Malcolm North from the ministry of social development , Bullies us again
February 5, 2018 | 
Author 
An email from Malcolm North has been forwarded to me, it is grossly defamatory and bullying and alleges that Samuel terminated his lease. we would like to hear from any one at MSD ( ministry of social development), is he also a bully at work because he certainly is in emails, again speculating and threatening by stating ” I have spoken to xxxxxx employer about his behaviour so don’t expect him to be employed for much longer‘ it is noted that his email had this disclaimer ——————————- This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry. ——————————-” does that indicate that he sent the email from the ministy of social developments servers and using his Muserestaurant email address. Not a good look
But getting back to the statement that Samuel terminated his lease, this generally requires a ” notice period ” so when di dhe give notice and how did this line up with the Grab one and groupon offers? https://new.grabone.co.nz/restaurants-bars-cafes/european-restaurants/p/muse-eatery-and-bar-13 and https://www.grouponnz.co.nz/deals/muse-bar-and-eatery
the pdf copies downloaded tonight are here Muse Eatery and Bar • GrabOne NZ and here Muse Eatery & Bar – Up To 60% Off – Wellington _ Groupon
We first heard the rumour that Muse was closing on the 18th January , this is just 10 days after the deals were offered on line . If you have an uncertain future then 10 days out would you offer deals . These offers are valid till end of march and early april as shown on the PDF’s so where are they going to be honoured if Samuel knew all along that he had terminated the lease .
at least 80 people spent $99 on groupon =$7,920 at least 10 people spent $195 on groupon =$1,950 total $9,870
86 people bought the grab one deal at $69 =5,934 total for the two deals potentially outstanding $15,804
We look forward to hearing from the landlord. The land lord in Allen street was left out of pocket according to liquidators papers time will tell if the name of this land lord will ultimately appear on the liquidation papers for catering company .
The web page which was paid up until the 16 th February was pulled 5 February and now defaults to the web serves page , The face book page was taken down last week .So if the web page and Face book pages were pulled why not pull these deals ? Why leave them up why no formal announcement .
We have heard from reliable sources that there are substantial debts .
Any one out of pocket with a provable debt please contact us we are coordinating a group action .
we will keep you posted we know there is more to come
Posted in 
The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true
Hard on the heals of Five Boroughs another restaurant has closed its doors.
This one however did not come as a surprise to us, as rumours had been flowing freely that Samuel North was going to close the doors at the end of the month.
Transparency took the precaution of notifying key people so that the evidence of the intent was there .
This is not the first time that boy wonder Samuel North has closed shop he did this with Muse on Allen, took all the Branded crockery cutlery and any thing that was not tacked down and started a new business leaving massive debts in his wake.
Our people in Wellington managed to capture the action as it unfolded . we wonder
1.if the staff knew that they would turn up for work and ind the contents gone ,
2. If the land lord knew of if he is going to be out of pocket just like the last one
3. was the stuff Samuels to take he had previously said it belonged to the premises
4. where was it all going
5. Are the grab ones which are still being sold going to be repaid ?
6. are the groupons still going to be sold
Guess these pictures will be of use for the liquidator we believe that once again IRD have been left out of pocket ,well timed Samuel we believe that the 7th feb may have been D day for tax payment so it appears that to prevent liquidators recovering assets you have got in first. we wonder where the next phoenix will rise ? The company Muse eatery traded under wsa Catering Limited. The face book page for muse was pulled last week .
Samuel was last seen in the castle parcels van shown below .. he had a convoy but , Sam it was not unseen. and . will you refund the Grab ones ? was it not a tad fraudulent to keep selling them when you and every one else in wellington ( it seems ) knew that you were going to do a runner.
The secret Law Society Disciplinary Committees
Following on from the previous post
As we saw the law society nurtures and disciplines its own members, this can be like the mother of a very spoilt child , if the child is a favourite its a case of Now Johnny you go and be a good boy mummy will be very cross if you do that again . or if the child is not liked a step child or a foreign lawyer for example then there will be a crucifixion so that a message is sent to the others and to show that the system is working .
The disciplinary side of the law society is undertaken through statute, the lawyers and conveyancers act .
The conflicting roles of the law society are set in statute .. statute is written by lawyers and as with the animal welfare Act, there is concrete evidence that statutes are written and advised on by lawyers .
(The animal welfare act , no 1 bill was written by Barrister Neil Wells to facilitate his own business plan, he advised on this as independent advisor to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest )
The resulting swiss cheese legislation has sufficient holes for the lawyers to crawl through and evade the intention of the law.
section 65 sets out the Regulatory functions
The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—
(a)to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:
(b)to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:
(c)to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:
(d)to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:
(e)to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.
It is my experience that the law society is very poor at holding lawyers accountable to the rule of Law and that is where our entire justice system falls down . Close enough is not good enough , lawyers are officers of the court and as such have higher obligations to truth and honesty than the average Joe Bloggs , and we all know that many lawyers don’t know the definition of truth.
In a recent decision from the law society the society stated that
“The lawyer is an agent for the client in conducting the client’s affairs. The lawyer is obliged to follow the instructions of the client where it is consistent with their professional duties. The lawyer has a duty of absolute loyalty to the client and may not have regard for the interests of third parties except insofar as they are consistent with his or her own instructions and relevant to the protection and promotion of the interests of his or her own client.”
This may be true but this is surely limited to being an officer of the court first this is spelled out in section 4 of the act
the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
This to me at least makes it clear that the lawyers primary obligations are to the court and he has a duty not to mislead the court or to use the court for an improper purpose .
Time and time again we see that lawyers are not being held accountable to the rule of law and because they know that this particular bit of the rules is purposely overlooked they use it to abuse the use of the court.
In these hard time of lawyers being paid upward of $250 per hour its about winning , no matter how. When a group of people are backing each other up and no one is being held accountable to the rule of law then injustice reigns.
As a result it is our observation that the new Zealand courts have become extremely unsafe .
When a lawyer steps out of line the first step is to make a complaint to the law society .
We made a complaint against a lawyer in April 2016, the quote above came from the decision which was delivered by an anonymous group of people represented with the name and signature of only one barrister who signed the decision on 28 November 2017 .
Law society disciplinary committees are made up of up to seven lawyer members and two lay members , however the standards committees appear to work from a position of total anonymity aside from a requirement to notify the minister of the appointment
Standards committees are set up under section 126 of the act , they appear to be are totally anonymous and are in reality not a legal structure which is capable of being sued or suing, but they are regularly represented in court proceedings as if they have every right of a legal or natural person .
Standard committees in effect are nothing more than a trading name given to a group of unidentified persons , at best it is an unincorporated group and the rules in law dictate that they should be treated as naming the individuals as members of the what ever trust or committee.
The decisions of the committees are listed here look at them the majority have the lawyers names anonymised despite the fact that many lawyers who have come to their attention have committed real crimes and have never been held accountable in another court .
There is a good chance that the lawyers on the disciplinary committees are connected to the lawyer under review due to them belonging to a secondary alliance whihc many law firms have formed for example
NZ LAW Limited which is according to the companies office jointly owned by 55 lawyers , this from this link 
This is not the only law firm made up of many others , there are also LAW ALLIANCE NZ LIMITED 34 share holders and LARGE LAW FIRMS GROUP LIMITED 9 share holders and probably more .
All in all there is nothing at all transparent about the disciplinary process , it behind closed doors and as seen with the example takes a very long time for a complain to come out the other end 1 year 7 months in the example above .
the decision is delivered with this note
“Decisions of the Standards Committee must remain confidential between the parties unless the Standards Committee directs otherwise. The Standards Committee has made no such direction in relation to this matter.“
But despite the fact that they decide to back their lawyer members up for not complying with the rule of law there is an avenue open to appeal their decision and that is through the LCRO and that is even more fascinating.. to be continued
Why the New Zealand justice system is prone to corruption
Has any one else noticed that the New Zealand Law society appears to be at the centre of every thing in New Zealand .
It has more power than government as its members are the advisers to government and local bodies and the judges are selected from the membership by another member or former member. In the last government Christopher Francis Finlayson QC member of the NZ law society and Attorney-General selected fellow members to be judges. His recommendations was accepted by the governor_general
In all over the years he appointed the majority of our judges this from Kiwi’s first
this from the Courts of New Zealand web page
it goes on to say that “Judges have been appointed whose career paths have not been those of the conventional court advocate.”
and ” The appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is not prescribed by any statute or regulation.”
Many years ago I heard a presentation by Anthony Molloy QC who hit the nail on the head when he said ” nothing is going to change until one day a judge, while playing golf is hit on the head by a golf ball. Requiring urgent brain surgery he arrives in theatre to find that there are no brain surgeons available , but the staff reassure him that the surgeon a highly qualified and respected Gynecologist . They are all doctors after all.”
A list of judges of the high court is shown here all those appointed after 2008 were recommended by Finlayson 30 out of a total of 39 justices
Of the 7 associate judges four were recommended by Finlayson.
Appointment of judges in the UK
the head of the court is of course the Queen it is her court , in days of old the king/queen would be the ultimate decision maker and was advised by the knights templar and secular . Below crown was the privy council , the crowns closest advisors and this has over the years become this highest appellate court , but New zealand did away with this and the question therfor eis are they still the queens court ehan the queen and her advisors have no role to play.
They effectively did away with the system that we still hold on to . A system which lacks transparency and independence.
The New Zealand Law society
A judge has to have held a practicing certificate for at least 7 years and generally those appointed to the bench leave the law society to take on their position and if they leave the bench they will again become a member of the law society .
The New Zealand Law society has the conflicting roles of regulatory and nurturing for barristers and solicitors alike .
In the UK these duties are split between a regulatory authority such as the solicitors regulatory authority for regulatory matters and the law society for support assistance and nurturing of the lawyers who are solicitors. The lawyers who are Barristers belong to a bar council or one of the four inns of court and are regulated by the bar standards Board
why do we think The New Zealand justice system is open to corruption? well this is a serial you will have to drop back and read our stories of the lack of transparency and the vast disparity between the ways lawyers are treated and how others are treated
A tale of two companies Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited and Tamaki Regeneration Limited
There appears to be an awful lot of confusion with the Tamaki Regeneration project
first of all the web site is called http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/ but the web site is owned by Tamaki Redevelopment Co
Tamaki redevelopment company limited was set up in in 2012 following the signing of a heads of agreement between auckland council and two ministers of the crown
Tamaki Redevelopment company was set up with share holding from the crown and council and the shareholders adopted a Constitution this 31 page document was drafted and filed by the company secretary Simpson Grierson . The comprehensive constitution was amended in 2014 to this version Amendment of Constitution a 27 page document , we are uncertain as to the input of the crown shareholders into that document , it was again filed by the undefined trading name simpson Grierson .On 14 March 2016 the constitution is replaced by the 25 page document Revocation and Adoption of Constitution what is of note is that this constitution unlike the two former ones has no obligation to the heads of agreement .
on 11 November 2015 Tamaki Redevelopment company limited became the sole share holder of a new company called Tamaki Regeneration Limited and of a company called THA GP Limited .
THA Gp limited subsequently became the general partner in a limited partnership called Tamaki Housing association Limited partnership ( 19 january 2016) these bodies remain as subsidiaries of Tamaki Redevelopment company limited and we will just put them to one side for now
we will now look at the government web sites and special announcements
9 FEBRUARY, 2016 John Key Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament
In March this year, 2,800 Housing New Zealand homes will be transferred to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company.This will result in at least 7,500 new homes in that area over the next 10 to 15 years, of which more than a third will be for social housing.The transfer of Housing New Zealand properties to community housing providers in Invercargill and Tauranga will happen later this year.
25 FEBRUARY, 2016 Bill English Speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University – State of the Economy
The Tamaki Redevelopment Company will become the owner of 2,800 former Housing New Zealand houses at the end of March, which the company plans to redevelop into around 7,500 houses.
Note that up to this stage the housing new zealand stock was going to be transferred to Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited which has been abbreviated in correspondence as TRC
then on
31 MARCH, 2016 Bill English, Nick Smith Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed
The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council
TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme
Note that he states that the houses will go to Tamaki regeneration Limited, but he called it Tamaki Regeneration company TRC. He goes on to say
The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.
But Tamaki Housing is a subsidiary of Tamaki redevelopment company limited TRC not of Tamaki regeneration limited TRL he then adds to the confusion and states
TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme
Yes Tamaki Redevelopment company limited was set up to lead the regeneration programme not TRL which at this date was a subsidiary of TRC .
On 14 April the shares of Tamaki regeneration limited are increased from 100 to 1631161218 and the shareholders are updated Particulars of Shareholding
What is of concern is that it appears that the ministers believe that the properties are going to the company of which council and crown are the share holders , the company which was set up for the transformation project the company which is the ultimate holding company for Tamaki Housing Limited partnership . but..
The reality is that the assets have gone to an entirely different company one which the crown had no input in to the constitution, a company which is a stand alone .
Now let us look at the annual reports of tamaki redevelopment company Limited this is the 2015 report note that the company is referred to as TRC .
The annual report states
page 5
The New Zealand Cabinet agreed that the ownership and management of approximately 2,800 social homes currently held by Housing NZ in
Tāmaki will be transferred to TRC by 31 March 2016
Page 6
On 1 April 2016, TRC will own and manage all current social homes of approximately 2,800 in the Tāmaki area.
We are respectful of the responsibility and mandate provided to us by Shareholders to look after the most vulnerable families in our rohe. At the same time, this will be an opportunity to catalyse community led action and move at pace to achieve our objective of making Tāmaki an awesome place to live.
and
Whilst Housing NZ and TRC have different mandates, the commitment by both organisations to ensure a seamless transfer and prepare TRC for
1 April 2016 is unwavering.
In the 2016 annual report the confusion continues the report is entitled TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT 2016 .
page 2
TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC) HAS BEEN MANDATED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND AUCKLAND
COUNCIL, TO REPLACE 2500 SOCIAL HOUSES WITH 7500 MIXED-TENURE HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.
There is no such company as tamaki regeneration company limited. There is Tamaki regeneration Limited company number 5840214
and Tamaki redevelopment company limited 3937662
The name Tamaki regeneration company is used twice and in both instances it is tied to the abbreviation TRC
page 9
Tāmaki Regeneration Company will bring about transformational change to achieve four equally important objectives – social transformation, economic development, placemaking and housing resources.
Through its shareholders, the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council,TRC will replace 2500 social houses in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt. England and
Panmure creating 7500 mixed-tenure homes over a period of 10-15 years.
Tamaki regeneration limited the owner of the properties has no share holding of council
to add to the confusion on page 18 a TRC legal group is created. a legal group has no statutory definition or legal existence .
Tamaki regeneration Limited is referred to as TRL . Through the annual report references are made to the transfer of the properties to TRC ( pages 6,10,12,23) this is incorrect they were transferred to TRL
The confusion is such that courts have been misled with regards to ownership see Open letter to Robert Gapes Simpson Grierson
this has resulted in a fundamentally flawed decision due to the court basing the decision on the lawyer’s flawed submission. The lawyer a member of simpson Grierson law firm, the company secretary told the court that Tamaki regeneration limites was a subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment company limited. we ask How can a lawyer and the company secretary get it so wrong and what does this say about the integrity of the management of the company’s affairs by the secretary .
Of even greater concern is that it appears that the Ministers and treasury were not involved in the setting up of this new crown entity and had no input into the constitution.
Considering the fact that 2800 houses were transferred into this company of mixed identity and dubious origins it is something that we the public need to be concerned about
we note that in the 2015 annual report Mr Holyoake page 6 states “TRC and its partners must also own the lapses or mistakes.” we therefore hope that full transparency is applied and that this mess is corrected to remove any doubt as to who had a mandate to receive the houses and how they came to be in the possession of a company other than the one Government intended the stock to go to .
We note that several of the directors are property developments and one states as his interests ” Potential development opportunities in and around Glen Innes” an other lists directorship in Tāmaki Investment Trust Company Ltd
To those who care about crown assets it would appear that foxes are guarding the hen house we have to ensure that they do not get fat and accountability and transparency is how we wish to achieve that .
Transparency International NZ and whistleblowers
I received a reply from TINZ director David McNeill in response to my post Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand
the email can be found here response from TINZ director David McNeill
In the interest of transparency I publish my response
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 11:37 a.m.
To: ‘David McNeill’ <dm@ti.org.nz>
Subject: RE: open letter to David Mc Neil
Thank you for your response David
I am sorry that you don’t agree with the methods I use to pursue my case but after 11 years I think I have tried everything to bring this matter to the attention of the authorities and misters .
Should bringing corruption to the attention of the government be this hard ?
If it is ignored what does it say about our values?
The only reason I have kept on with it is because it has cost me so much it cost me my marriage and my family not to mention the obscene sum of money which was taken t from me through the subsequent fraud on the court where Wyn Hoadley Barrister, Graeme courts JP and Tom Didovich the conflicted former manager Waitakere city council dog control along with Wells set up a similarly named trust and passed themselves off as the law enforcement authority .. a total legal nonsense but the names were the same so it was OK
I acted in good faith on a matter of public interest which I raised with the purest of intentions after a council employee had come to me .
In becoming a vocal whistle-blower I also became a go to person for those with issues of their own . In the 11 years at the coal face of corruption I have found why corruption is so prevalent in New Zealand and I thought that this information would be of use to TINZ.
How can you work on the issues of integrity , change of policy and political attitude if you yourselves remain uninformed of what is occurring and shun whistle-blowers.
You ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?” well the short answer is that he died last week but the legacy of what he set in action lives on.
He has proved that in New Zealand
-
writing legislation for your own business plan is condoned.
-
you can be an independent adviser to the select committee on matters in which you have a personal financial interest.
-
you can make a fraudulent application for Law enforcement powers and influence the decision makers
-
Those investigating an application for statutory powers do not check if the organisation exists or any alleged fact
-
Obtain your own legal opinion for government and have input into it
-
You can draft your own documents for the government
-
You can contract to councils and government department using a fictional name MOU Waitakere MOU MAF
-
That he can influence the government department to such an extent that the Whistle-blower is discredited and no one verifies that a fraud has occurred or not .
Simply put he has proved that if you make it easy for the public servant , have their trust and liaise with them frequently and meet with minister then you can get them to accept anything and they won’t check. Rule number one never verify . Being a barrister helps after all a man of the law knows and would never be corrupt .
Ironically today there is an article in the newspaper “SPCA confiscates man’s dog based on ‘hearsay’, he claims “ this is very relevant currently the RNZSPCA is undertaking a very dodgy “ amalgamation “ and will be focusing on the inspectorate which will see more personal properties raided by persons who are privately employed. But that is not for now
You say “We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing” Please tell me the difference . If I am screaming corruption now it’s probably because after 11 years of hitting my head against a wall and having my reputation maligned it’s the only thing left to do .
You state “Transparency International NZ “approaches corruption in a different way, attempting to give the whole system more tools & techniques for exposing and preventing corruption. ‘ How can you prevent corruption when you don’t know what the symptoms are ?
Cancer left untreated will kill you corruption left untreated will kill our country and indeed will have killed many in its path . I know this as at one stage I was suicidal .
My criticism of TINZ has been that you prefer not to know about corruption and appear hell bent on portraying New Zealand as the least corrupt to enhance business interest. When I heard Jose Ugaz speak I was heartened I would never have thought that you belong to the same organisation .
You have no idea how difficult it is to see transparency International run programmes such as WHISTLEBLOWING FOR CHANGE, etc yet be shunned by your local branch .
ON https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/whistleblowing/ the following appears
This opens up onto https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblow
ing
“ Through our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres, located in nearly 50 countries, we advise whistleblowers in making their disclosures and work to make sure that their disclosures are duly addressed by appropriate authorities.”
The international body recognises the importance of Whistle-blowers
“ There is growing awareness of the important role whistleblowing plays in stopping corruption. “
yet TINZ say this approach is wrong.”
“We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing.”
I did not wake up one day and decide to become a whistle-blower.
I was a mother had a family of three teenagers thought I was happily married , I helped a lady at Waitakere city council and my whole life changed . this should not happen to any one !
I found something that was very wrong and raised questions with MAF and Waitakere city council which I thought were the appropriate bodies
Rather than checking out my claims they colluded with the perpetrator who then took me to court for defamation, deceived the court and got a judgement against me by denying me the statutory right of defence. That judgement has been waved about ever since to discredit me.
My marriage was simultaneously attacked and my funds were frozen I could not fight back .Lawyers cost money . when My matrimonial property was settles I got a lawyer he happened to be Evgeny orlov who fleeced me and was himself embroiled in matters relating to the panama papers . He had no credibility with the court and was at one stage struck off , just my hard luck that he was my lawyer .
In 2007 Mr Wells wrote to MAF that he intended to bankrupt me . over the years he advised them as to what to and was kept in the loop with every OIA I made and allowed to make comment . see here for another example
The down side of publishing on transparency NZ has been that it allowed Wells and Hoadley to engage a Private investigator who then assisted in muddying the waters. The intention was to deny me my PI licence . five years later they have succeeded putting me out of work at age 64 from a career which is an extension of my police career which commenced when I was 21
I was discredited even to my own children . what I have been fighting for is to get my reputation back
While Neil Wells was portrayed to be good I was made out to be a sinister person
Just prior to his death I found a news item on the law society news Censured lawyer gets name suppression , I recognised the events and from this have speculated that Mr Wells was actually a corrupt barrister . I was charged with alleged breach of a suppression order , the police didn’t need evidence to charge me , it took them 6 weeks to find something that could at a stretch be an order but in reality is vague .
Our biggest issue with corruption in New Zealand is that we thrive on perception , make someone out to be bad and they are bad forever and no one will ever look at the evidence .
Evidence is what Jose Ugaz felt is essential in proving corruption but evidence plays no part in our courts.
Barristers such as Neil Wells and their legal representatives have the ability to influence the court without any evidence this is reflected in a speech made in 2014 by : Justice Helen Winkelmann – Chief High Court Judge of New Zealand (Helen Winkelmann’s 2014 Address).
“There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006”
David the process of holding lawyers accountable to the rule of law is long and again the lawyers word is preferred over the complainant.
I have lost my PI licence , the matter is still under review by the LCRO, I was accused of harassing a lawyer for telling him that he had an obligation to the rule of law and could not use his office for fraud.
Such is New Zealand today have not even touched on to another raft of issues.
I am sure that we could work well together we would both like to see corruption contained and by providing policies that work much grief can be avoided.
I wonder if the Joanne Harrison matter could have been prevented if the lessons which could have been learned from AWINZ had been implemented.
No one should have to go through what I have had to endure there is only one way forward and that is by providing transparency .
I would like to join TI NZ we can learn from each other .
Regards
Grace Haden
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand
Dear David
I am delighted to see your latest news release in my in box Download Media Release Document
I have been a persecuted whistleblower for the past 11 years . I was heartened by the presentation given by the Transparency international president and I certainly hope that Transparency International New Zealand accepts the importance of whistleblowers .
I was not an employee of the organisation I blew the whistle on but in My line of work as a Private Investigator I discovered that our government had given coercive law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation . I thought it would be simple to bring it to their attention and was not prepared for the onslaught that followed .
For the past 11 years , my family and myself have paid a very high price , I even tried to join transparency International but was rejected by your organisation because ” As noted in previous applications, the TINZ Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases”
In desperation I setup my own organisation which now has a massive following I called it transparency New Zealand LTD
The matter which I blew the whistle on was not rocket science. Its basic fraud using a fictional identity
While the country is jumping up and down about an address in Mt Eden used for election purposes and some extra flat mates we are rather ignoring this massive public fraud , how can we make fish of one and fowl of the other.
The origins are with labour and it continued under national . Kennedy Graham once met me and we talked about y issue at length .. he did nothing yet he is miffed with the relatively minor indiscretions of his leader .
The fact that this Fraud has gone on for so long without any one looking at it shows that the fraud situation in NZ is far worse than any one can imagine. This case proves how in reality those in power condone fraud .
I hope that transparency International looks at the issues that whistleblowers face , We don’t expect you to do anything more for us than to look at our cases and see how they impact on the reality of the integrity of the public service.
A public service that ignores and thereby conceals corruption has no integrity
Neil Edward Wells had close ties to MAF ( now MPI ) he met with them regularly and as a member of one of the advisory boards saw an opportunity to write the legislation to update the Animals Protection Act 1960
In writing the bill he saw an opportunity Not only did he write the bill to update legislation he also used it to facilitate his own business plan see here the document drawn up in 1996 clearly shows his intention to make money from this.
He goes on to write the no 1 bill for the new legislation without declaring his conflict of interest.
A second bill is introduced by National .
Both bills go before the select committee and again without declaring his conflict of interest Neil Wells becomes ” independent” adviser to the select committee .
Simultaneously he was paving the way for his business to line up with the legislation which was being passed . Use of confidential information for private use
He set up courses at UNITEC for training the inspectors for the new legislative requirements, a role he was to take on personally for $$$ .
He spoke of an organisation which would have the same powers as the RNZSPCA and he called this AWINZ ( Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .This organisation existed only in his mind.
When the act passed into law he made a fraudulent application in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand see the application here
AWINZ did not exist in any manner or form, there were no trustees , there was no trust deed yet he called himself a trustee and made out through the application that AWINZ existed.
In 2006 I did a Pro bono job for an employee at Waitakere city council , Lyn Macdonald ( the bird lady ) questioned why the buildings and vehicles had been rebranded see here 
and why she had to ” volunteer” her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over her council duty;-dog control
Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a copy of the alleged trust deed and it was only then that Neil Wells produced one and I suspect that the ink was still drying . He gave me a copy see here and sent a different copy to Maf see here . Note that both are different to the one attached to the application. To me this proves that the man had absolutely no hesitation in forging documents .
I have truckloads of documents and have taken this matter to the Ombudsman, ministers court and have found that I have been under attack because of it.
I have simplified the whole matter and ordinary people get it they understand but those in MPI and in so called positions of accountability don’t look at the facts they look at the reputation of the persons, some I fear are acting in self interest as some where at a previous time they had a finger in the pie and covering up also saves their own necks .
I have been at the receiving end of an 11 years smear campaign while Neil Wells promoted himself as being holier than though . That was until he was proved to be corrupt but he then had the advantage of having his name suppressed.
The fraud in a nutshell
Over the years I have learned to simplify it , I also have more documents available now than I had in the early years but ordinary people get it so why do the ombudsmen lawyers etc not understand that
- The application is fraudulent and resulted in a fictional organisation getting law enforcement powers.
- The applicant AWINZ did not exist … no trust deed had been signed , no persons had ever met to approve this trust deed or had agreed to be trustees to this deed
- The persons who were allegedly trustees had never met never passed a resolution never consented to being a law enforcement authority , never took part in the operations or decision making or application for “ awinz “ to become an approved organisation .
- Neil Wells concocted a trust in 2006 and backdated the trust deeds and signed them claiming that they had gone missing. But the date was out by three months so how could a trust which allegedly formed 1.3.2000 make an application 22.11.1999. as can be seen the deeds are different
- Then he supplied a copy of the deed to Maf except he had to change the details of the deed again and another deed was concocted and sent to them.
With regards to the Waitakere city council
- He made an application for the position of dog and stock control manager see here and effectively contracted to himself for the services of AWINZ See the document MOU Waitakere where Wells signs this On behalf of the fictional Animal welfare institute of New Zealand with Tom Didovich the person whose job he was to take over .
Note: that there is no mention of the conflict of interest in the application for the job , he treats AWINZ as though it is a legal person separate from himself when in reality he is the only person associated with AWINZ and this is in reality a trading name for himself.
- He rebrands the building the Waitakere city council dog control building to appear to be his fictional organisation
- there is of course much more but his will do this relates to the public and public wrong doing
this could have been easily dealt with .
In the first place MAF did not check they assumed and gave law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation .
secondly like the Joanne Harrison matter Maf relied on Neil wells to provide them with information and directions to ward me off .. I have the emails to prove it
Our internal systems for dealing with this type of offence do not exist and every one was quite happy to stand by while I was beaten up from all angles.
No one knew how to investigate the simple questions which should have been asked are
- Did AWINZ exist when it made the application … NO
- What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing it was an unsigned deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown
- Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
- But we now have a trust deed dates 1.3.200 .. but that is three months after the application how can a trust make an application before it is formed
- When did that deed first come to light.. 2006
- Were any of the alleged trustees apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
- Did Maf have consent from any one else acting on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
- Should MAF have ensured that AWINZ existed legally ..
yes there was a Statutory need for accountability how can there be accountability if the organisation does not exist
122Criteria
(1)The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—
(a)one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal; and
(b)the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
- How could they do this .. they had no idea about identities even the lawyers did not check .. they took Wells word as a barrister for it
- was the trust deed attached to the application in 1999 and the one provided to Maf in 2006 the same.. no therefore consideration of the unsigned deed by Maf was irrelevant.
- Why did Maf not insist on a deed ..Because Neil Wells misled them and they did not check
- Why were the other alleged trustees not involved ..MAF should have contacted these persons and ensured that they were actively involved
- Why were legal names avoided ? If legal names had been used we would all have known who we were dealing with
With respect to Waitakere city council
- Did tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his staff for animal welfare purposes … no
- Didovich signed a MOU should this have been brought to the councils attention..Yes
- Wells applied for Didovich’s Job should he have declared the Mou which he had signed .. yes
- Did Neil Wells work in a situation of gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
- Wells rebranded the building was the logo animal welfare on the building confusingly similar to the logo of the fictional trust ? definitely
Fraud and corruption Is New Zealand up the creek without a paddle?
When it comes to back ground screening I tell people that the corrupt usually don’t do things by half measures. what is the point of inflating your Cv just a bit when you can be dynamic and give yourself a degree which will take you to the top .
And so it is with perception ratings. If we acknowledge that there is fraud and corruption then the perception of being fraud and corruption free is destroyed .
“Our public-sector agencies have focused successfully on developing processes that prevent corruption and these contribute to New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector” says Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its low corruption reputation and we are increasingly finding how to transfer these behaviours from our public to our private sector to leverage off this enviable reputation for integrity.”
It is ironic however that Transparency International New Zealand prepares the integrity report with funding from theses very sectors .partners / sponsors
The reality was seen this week when the police acknowledged that
White collar crime ‘rampant’ as nearly 900 fraud complaints go uninvestigated
It appears that the investigation into Joanne Harrison has lifted the lid on corruption in New Zealand. within a few days we got interesting head lines
Fuji Xerox NZ voluntarily suspends competing for government contracts
FujiXerox NZ corruption scandal grows in spite of New Zealand’s silence
Binnie: Bain case tarnished NZ’s reputation
Immigration NZ staff investigated for corruption and fraud after visas issued to family, friends
New Zealand: thousands of bottles of allegedly fraudulent wine exported
Patrick Gower: Metiria Turei’s political fraud is ripping off the New Zealand public
The hypocrisy of NZ’s approach to fraud
“A number of victims of these frauds suffer significant loss. Some of these people would have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings, a lot of these files aren’t minor files.”
And there is another side to it too Victims and whistleblowers are attacked in an effort to ensure that the fraud goes undetected. In my experience it appears that the fraudsters get far more support from the police than the person discovering/ reporting/ victim the crime does. I often wonder how lack of action on fraud impacts on our overly high suicide ratings.
These are true stories I know they are true because they happened to me , I know suicide is a factor because there were times when it appealed to me thanks to neil Wells Wyn Hoadley , graeme Coutts and tom Didovich
I am ex police and found myself working as a private investigator right in the line of fire
Lulled into the false sense of security that NZ has no tolerance for corruption I raised the fraudulent application of AWINZ to be a law enforcement authority with MPI and Waitakere city council . Neil Edward Wells a barrister who is now known to have been corrupt , had written legislation for his own business plan made an application for law enforcement powers for a fictional organisation he then had the council buildings re branded with the name of his fictional organisation and worked in a situation of severe conflict of interest using council resources infrastructure and staff to operate his own business.
11 years later and this still has not been independently investigated by the authorities and in a move akin to Joanne Harrison neil edward Wells was able influence the staff at MPI so that the matter was not investigated. he took me to court for defamation for claiming that the trust was a sham , I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion , my family was torn apart and now 11 years later I have been taken to court by the police for speculating that Neil Wells was the lawyer in a law society news publication .
Not long after I had raised this issue I assisted a lawyer in locating the director and Liquidator of Fresh prepared Limited
The liquidator and director were both fictional , they had been created by a Hawaiian business man named Terry Hay . I found my self being harassed by him when he posted three advertisements in the mandarin time to ensure that half the chinese population descended up on our house hold to buy a super cheap car, get a great accommodation deal, get a fabulous job .
Simultaneously I had reported fresh prepared to MAF at the time as it was a border control facility and they had now claimed to be a different company . I found myself under investigation by Maf and warned for passing myself off as a Maf officer. I was to learn that this was handy work of Neil Wells.
Hay was charged by the National enforcement unit and took of to Honolulu he remained there for several years and the 22 charges were dropped
Next up was fraudster Jonathon Mann and his partner Dr Gerald Waters , Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims
His victims had to set up a blog site to deal with him,but it appears that fraudsters don’t like having potential victims warned
I came under attack by Gerald Waters but eventually he was charged with companies act offences
Then I was approached by a couple , the husband had had a former brief relationship with a Parisa Hamedi . Hamedi had gone to Steven ZINDEL and engaged him on legal aid , after a dozen or so bonks Hamedi thought she was entitled to the mans house . I conducted the investigation and found that she maintained her housing corp home in Nelson where she and her children lived with her former husband.
I committed a terrible crime by suggesting to ZINDEL that he should do some home work on the de facto status as my investigations had proved that they were a long way off the threshold. He came back and suggested that if $50,000 compensation was paid then it would all go away . This wonderful hard working couple spent some 6 years fighting this through court and in the end the verdict was.. wait for it.. there was no de facto relationship . Yet Zindel took me to the Private security licencing authority because i told him to check his facts as he may otherwise be using his office for fraud.
Then there is the on going saga of Muse on allen, where a young immigrant invested money in a restaurant o see it all taken away by Samuel North who then claimed to be the youngest chef to own his own restaurant. this has gone through courts for many years and simply proves that the civil jurisdiction cannot cope with fraud , on top of being ripped off the victim then gets a hiding to nowhere and loses even more funds.
Lawyer David Abricossow was acting for the company and when I told him that he had an obligation to the rule of law and could not use his practice to facilitate fraud he took me to court for harassment and made false claims that I had defamed him, I was beautifully set up and lost my Pi licence because this lawyer was at the start of his career and needed protection .
From what I can see is the Fraud is left un addressed as it is a fabulous meal ticket for lawyers. Brookfields Lawyers certainly clipped the ticket on the AWINZ matter .
If you are defrauded or if you discover fraud the best thing you can do is close your eyes and walk away. make that RUN the courts appear to support fraudsters evidence has no place the ones with the biggest lawyers win and when you have been scalped and the other side has the money you don’t have much of a chance at all .
You have no rights there is no justice and in the civil jurisdiction there is actually not right to a fair trial .
But it all helps in the concealment of fraud , if we do not acknowledge that fraud exists then there is no fraud.
You cant find something that you are not looking for .. see no fraud problem in New Zealand.
Trading in the grey BS names , trading names and fraud condoned
In 2006 I unwittingly became a whistleblower on serious corruption . I discovered that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) did not exist in any manner or form . Neil Wells a barrister who is now known to be corrupt wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act to facilitate his own business plan, He made a totally fraudulent application claiming that the application was being made by a trust.
for 11 years the Government ( both National and Labour ) have failed to address she issue of fake identities in trusts . I have long claimed that identity fraud in companies and trusts is the greatest corruption we face in NZ today.
So while all eyes are on Metiria for minor sins in the past the large ones are still going on , this week we learned that life line lost the contract for suicide prevention and that it has gone to Le Va where Bills wife Mary happens to be one of the so called board members of this fictional organisation
Bill English’s wife and her association with the 1,000,000 grant. I’m not saying that there is anything up with what she has done but the “trusts ” she is involved with certainly appears odd.
Le va is a creature of fiction the terms and conditions page states
“These terms apply to the website and social media of www.leva.co.nz which is owned by xxx.“
but in a page dedicated to a board there is just one small clue to be found ” Pacific Inc, trading as Le Va, is an organisation with charitable status governed by a board of trustees ” it just shows how little people know about trusts and companies . Companies have directors and trusts have trustees.
the web site le Va.co.nz is registered to Wise group
Wise Group is a group of charities , which does not have any legal status of its own , its neither a legal person nor a natural person but the incorporated charitable trust wise trust board owns a conglomeration of companies .
While le va does appear to have foundations with a legal company why do we have to use a trading name that is so different to the legal name .
Wells signed agreements in the name of this fictional trust with MAF and with the dog control section of waitakere city council. He applied for the position of Manager without declaring his conflict of interest and got the job effectively then becoming both parties to this mou .
In 11 years I have not been able to get any progress on this matter ,I have truck loads of evidence but this matter has been actively covered up by MPI and the former Waitakere city council and Auckland council. The Police and SFO have played a game of hot potato with the case one saying its too serious the other saying it isn’t serious enough.
I have learned that Wells engaged a private investigator to set me up , I have just discovered that Ron Mc Quilter drafted a witness statement which he then had a witness sign and did what he could to ensure that I would lose my PI licence.
Rons Business partner just happens to be bryan Mogridge of the committee for auckland and previously enterprise waitakere , good reason to see me discredited .
the AWINZ matter has highlighted to me the level at which corruption is condoned in New Zealand . We have a tendency to ignore crime at the top of the scale but pounce on the simple straight forward matters.
This is because or enforcement system is economy based. so its about return of $ for investment. I learned much about false trusts, fake identities, abuse of trading names and was actually on to the panama papers long before the journalists exposed the material . I included all this information as evidence in my petition for a commission against corruption
My petition was thrown out by Mike Sabin .. now no one got to hear about his sins… and he most certainly did not own up to them .
I have seen everything from fake companies fake addresses fake liquidators proxy directors fake directors. all of this is possible and apparently condoned.
On page 65 of my evidence you will see that the crown law office memorandum seeking to have the 22 charges withdrawn for a a well connected american business man Terry Hay , former business partner of David Nathan , for charges relating to company fraud.
so why are we being so tough on Metiria Turei for historic deeds of hers.
The awinz matter has been covered up at 40,000 feet , the fact that it has not been investigated 11 years after reporting it shows that this tactic of using fake names is more common than we think .
Just like the Joanne Harrison matter where she concealed her frauds the same occurred in the MPI . I have evidence of OIA’s being run past Neil Wells, he was consulted and kept in the loop of my questions and contacts with the mpi.
there were people in the auditor generals office who told me that they did not want to touch it as they were too close to retirement and were not wishing to place themselves in such a precarious position .
Many years ago in police College I learned that those who stand by and do nothing are as guilty as the perpetrator of an offence . Those who assisted in concealment of an offence were called accessories to the fact or accessories after the fact .
section 71 of our crimes act reads
71 Accessory after the fact
(1)An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him or her, in order to enable him or her to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
so while some politicians admit to frauds of the past others stand by and let them happen .
Open letter to José Ugaz Chair of transparency International
The state of corruption In New Zealand
Sir
I am the director of Transparency New Zealand Limited . My company actively exposes corruption In New Zealand . It was formed after Transparency International New Zealand refused me membership because it claims that
“the TINZ Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases.”
Unfortunately I believe that by looking at corruption in New Zealand we can learn from it and prevent it from growing.
Ignoring corruption is like ignoring cancer, ignore it long enough and it will kill you
I was very impressed with your presentation at Massey University, Palmerston North .
The views you promoted on Behalf of transparency International resonated with me and I felt sad that Transparency International New Zealand does not hold the same values as the international body .
You regarded whistleblowers as essential to uncovering corruption but the local professor quickly added that whistleblowers are regarded as tell tales and then there were some comments by him abut obtaining information unlawfully.
I can assure you that the truck loads of information I have collated have been acquired lawfully and it sets out a major issue which we have in New Zealand and that is the use of trusts.
We use trusts to the extent that we invent trusts and although the invented trust is totally bogus they appear to be able to act like legal persons , no one checks.
In this example a fictional trust obtained an arrest warrant the full document is here
more about this is found in Anne’s book available for download at Annehunt.co.nz
When fictional ” trusts” have a standing in court and can have an order issued to infringe on the rights of a natural person then there is something seriously out of wack
It shoudl be the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure that such action does not find itself in court and he and he alone should be held accountable to the full force of the law.
In another matter A fictional trust obtained law enforcement powers the fraudulent application is here
This application was made by a corrupt Barrister who has advised Government and was heavily involved in drafting the legislation to facilitate this fraud
He had a business plan see here and wrote the legislation and advised on it to facilitate this plan
He and his corrupt lawyer took action against me for defamation for saying that the trust was a sham. I was denied a defence of truth and honest opinion and through the false allegation that a similarly named ” trusts ” created retrospectively ws one and the same he misled the court and effectively the fiction became reality .
I see the courts reliance on the word of lawyers as the single largest contributor to corruption in New Zealand . Things are sanitised and legitimised through the courts by misleading the court .. no evidence is ever required.
Trusts in New Zealand are therefore the no 1 vehicle of choice for fraud and money laundering , if our courts and lawyers don’t check to see if a trust exists then its open slather . In the case of animal welfare Institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) I asked the solicitor general to investigate the trust and the various trusts that have been set up to jump through time and vacuums to give the illusion of reality.
If a trust does not have to have a legal structure which commences and continues in any verifiable form then we are dealing with fiction .
New Zealand is very much a Victorian colony which is coming of age through the use of computers . that is why whistleblowers are silenced here.
You raised a question with regards to John Key and asked why had no one investigated him. The answer is simple you just need to look at what I have suffered and you soon realise that if you even ask one question out of place you will be discredited and your life will be in tatters . Your comment and my research on Key since leaving the meeting has made me realise why no action has ever been taken with regards to AWINZ, for 11 years I have said it is a blue print and sure enough it has been . If a fictional trust can be a law enforcement authority then it can be anything.
In 2014 , Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption to Parliament , I was the lead petitioner . I was asked to present evidence as to why we needed such a commission and I supplied my evidence it is at this link you will see that I touched on panama, I was taken to court with regards to my discoveries of these panamanian companies and Hungarian alcoholic directors , I was silenced .
I provided evidence of fake liquidators fake directors and showed that the crown solicitor’s dropped 22 charges of fraud of Terry Hay a well connected american for fraud under the companies act
items 56 in that report relate to TINZ role in corruption today
Transparency International New Zealand in my opinion serves only to ensure that New Zealand status as least corrupt is preserved. To do this they actively ignore corruption and pretend that it does not occur.
Transparency International New Zealand gets funding from the key public service agencies to do the integrity reports on the public sector.
Quite personally I think that that is a conflict of interest and corrupt .
The reality is that New Zealand is in my experience rotten to the core we have cheated on our exam cards ( the perception index) and that makes us among the most corrupt of them all .
When simple corruption is covered up at high levels and they have to go as far as to discredit you then you know that the corruption is deeper than any one imagined.
I look forward to a response from you and look forward to being able to work with transparency International to address corruption in New Zealand and not be part of the problem by concealing it.
- items on John Keys trust Panama papers John Doe statement
Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands.
7 May 2016 Why was John Key singled out by Panama Papers hacker?
7 May 2016 Panama Papers whistleblower confused – John Key
8 May 2016 Taxing times: The ghosts of wineboxes past
5 october 2016 John Key keeps lid on hidden billions
21 march 2014 John Key dismisses rumours surrounding resignation
READ MORE:
* Panama Papers source breaks silence, denies being a spy
* The Panama Papers New Zealand link revealed
* New measures to combat cybercrime outlined by Government
* Prime Minister John Key’s lawyer asked about foreign trusts
* NZ trusts at the centre of Malta money scandal
* Government now says NZ trust examination likely
* More NZ links to Panama Papers to come
* Q&A: Panama Papers’ fallout has only just begun
Documents obtained by the Australian Financial Review show:
- Juan Armando Hinojosa Cantu, who built his fortune from billions of dollars in Mexican government contracts, was investigated for lavish housing deals with Mexican political figures.
- On July 1 last year, Cantu’s Miami lawyer said his client had “circa $US100 million” to put into three New Zealand trusts.
- Maltese investors who had been turned away from nine banks in the Caribbean, Miami and Panama eventually found a home for their money in New Zealand trusts.
- Demand for New Zealand trusts went into overdrive late last year with Mossack Fonseca staff in Panama urging New Zealand staff to “chase the money”.