Search Results

Lawyer seeks help from Netsafe

vivienne-holmYesterday 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

Intimidation by Vivienne Holm

Talking Works Tom Didovich!

How could A non existent private law enforcement authority survive for so long? Why condone corruption in Waitakere City?

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

More submissions

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 

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

  1.  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.
  2. you can have various copies of the deed  they can all conflict and no one cares see here  and here 
  3. no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust  complies with its deed
  4. 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 .
  5. 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
  6. 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 )
  7. 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

trust 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.

reappointment

 

 

 

 

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 2006 deed

 

 

 

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  

affidavit

 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

funnypictures96 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

  1. Wells Lied to the minister
  2. there was no organization or any person in fact who made the application
  3. Wells had sole control of a Law enforcement authority  which fulfilled the functions of his business plan
  4. 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

  1. Hike up the costs on false  claims
  2. Make a demand for payment and seek to have  the defence struck out when payment cant be made.
  3. withdraw the false claims
  4. Don’t provide any evidence at all simply say  the statement of claim is true
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  1. 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
  2. and  at least had some evidence  that they were  a trust and trading.. how was any one supposed to know???

And

  1.   By  claiming to be   a trust by invisible meand, Hoadley  wells and Coutts  suddenly morphed into the law endorsement authority
  2. 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.
  1. 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

  1. CIV 2012-004-696   was action taken against Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   each in their own capacity as individuals .
    1. The accounts on which the indemnity costs were claimed was on  accounts made out to AWINZ
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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.
    1. 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.
  3. 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” .
  4.     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 .
  5.     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.
  6.     There is a further adding mistake although only by $3 when all the sums alleged are added up.
  7.      Further the affidavit  in  support of  the strike out  which consisted of nothing  but  judgments which were readily available  was charged out  at $1805.
  8.  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
  9. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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 .

  1. File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
  2. use interlocutories to  trump up the costs,
  3.  demand the costs  in a short time frame
  4.  Have the defence on the   remaining matter struck out.
  5. With draw the fictional claims.
  6. Skip formal  proof
  7. Go straight to Quantum
  8. Deny  any opportunity   for appeal
  9. Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
  10. 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?

How do they get away with it?

Perhaps Brookfileds can answer the questions raised in this  video they  obviously support  these principals.

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.

and the act itself

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 :

  1.  chapter 2 Rule of law and administration of justice  2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.
  1.  2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.
  1.  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. 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.
  1.  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

  1. Mr Wells writes the Bill which   facilitates organisations other than the RNZSPCA to enforce animal welfare.
  2. Mr Wells becomes an  independent  advisor to the select committee in the bearing  stages.
  3. Mr Wells makes an applicationfor AWINZ to become an approved organisation under the legislation which he has just contributed so much to .
    1. 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”
    2. In correspondence with the minister and MAF Mr Wells makes false statements and avoids the production of a deed.[2]
    3. 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 .
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  1. The staff under Mr Wells  control at Waitakere  dog and stock control  were  trained by him to be  animal welfare officers.
  2. They were warranted on recommendation of AWINZ
  3. 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.
  4. He would pass it to the head of AWINZ – Neil wells  for authority to prosecute
  5. He passed it to the  barrister for AWINZ  Neil wells  who  would  do the paperwork and court work
  6. 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

  1. why it is a conflict of interest   ?
  2. why   AWINZ was able to continue to trade until January of this year?
  3. Why  you condone  contracts for law enforcement to be entered into   with unidentifiable  “organisations”?
  4. Why this has been concealed from the public?
  5. And what else is happening out there that the public have no right to know about yet   is paying for?
  6. 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

  1. Registration does not add months  , it is completed in  days
  2. It has nothing to do with IRD
  3. The undertaking  that AWINZ will be registered   was false.. It never occurred.
  4. He never sent a copy of a trust deed
  5. Originals are never sent  he knew this as he had registered other trusts
  6. 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 .


[2] For clarification the false statements are

  1. Registration does not add months  , it is completed in  days
  2. It has nothing to do with IRD
  3. The undertaking  that AWINZ will be registered   was false.. It never occurred.
  4. He never sent a copy of a trust deed
  5. Originals are never sent  he knew this as he had registered other trusts
  6. 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.

http://www.tcdc.govt.nz/PageFiles/5081/Councillor%20-%20Thames/P_TC011_20100916_101144_WYN_HOADLEY_PROD.pdf

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.

Conflicts of Interest

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