conflict of interest ?
- why AWINZ was able to continue to trade until January of this year?
- Why you condone contracts for law enforcement to be entered into with unidentifiable “organisations”?
- Why this has been concealed from the public?
- And what else is happening out there that the public have no right to know about yet is paying for?
- Why do you no longer support the call for an independent commission against corruption?
I will be publishing a copy of this letter on the Blog www.Transparency.net.nz and will be happy to publish your reply .
Looking forward to being ignored again
I thought it was funny when I called in at your meeting last night and the idiot at the back told me to see my local MP, it was great to be able to say I have tried Rodney is it .
He had a good idea why not let Mr Key know so this is it I will let Mr Key know and all the other members of our parliament and the press.
I will keep on pushing this issue through the election campaign I am going to get this exposed.
Get your spin doctors out .. I want some answers.
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.verisure.co.nz
[1] 19741 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
19742 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
9240 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
9241 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
9065 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
7723 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
2 For clarification the false statements are
- Registration does not add months , it is completed in days
- It has nothing to do with IRD
- The undertaking that AWINZ will be registered was false.. It never occurred.
- He never sent a copy of a trust deed
- Originals are never sent he knew this as he had registered other trusts
- The deed when it emerged did not have a section 20 (a)
3 By first having me and my fellow board members intimidated By xxxxxThen having a very nonfactual letter sent by lawyer David Neutze who supplied a trust deed for a group of people who have never had any legal connection with the approved organisation other than by inference. We offered to meet to discuss the issues, but as these people were not actively involved it was too difficult as these people were not aware of the true nature of the operation. MAF were now asking questions and due to the urgency Wells had to come up with trustees and recruited Wyn Hoadley Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Wells , without documentary evidence of being a trustees took legal action on fabricated grounds. ( Passing off and breach of fair trading- They had formed a group used the name AWINZ and took action against our pre-existing legal entity .
[1] 19741 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
19742 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
9240 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
9241 (2007). Rodney Hide to the Minister of Agriculture
[2] For clarification the false statements are
- Registration does not add months , it is completed in days
- It has nothing to do with IRD
- The undertaking that AWINZ will be registered was false.. It never occurred.
- He never sent a copy of a trust deed
- Originals are never sent he knew this as he had registered other trusts
- The deed when it emerged did not have a section 20 (a)
[3] By first having me and my fellow board members intimidated By xxx Then having a very nonfactual letter sent by lawyer David Neutze who supplied a trust deed for a group of people who have never had any legal connection with the approved organisation other than by inference. We offered to meet to discuss the issues, but as these people were not actively involved it was too difficult as these people were not aware of the true nature of the operation. MAF were now asking questions and due to the urgency Wells had to come up with trustees and recruited Wyn Hoadley Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Wells , without documentary evidence of being a trustees took legal action on fabricated grounds. ( Passing off and breach of fair trading- They had formed a group used the name AWINZ and took action against our pre-existing legal entity .
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC
Open letter to Wyn Hoadley
Dear Wyn
I note that you are now a councillor at Thames District council and find it ironic that you sued me in 2006 to silence me from asking questions of the councillors at Waitakere city council with regards to the operation of your “organisation” which was performing SPCA type duties by using the councils staff facilities and infrastructure.
I had been approached by a dog and stock control officer who was employed by the council who questioned the need for her to have a warrant under the animal welfare act and why the duties for animal welfare were being prioritised over council work ,during her council paid time.
It transpired that The animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) was a fabricated organisation created by the man who wrote and advised on the animal welfare act.
The legislation provided for approved organisations of which the RNZSPCA was one and AWINZ to become the other. It also provided a great source of income to Approved organisation by way of prosecution ( section 171)
In his rush to make the application for approved status, Mr Wells overlooked the fact that he did not have an organisation and made the application in the name of a non-existent trust. There by making the application in a name other than his legal name and this name not representing any one else can only be his alias.
In 2006 after we discovered that Mr Wells a council manager for dog and stock control was running a his fictitious organisation in a situation of gross conflict of interest and parallel to his council responsibilities using the resources and infrastructure of council and there by deriving an income which only he was in control of and received this into a bank account which he operated in the name of his alias.
To prove categorically that AWINZ did not have any known legal foundations, those with an interest in accountability, which included me ,set up a trust and incorporated it on the 27 April 2006 in the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
This made me a Board member of a legally incorporated trust which was Legally registered on the 27th April 2006 and had obtained charitable status with the IRD, being the only legal entity by that name to have that status. There were no other groups recorded as using that name with IRD . As with any credible organisation we can produce the document trail it is found on the purpose of transparency and accountability.
In May 2006 we applied for the trade mark AWINZ which was eventually registered to us unopposed.
In contrast you formed a relationship with Neil Wells and Graeme Coutts JP on 10 May 2006 and called yourselves AWINZ . You have never provided any documentary evidence of this relationship and there has been no evidence that you formed a trust or became a trustee or took on any obligations to the approved organisation other than by inference .
I recently received your explanation as to your involvement with AWINZ which was that you had been asked to become a trustee and became both trustee and Chairperson on 10 May 2006. This date is some three weeks after the entity I was a board member of was legally incorporated.
You went on to state that as a chair person you and the other alleged trustees then instructed lawyers to take action against myself and the board of the legally incorporated AWINZ for passing off and breach of the fair trading act, this is rather odd in view of the date which after 5 years of litigation we have finally been supplied with.
When you sued for passing off one would have presumed that you had prior usage rights, not be part of an informal group which adopted the name weeks after the other party was legally incorporated.
Any ordinary person could tell you that to have prior usage right you have to pre-exist the other entity and logically have proof of your existence. As a barrister I would have thought that that would have been obvious to you too.
Before I even knew you were involved I was Intimidated by xxxxxx who as it transpires was an unregistered lawyer who according to your statement had been instructed by you and Mr Wells and ” the other trustees ”
The Letter signed By David Neutze as then sent a short time later to the board of the legal entity AWINZ which made legal threats based on false claims.
The letter was followed by a trust deed which did not include your name and Mr Neutze by inference indicated that those persons named on the deed were his clients.He never checked and never questioned that the plaintiffs in the proceedings were not the same group of persons.
Now 5 years later after you dragged me though court and destroyed my family through the stress of it all , I discover that you had no prior usage rights at all and that your claim in the statement of claim is entirely fictitious.
What I would like to know from you Wyn is
- What exactly did you join on the 10th May 2006, was there a proper meeting with minutes were other people there or did the date somehow evolve due to Mr Wells completing a form with the charities commission.
- How come you have never been able to provide any documents that prove that you were a trustee, If you didn’t sign any papers how did you know you were become a trustee to a trust, how did you get an obligation to the deed.
- Mr Coutts told me that the trust, he belonged to which by its own documentation ( 7 (a)) ceased to exist on 1.3.2003, never met so how did you become a trustee of this defunct trust?
- How were you appointed given the fact that the trust never met?
- If this this trust still existed, how did this trust which was allegedly formed on 1.3.2000 have any obligations to the approved status given that none of the trustees other than Wells had signed any documents for the application for approved status. And that there are no documents any where which bind those trustees to the responsibility of running a law enforcement agency.
- In May 2006 you assumed the name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand then took legal action against myself and the legally incorporated AWINZ which pre-existed your implied involvement by three weeks – for passing off and breach of fair trade. As a barrister could you please let me know how someone who assumes a name later can sue a prior existing legal entity for passing off
- How we could have been breaching the fair trading act when you had not traded using the name AWINZ prior to our existence.
- How could you sue us without checking the validity of your claim?
In June 2006 I became aware that you were involved through a donation flyer which had been sent out with the dog registration papers in 2006 .Sent to all dog owners in Waitakere city council.- Since you took action against us a legally incorporated charitable trust for passing off and breach of fair trade, do you not think that the logo you and your associates Mr Wells and Mr Coutts JP adopted was not a tad similar with the logo on the Waitakere council dog control building? And could also be seen as passing off and breach of fair trade?
Why was the new logo you adopted so close to the ones on the council building and vehicles?
Why did you use the council phone number for your flyer and why continue to use the postal address of the council manager Mr Wells, do you not think that that was a conflict of interest for him ?
You signed the donation flyer and the following years flyer . Legislation states that “No trustees or society shall be incorporated under a name which is identical with that of any other Board “ Mr wells had a letter from the ministry of economic developmentswhich explained this point . Please explain by what legislation or documentary evidence you can supply which gave you the right to call yourself the chairperson of the board of trustees of AWINZ.
Mr Wells up to this time, had been the only person who had any discoverable associations with the approved organisation AWINZ, he had written and advised on the legislation which facilitated the application he made in the name of a non-existent organisation.
Mr Wells was also the manager dog and stock control of Waitakere city council having replaced Mr Didovich who had signed the MOU with Mr Wells some years earlier, Mr wells was effectively contracting to himself , this contract had never received consent through council and MAF believed that the agreement was with council not a division of council and certainly not some one contracting to himself.
Mr Wells a council employee using the council paid officers, facilities and resources derived income from the function of the council officers in the name of AWINZ .
Even after you became supposed chair, Mr Wells continued to operate a Bank account in the name of his alias Animal welfare institute of New Zealand. He was the sole operator and the account had no trust deed associated with it.
- Wyn , as Former Mayor and now a councillor of TCDC does this mean that you support council officers running a private venture using council staff and resources to generate income for a group other than Council?
- This practice internationally is known as corruption , in taking action to conceal the activities of Mr wells and his approved “ organisation which in reality was no more than an alias for himself , do you not think that you may have been concealing corruption ?
- Why did you as chairperson not have any over sight over the bank accounts ?
- What due diligence have you ever done with regards to the set up of the “organisation “ you claim to be head of? Why sue before you have done due diligence? And why did you not wish to discuss the matter with me or meet with our trustees to attempt to resolve it?
- The legal action you took against me and the legal entity AWINZ was to force us to give up the name and the web site, You have stated that the trustees of AWINZ decided to instruct legal counsel Brookfield’s. Why then go to a law clerk who did not have a practising certificate.
- Why not take the recommended action as advised by the MED in the letter Mr Wells had or could you not take this course because you did not have the evidence or the standing?
- You always said it was urgent is that why Intimidation was the chosen method? Did you condone the intimidation ? You certainly did nothing to stop it!
- Did you instruct the law clerk to intimidate us , did you check the facts of the letter Mr. Neutze sent on “your instruction “ and did you check the “statement of claim for accuracy”
- You withdrew your claim after you had brought about some $20,000 cost against me personally all intended to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion with regards to the questions I had raised about AWINZ. do you think that that was ethical . As an officer of the court should you not have spoken up and advised the court that you really did not have a rightful claim or standing?
- In December 2006 some 5 months after you initiated legal action without seeking redress outside the court you signed a trust deed , this trust eventually obtained charitable status and retrospectively took on the role as the approved Organisation .. could you please explain how this is legally possible?
- This trust obtained charitable funds which were used in the litigation against me which was conducted in the name of AWINZ, could you please advise why the lawyers your trusts funds paid for were able to claim that your unincorporated trust was an entity in its own name and how your trust established 5 months later got to be involved in the litigation.
- I note that on various sites you set out your public involvement why do you never make mention of AWINZ ?
On http://www.northshorehospitalfoundation.com/foundation.html it states
Wyn Hoadley, QSO, Barrister, Auckland Regional Council Finance Chair, Member Earthquake Commission, patron & trustee of various performing arts, sports, community organisations, long serving City Councillor & Mayor Takapuna City, previously Chancellor AUT.
Wyn seeks to build relationships between the WDHB and other community organisations to address public health issues and is a strong advocate for clear and balanced priorities for the communities of the Waitemata Health District.
I have 28 years local and regional governance experience, understand the issues and how to get things done. Wyn and husband Steve are TCDC ratepayers with property and flat in Pollen Street. Was previous Mayor of Takapuna City, Chancellor Auckland University of Technology, Chair Trustees NZ National Library, and National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, am a barrister specialising in resource management and public law, served on variety of boards, including Earthquake Commission, Transit NZ, Building Research (BRANZ), National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Civil Defence, and awarded Queen’s Service Order for Public Services (QSO) 2004.
I hereby disclose the following conflict of interest with the Waitemata District Health Board that may arise in the future: I am a Trustee of the North Shore Hospital Foundation, Trustee of the Three Harbours Health Foundation, and a member of North Shore Community Health Voice, and I give professional legal advice and assistance to persons and organisations involved in the health sector from time to time in my capacity as a barrister.
Wyn the past five years of litigation have hardly been on a level playing field, me a lay litigant up against a number of barristers namely Wyn Hoadley, Neil Wells, David Neutze, xxxxx and Nick Wright. You could say that the playing field was not level.
The litigation has given me great experiences for writing a book on dirty tricks lawyers play , I would have thought that so many officers of the court would have won hands down without dirty tactics.. but I guess that only happens if you have a real case.
You have had me in bankruptcy court skipped the formal proof hearing for defamation , filed a statutory demand on my business while claiming to be an incorporated trust , opposed every application I have made for appeal, your lawyers have misled the courts and blocked a judicial review. Is this justice?
I may have had a sporting chance if each of the lawyer had upheld their obligations to the court and officers of the court and conducted themselves according to the rules in particular rule 13
13 The overriding duty of a lawyer acting in litigation is to the court concerned.
13.1 A lawyer has an absolute duty of honesty to the court and must not mislead or deceive the court.
13.2 A lawyer must not act in a way that undermines the processes of the court or the dignity of the judiciary.
Quite clearly the past 5 years have not followed these rules or the previous rules which also had similar obligations to the court.
I find it very hard to comprehend that someone such as yourself who claims to have humanitarian interest in animals can treat a fellow human being so badly. I have likened this to being assualted, if done with a base ball bat you would have been locked up but as a lawyer you can hide behind what is supposed tobe a pure reputaton your queens service medal and your previus status as a mayor.
Wyn Integrity comes from within. You are by the values that you live by. You continue to be a public figure and give the pretence of being a person of good standing, to me it would appear that this is a façade.
Wyn I speak the truth because I believe that the public need to know who you are and what your standards are and if you have allowed council officers to run a private enterprise off council resources before will you continue to condone it.
The New Zealand rate payers are being scalped we want accountability and transparency . You yourself are aware of their concerns
Wyn Hoadley: Give your 2c on council spending
“Last year’s Inquiry into Local Government Rates followed public concern at rates increases and significant financial pressures facing local government. It recommended that local government needs to show more restraint in its expenditure and improve its planning function which drives this spending.”
Wyn You cannot keep your reputation in tact while destroying mine. the truth will come out , it is never too late to apologise and make amends. My crime has been to question corruption corruption which you have chosen not to question and to defend.
I will publish any reply you wish to supply.
Yours sincerely
Grace Haden