Posted by: transparencynz | June 14, 2017

The dangers of one SPCA

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

One SPCA Regional Meetings Master All Centres

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

in  a job application he proudly states

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

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

That was phase one  they are now  working on Phase 2

Over the past few years he has been   amalgamating  SPCAs and when he became chair man of te Kuiti  he set about changing the name of the  SPCA  see  The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.

Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction

Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA committee resigns

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

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


see title documents here Comprehensive Title and Transaction Report

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

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

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

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

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

the  new legislation  now states

13Strict liability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



Posted by: transparencynz | June 14, 2017

Smear campaigns a well practiced form of attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental obligations of lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The origins of AWINZ .

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

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

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

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

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

Wells quickly turns this into  lobbying for  new animal welfare legislation 

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

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

This point is not  lost on the  the SPCA who  write 

By august that  95 council officers were appointed as Inspectors .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but that is the nature of  the beast proof is in the pudding see here 

once corrupt always corrupt

This week the  RNZSPCA  will vote on amalgamating the branches and  the  member societies  into one organisation . It is a foregone conclusion fed by misinformation and stealth in taking over   branches on the  false presence that  the branches   are obliged to  comply with the directive of the  RNZSPCA   .

What has to be remembered is that each branch  , each member society is a firstly a  legal person in their own right   and secondly affiliated to  another group of their choosing . The only persons in charge of an  incorporated society   are its members.

It also has to be recognised that there is a distinct difference between the RNZSPCA  and the SPCA   .




7/7/78  the SPCA village was built A rift occurred at about this time  and Neil Wells left the SPCA   see PDF version here   2 December 1978

and the following year a new group started.  15/3/79 

During this time  Neil Wells was still the  president of the Royal new Zealand federation  here he is signing  the rule changes for the  royal federation  this is  filed on the THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  document page  suggesting that he federation may have had a name  change in 1981 when Wells again signs the documents.

05-SEP-1975 12:21:52 10042395844 Alteration Of Rules
15-JUN-1981 09:05:00 10042395742 Alteration Of Rules 1123.7 Kb

Strange then that in his  cv   he makes no mention of the federation






1989 finds him in  the office of  the world society  for protection of animals and in 1993 Wells    resigns after another row as head of ethics and sets up as barrister  sole .

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

Wells is well connected to  government  through   his former business partner Bob Harvey,  Harvey  is now  the Mayor of Waitakere city council  and later as   president of the labour party  Bob   seemingly facilitates  AWINZ in  being  granted law enforcement status .

to be continued

Recently I applied to join Transparency International  ( again)  the new Zealand branch of Transparency International  appears to be at odds with the rest of the movement and I have again been rejected .


I found the declaration after  visiting  the  Unmask the corrupt  pages by   Transparency international   .

It would appear that internationally we  are exposing corruption but Transparency International New Zealand  feels uncomfortable  even with acknowledging that there  is such a thing as corruption in New Zealand.

The events of last week  have driven it home to me just how corrupt we are and how  unseen cowards can pull strings in the background to  ensure that whistle blowers are dealt to .

A small Probono job  in 2006  saw my life change  and 11 years later I am still suffering the fall out, that is because I stumbled on corruption which is being actively concealed by the National   government and the last Labour government .

The man involved is a labour man  an animal welfare lawyer who  wrote legislation for his own business plan, advised on it  as independent adviser to the select committee  and made what I know  to be , a fraudulent application to  the  crown  for law enforcement for a fictional organisation which in reality was just him.

He ran his  “ approved organisation “ from Waitakere city council  premises where he was manager . He  used the staff, infrastructure  and vehicles  to  run his operation and re branded the building  to give it the same appearance as the  fictional “ organisation” which had the extensive law enforcement powers of search seizure and prosecution.

The logo top right was that of his  fictional organisation  the buildings are the dog Pound at the then Waitakere city council  where  he was the manager.

When I asked questions of  council  and MAF I was sued by him for defamation    , I was denied the statutory defence of truth and honest opinion for stating that the  trust AWINZ could not have made an application in 1999 as it did not exist at that time and was only created in 2006 to  effect a cover up to conceal this in court .

IN  2007  he  wrote to MAF expressing  his intention to bankrupt me

He  had about a  dozen attempts at bankruptcy  and even put my company into liquidation using a  false affidavit .  The  liquidation was reversed ( by court order )  and I fought off bankruptcy. there were no concerns about my  health and  well being   I was  severely depressed  dam near suicidal and the attacks  kept coming .  But as they say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger  so  it woudl appear that this sick old man has come back for a second attack on me because he is so fearful that he will be found out .

Apparently standing up for your rights  is  being called  litigious .  But guess that sounds better than  saying  I  fought for  .. justice . which is a silly fight as I do not believe there is any in NZ.

Questioning  the lack of existence of AWINZ has devastated my life and torn my family apart. I moved to Napier thinking it was all   over  and hoped  that one day   the barrister would  be found out.

Next thing my private investigators licence cames up for its 5yr renewal and is declined because the “authority”   thinks that the opinion of a police woman,  who spoke to me on the phone  in 2012, matters   and calls me a conspiracy theorist on that basis.

This is such an important issue that  when I appeal the declinature of my  Private investigators licence it makes headlines in the news.

For my appeal I do some research , I  see what  penalty lawyers ( Officers of  the court ) get for committing real offences  as opposed to being judged on their perceived opinion .  I find an article on the lawyers  news site    see here

I read it and  from the information provided  and my knowledge identify the lawyer

At last  I saw him for what I know him to be  and in a blog , exercising my right  to freedom of expression and right to hold an opinion. I expressed my opinion   as to the identity of this person.

I  am aware that suppression in the lawyers and conveyancers act is given by not releasing his name , hence he was called mr M  I was not part of the process and did not know that  he had been before the tribunal  I just  knew of the circumstances outlined in the  news item, in fact I had known  since 2006 that he was attempting to get his hands on  the funds of  this dear old lady  and  even had correspondence relating to this.

Two weeks  after my publication  I was charged  , No one has been able to  provide me with a  “ order “  for suppression and the police charge is ambiguous using  wording for one alleged offence and the statutory  basis of another .

I was provided with an almost totally  redacted document    when the full version is publicly available on line .

I did  note  that Fear appears to be plaguing  Mr M states  at 26 the practitioner has in the past been pursued by a litigious and irrational person who might be expected to re-engage in a campaign against the practitioner should the present matters come to that person’s attention. And then puts the boot in  stating “[27] The litigation pursued by this person has been the subject of adverse judicial comment at all levels.”( yes prompted by his lawyers  who never checked the facts  and were good at  attacking  character but lousy at identifying facts ) see Is the AWINZ Charity complicit in fraud on the courts ?

So again I am made out to be this   less than desirable person  and  despite the fact that this lawyer has now committed  what appears to be a criminal act he gets his identity  withheld  and Is not charged  with  his serious offences  .

I go  to court the press is there  and  next day my  name age and  the fact that I have been charged  appears in the local paper, nationally on line and  nationally on the radio .  Do you spot the  irony here  I do  . I thought you were innocent until proved guilty  .

If the prosecution guide lines had been followed for me then  I would not have been charged . But  it is  so very important to charge me and   publicly execute me before The trial , while Mr M    comes out  unidentifiable and   unscathed.

I have to wonder     Why am I so important  and why   do the various ministers that I have written to over the years  not  care  about the   use of public office for private gain  by the man who got law enforcement powers for a fictional  organisation.

Ministers have the  ability to   investigate  ,  I have written to Amy Adams   recently and over the years have written to half of cabinet. For some examples see  2014 Open letter to Mr Key – will you condone corruption?   2011Inability to question corruption in NZ – open letter to John Key

Do the ministers not understand  what corruption is   or are they condoning it

Corruption destroys lives   it has to be an election issue

You need only look at the  news item   regarding the censured lawyer and you will see that the  Lawyers tribunal is effectively condoning   theft by a person in a special relationship  ( theft by failing to account )  they should have sent this matter to the police for criminal prosecution  .   If they can condone serious offences such as that  why I am  being persecuted for  exercising my rights under the bill of  rights.

If this is not “ evidence”  of a corrupt society  what is  ?  what are our standards ? Warped  I would  say .

Protect the lawyers   crucify whistle blowers  only means one thing.. there is a lot more corruption than they like to pretend.

Looking forward to having an investigation into AWINZ   11 years is long enough   it is not going to go away


Posted by: transparencynz | June 10, 2017

Lets make corruption an election issue

This week I had the opportunity to speak to  Bill  English , I voiced my concerns with regards to corruption and the apparent apathy that those in  government service have to it .

I  can only guess that nothing will happen  but will  follow up with David Elliott  who is standing   for  Napier .

It was Particularly  pointed for me this week .A complaint made on 4 May saw me charged with  offences less than two week  later  despite there being no obvious evidence  of the order which I allegedly breached and had no access  to .

Yet in 11 years  no one has looked at the   fictional law enforcement authority,AWINZ   and  the way that a charitable  trust was used  to fund the court action and the apparent fraudulent use of the charity involved  .

Due to my journey I have become  an expert in spotting  potential  danger spots , my skill was recognized by a former  lawyer who  took me to court for the act of simply breathing, this was because he was so scared of what I knew  about the multitude of companies that he  and his wife operated. What I had stumbled on was  the equivalent of the panama papers , Latvian directors , Panamanian companies Ukrainian money laundering and  arms trade. These events  led me to  organise a petition  for an independent commission against corruption, this was   at least 18 months  before the Panama papers  story broke .  Our government  knew but did nothing .

Andrew Little  presented the petition  to Parliament   where I was the lead petitioner . This was just after  the  National party took office  and it was thrown out by Mike Sabin ( what happened to him ?  )    when I  produced the evidence in  support .  see What happened to the petition for a commission against corruption ?.

The Press was  not there   nothing was heard .    But hey  me being charged  now that is  news !

In December 2015 the UN convention against corruption  was finally ratified   by NZ . We had been a signatory for many years and ratification was a  well kept secret  and slipped by the news media, I recall the news that day was of some poor vegan gentleman who had found a slug in his  fresh pack salad.

Todays paper  there ws an article  by one of  our very few investigative journalists  on   foreign trusts…Officials fear $140m charity tax rort  . I noted all the hall marks of potential fraud are there and I have to wonder  how these trusts were register as charities in the first place,  but then I remind myself  its quite easy  No one checks .

Just like AWINZ the   law enforcement authority that did not exist.. no one checked .  the  Order whihc does not exist yet I am charged with breaching..  no one checked. I would still like to know why an application made on 22 November can be made by a trust which did not  exist.

The three trust deeds  involved in this international   rort are located    at the charities web site   The Mulligan Charitable Trust,   Shepherd Charitable Trust   and the The Birdy Charitable Trust

The officer details for these trusts are respectively   Chasselat Trustee Limited ,Bellerive Trustee Limited, Alpage Trustee Limited, these companies again  follow the structure of  off share trusts , overseas  shareholders and directors and local directors to appease the  Law .

All three were registered  in 2013 ,  and I have to ask  what do the  people who rubber stamp these applications check for,or is the process automated ?    the directors for the three trustee companies are  two  Swiss the other  three  New Zealanders .

Kevin George TAYLOR involved in 26  roles  in companies

Lauren Cherie WILLIS  involved in 67 roles  in companies

Megan Shiu Chui WU involved in 7 roles  in companies

They are  connected to a larger frame work ASIACITI TRUST NEW ZEALAND LTD  Graeme Walter BRIGGS  together with  Taylor and Willis .

As with the companies I identified with the lawyer  the overseas trust business is  still alive and kicking  and now operating from A 82 symonds street under the control of Eduard PATKEVYCH who up until a  few weeks ago was still operating GT Gloria Limited see the news here

It is by far easier to have a checking mechanism in place  that way people  don’t get ripped off or hurt.

Had there been simple due diligence done on AWINZ  then Neil Wells would not have been able to  have committed  what appears to  be a fraud on the government, one which is too embarrassing to   deal with   so it is far easier to shoot the messenger and execute the whistle blower.

all I want is the the law to  work the same way for these  crooks and rip off merchants as it does  for me expressing an honest opinion  and exercising my right under the bill of rights.

In the mean time   Neil Wells, Tom Didovich, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts   continue to live in fear that one day they will be caught out . Neil Wells is still the only one running the charity which has never done anything but sue me,  misappropriate the funds from the lord Dowding fund for  Neil’s own  enrichment see The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand.  

He appears to have friends in high places  because he  is Teflon  offences    dot even  slide off him   they are  just  not an ingredient he is  exposed to .. But me  >> well I am a different story

what is the lord Dowding fund ( Wells received in excess of   $100,000  from Beauty with compassion)   he has used it  to sue me  and now there is only $22,990 left , He  pocketed 57,000  for himself  but no one is interested. Further  it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to go through the accounts and see that he has switched accounts  and made false statements  in the accounts, but if setting up a fake law enforcement  charity   is not a matter of public interest  what is . .. Oh yes forgot  it is expressing an honest opinion  and blogging… must not blog

Whistle blowers lives should not be devastated because the government is incapable of  introducing  due diligence in to the public sector . If

Whistle blowers  are  attacked and perpetrators of fraud  get protection then    we have a   corrupt  system

It is the governments task to  ensure that   there is one law for all and it is enforced equally .

 which  party will  Help  ? 


Posted by: transparencynz | June 8, 2017

Spot the suppression order

It is indeed sad that    I am news worthy   for the wrong  reasons. I am again made out to be a sinister person who goes round defying  orders.. but what if there is no  suppression order ?

I feel I have to defend my reputation to responding to the  news items   regarding me of late   here and here 

What I find remarkable is that  when New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  the news papers were silent on it , In Australia a local politician was convicted of fraud.. not a word was uttered in our press    fraud and corruption are dirty words.   New Zealand is free from fraud and corruption because  we conceal it so well and  attack those who  say “but   hey  this isn’t right” .

For 11 years I attempt to  report a serious public fraud which has been concealed by a constant attack on my character . The perpetrator is a good guy loves animals   has grey hair  runs charities . I am the “ litigious and irrational person who might be expected to re-engage in a campaign against the practitioner should the present matters come to that person’s attention.

By Litigious , I presume he means that I put up a fight and  don’t like being bankrupted or  having my company put into liquidation on a false affidavit 

I have been made out to be a bad person  because by doing  that ,the ton of evidence  which I have  to  prove the frauds and corruption  are ignored. They work  with the approach that   you just need to look at the person  and  decide if they are good or bad  and  if they are perceived to be bad you can safely ignore the rest.

The next trick is to get judges to say bad things about the person,   and then you can say ” [27] The litigation pursued by this person has been the subject of adverse judicial comment at all levels” and this is    enough  for    the perpetrator of what appears to  me to be a matter  of  “theft by a person in  a special relationship” to get name suppression  and  not be charged with a criminal offence which had the potential of giving  him 7 years inside .


In 2006 I questioned serious corruption and was sued for for defamation  in the same year. I was denied the statutory  defence of truth and honest opinion

Defamation  is impossible to  fight if you  are defenseless..    but apparently that is justice in NZ even if you are telling the truth, serves to conceal corruption very well there by  enhancing business and attracting more suckers who can be ripped off .

I have learned that much comes down to  language  and   since English is my second language  I have through the  defamation hearing  learned  from he  lawyers  involved that   “Is”  means sometime in  the future, “has been” means something  that  is intended  and now I am told that   “Justify”   means order    and “Granted ”  means Ordered    . Having trouble finding dictionaries that agree .

The act of questioning corruption  cost me my family  and  well over $300,000  in cold hard cash and   11 years. The attack on me was  by using a trust formed to mislead the court  and using charitable funds from which   the lawyer profited himself  to the tune of some $57,000 which  has never repaid to the trust funds he plundered . False statements roll off their lips like false claims that caveats were placed over my property  but I am crucified for the truth . Endless complaints to he police chariteis commission and law societies and they come out as angels  and I  am the  wicked witch of the west .

All appeared well for a while  and then out of  the blue  my Private investigator   certificate of renewal is  declined.

There are no real reasons  but it transpires that  there was a police file in 2012  where a  police woman who only spoke to me by phone  apparently came to the conclusion  that I was a conspiracy theorist . . Her opinion influenced the private security licencing authority   in 2017 and  while no  real reason could be found to deny me  my licence  he focused on the opinion of the police woman in 2012  and made it relevant  for today  so relevant that  it had to become headlines.

Do I smell a set up   yes I do   .

No one has spoken to any of the victims of crimes that I have helped , not one of my clients have complained  but  invariably it is   the rogues ,who use the  court to   conceal criminal behavior ,who then attack me and seek to have me put out of work .

So while I was researching for my appeal I looked at  the penalties that Lawyers get  and  I came across the following item.

  I had no idea that this person had been  before a disciplinary tribunal  but from the   above  I recognized who it was   and asked a simple question …  is this ? I  made reference to this item  two more times Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs and Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

What happened next is recorded  at Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower  I have since been trying to get a copy of the so called order   and wrote an open letter to Napier Police Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The police relied  on this alleged suppression order as existence of an order  as can be seen   it is all blacked out except two paragraphs  .

I  am later sent  an email exchange between the lawyers of the  Ministry of justice and the Police

one states that the order can be found at paragraphs 22-26  the other states  paragraphs  22-28

I am provided only with 22  and 28 .

Fortunately I found the full decision on line  and the police kindly gave me a  unredacted copy  some two weeks later  but  not  before  I had been charged with  five counts of breaching an order under section  240  of the lawyers and conveyancers act. The Police called it breaching a suppression order and did not refer to the correct wording of the offence section   being 263  of the lawyers and conveyancers act  which relates to knowingly breaching an order of the disciplinary tribunal.  1. there was no order  and secondly  if an order was made it would have been  one of three sections , some how the police allege that it is  section 240 (1) (c)   unfortunately I’m not  clairvoyant and wonder how they know  that such an order exist and if there is  one why are they not giving it to me.

Natural justice  would state that you have to know of the existence of an order before you can breach it  .

Would love for some one  to  find the order under  240 Restrictions on publication  in the decision  of Mr M . It is of note that the  committee opposed   suppression and the person was noted as  lack of insight or remorse   and while the tribunal clams that offending only occurred over weeks   my knowledge of  his dealings with this lady goes back to  the mid 1990’s . to me it indicates  the smoothness of his tongue and his ability to deceive.

I was provided with  this  decision  from the high court which grants  suppression under the lawyers and conveyancers act  ORDER SIMON J Complainant A v NZLS v Z 10.5.17 not one of those sections is enforceable on any one not   party to the tribunal process section 188 Disclosure of information      30 Publication of identity and 31 confidentiality of decisions   regulations.

Would love some help    whistle blowers should not    have to go through what I have been subjected to.  I note that  Mr M suggested the  charges  to the  clerk of the tribunal  .

The court is not the forum for concealing fraud and corruption  and all of us should be  held accountable  to the law  to the same extent. If I have the book thrown at me  for breaching a order whihc is   invisible    just  weeks after  mr M makes a complaint , why  has our government not done anything about the corruption I reported   11 years ago .   Are we all equal before the law  or  are some more equal than others?

While I  received a warning shot through the head  and the lawyer in the law society article   gets a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket  for a criminal offence apparently sanctioned by the    the law society process.  He should have been referred to police for prosecution under the crimes act . It  would appear to me  that that the law society  looks after its own it is an association after all .

A law degree does not make a person honest.   we should all be answerable to the law  to the same  extent  and whistle-blowers should not be crucified and lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court should be held  accountable to the law to a very high degree.

I have in the mean time  found the full decision or

I believe the  $80,000  mentioned was destined to buy the new building for the Te Kuiti Rnzspca .

this  man  who has given me hell   is repeatedly referred  to as Victim by the police , read the decision   you will wonder why  he is the victim ? he should have been charged with theft by a person  in a special relationship .  well   there is justice  he was judged by a much higher authority .  Hope its not too hot  for  you down there  Neil at least you are with friends .

The  Poster  shown along side comes from a 1998 document  which was presented to the Waitakere city council  by Neil Wells  when he was first  promoting himself and the concept of a  trust to the Waitakere city council  . He has not been devoting his life to animal welfare  out of any charitable purpose  his fees were shown to be  $19950 for a three month project  ( this was in 1998 )see page 17 . But his ultimate  goal was gold . Something got in the way .. me   well Neil if you had not sued me, denied me a right to justice and continued to  impose in my life  you may have got away with the perfect fraud.

On the occasion of the publication of this poster , he calls the proposed  trust   ” national animal welfare trust of new Zealand ”  He was to later incorporate a trust by the name of the national animal welfare trust with a Canadian  gentle man  Michael Edward O’Sullivan the trust still exists I  don’t think it functions but it proves at least that Neil wells knew the process of incorporating trust  the trust deed is located here . It was registered 28 July 1999 ( it also proves that he lied to the minister in correspondence but more on that later  )

Currently the RNZSPCA  is  talking about  amalgamating its  various branches , this is, I believe  again  due to   the profit in animals.  Events like the Betty Napier  trust  where 1 million dollars was left to a region  left   various  branches fighting over the spoils.

So Instead of planting a tree and using the fruits they chopped the  funds up and  burnt it in a very short time , I would speculate boldly on  hefty consultant fees  .

Historically the SPCA gets a lot of bequests , but with more charities the spoils are  smaller  and those   who want corporate wages (while  volunteers slave away over  cat trays) are constantly wanting more .

I have it on good authority  that Neil Wells was one such person  he  could not even wait  for the poor old duck to pass on before he started dipping into her funds and in my sincere opinion everything he did  he apparently did for $$$ not for the love of animals .

Wells uses people  e.g  Sarah Elliot  has been  associated with him for a very long time  and a search on her name shows her up to her neck in the  activity of the  RNZSPCA take over and the mysterious  administration tactics used to  take over  control   of incorporated societies. . Sarah Elliot worked on the lord of the rings trilogy in  1999  supposedly for the fictional AWINZ     see also the  AHA investigation

I am going to refer to the following documents found on the  incorporated societies web site

Rules, Alteration to Inc Soc Rules, Full 10-MAY-1995 10:46:02 10001612817 Rules, Alteration to Inc Soc Rules, Full 713.6 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 26-JUL-1983 11:52:34 10042395684 Alteration Of Rules 59.6 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 15-JUN-1981 09:05:00 10042395742 Alteration Of Rules 1123.7 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 11-SEP-1979 11:58:56 10042395731 Alteration Of Rules 467.1 Kb
Alteration Of Rules 05-SEP-1975 12:21:52 10042395844 Alteration Of Rules

the 1975  document is actually the constitution of  the federation   it is signed on the margins  and at the bottom By Neil Wells

the 1979  Constitution is again that of the federation filed   for the RNZSPCA

Wells had been the president of the  RNZSPCA  He left the SPCA rather    allegedly left in 1978   but obviously still had involvement in 1979  and 1981 as his signature appears  on the   alteration of rules  During this time he was obtaining his law  degree  CV attached to this letter   I believe it was funded by the the RNZSPCA . He returned and  appears to commence the restructure of the  RNZSPCA  contemporaneously  with the setting up of AWINZ 

In my experience I have noticed that Wells works  with a process of making small changes and suggesting that things exist  when they actually do not, He makes mistakes and over sights  which  are intentional and all part of his  plan to bring about a  massive change  one step at a time

Basically Wells signed the constitution changes  between 75 & 83   and the next big one was signed by  Graeme Coutts

I believe he was responsible for  dissolving the federation which had been formed on 09-AUG-1965 .  The federation  was formed when  various  the  various societies set up one  the federation to provide a link between the various bodies .

1995 saw the next big change  this was at the time that Neil Wells was  at the time when Neil Wells was   promoting his concept of territorial animal welfare offices  a link between councils and animal welfare .

the membership criteria for the organisation which was

restricted to the branches  and the   member societies   now had a  further four categories  annual members, corporate members  Life members and honorary life members .  The RNZSPCA   was now no longer  a body whihc was controlled by the member societies and  Branches. It had taken on a life of its own .


It is  interesting that this constitution change occurred when Neil wells  had an office on the same floor as the RNZSPCA along with the JP  who witnessed the changes Graeme Coutts 


Graeme Coutts  will become more significant as we go along .  evidence of their  offices being on the same floor is  here   .  see contacts RNZSPCA     and company records for Coutts    for Neil Wells see bottom of first page on this document

When the RNZSPCA shifted, Graeme Coutts shifted with them and was again in an  office   adjacent to the RNZSPCA. The address is   shown on the  annual return  in 2004 which is signed off by Mr Joe Bloggs ( are you kidding me ? what happened to transparency  )

Wells went on to write the animal welfare bill and advised on it and made provisions for his own business plan  and made the fraudulent application to the minister in the name of AWINZ .

in 2006  when we proved conclusively  that AWINZ did not  not exist , Neil Wells created  an identically named trust   and  roping in  Barrister Wyn Hoadley who did not ask any questions and appears to know nothing of the laws surrounding trusts .

Wells  set up a new trust  also called AWINZ and because the names were the same  falsely alleged that this trust was the law enforcement body .

Wyn Hoadley had been on the animal welfare advisory board   was a QSM, a  title which put her beyond question  . this is  after all about  reputation and not about evidence .

And so she was appointed to the the alleged board of the fictional AWINZ at a time when the trust deed was missing ( that was no surprise the ink was probably  still drying ) and without  following  prescribed procedure under the  charitable trust act. see  the minutes   all was going well but then  Nuala Grove and  Sarah Giltrap who Wells had alleged were trustees got cold feet and resigned .

Nuala  I believe was the   widow of a former Judge and  Sarah Giltrap the  daughter in Law of the Giltrap  family.  again  by using  well known people there is a protection as these people  trust and believe barristers and like little animals  they don’t ask too many questions and stand by when a whistle-blower is beaten to pulp.

So in desperation Tom Didovich became the  fourth trustee  Tom Didovich was the manager of dog and stock control in Waitakere  who had been a  naughty boy and  had to resign. Wells took his job   to conceal the plot that was in the making .

Tom Didovich went to the RNZSPCA and worked there for a while before becoming a Councillor  at talking works   see the post Talking Works Tom Didovich!   Tom is very much an accessory to this fraud  having  given consents to MAF on behalf of  Waitakere city council  way beyond his pay station .

Neil Wells Moved to Te Kuiti  and  organised the demise of the local SPCA  again coming up with  false identities  see

The significance of a name change Te Kuiti RNZSPCA or King Country SPCA.

Central King Country SPCA and the Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA fact or fiction

Te Kuiti Branch of the RNZSPCA committee resigns

Now on the agenda is the amalgamation of all the local SPCA’s   this is akin to asset stripping   the process is  back to front  and No one will be able to convince me that Neil Wells is not behind this some how.

see Open letter to Maria Clarke lawyer for the RNZSPCA

Members in local SPCAs are not allowed to know  who the other members are, there are many branches which have been  placed into ” administration ” when no such facility exists . Its a power game    more information  to come  on why the  Animal welfare act is so very dangerous.

In the mean time  I would love some one to supply me with any notices which give legitimacy to the 1995  and 2015   constitution changes , the local  Branches were asked to adopt these changes    in the end this was all about    $$$$ in animals

next  up  how to move $400,000  side ways.. the  Waikato spca  or is that the  spca Waikato   why the SPCA pleads poverty


Posted by: transparencynz | May 30, 2017

Waitakere council Fraud Public office for private pecuniary gain















The evidence  will follow   there is a ton of it    the buildings above  are council buildings which Neil Wells re branded to appear like his  fake animal welfare trust

the logo at the top right is the logo he used on his  fake trusts letter heads . It made every one think that it was a real organisation   and owned the property  it was in fact the council pound. Where Neil wells  was manager  he got the job without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest  see his job application  here  and the  documents he had signed in his capacity  for the fake trust MOU waitakere 

MAF in a an audit had trouble differentiating  the  approved organisation from the council  see  the audit report




Posted by: transparencynz | May 30, 2017

Helping the Napier Police catch real criminals ..

Good Morning  Detective Simcox

I am so pleased that you are not busy with real crime  this means that you  will have time to look at this old file

step 1. Please  obtain the police file which I   provided to the police many years ago and remains   untouched

I will go through the steps to help you under stand it  Please note there are links in this document which open up the evidence

the first part of the  complaint relates to   the circumstances of setting up AWINZ

to help you understand  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  had coercive law enforcement powers  under the animal welfare act

see section 120  of the animal welfare act 

an approved organisation is approved organisation means an organisation declared, under section 121, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act

121Approved organisations

(1)The Minister may from time to time, on the application of any organisation, declare that organisation, by notice in theGazette, to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

(2)The application must include—

(a)the full name and address of the applicant; and
(b)the area in which the applicant will, if declared to be an approved organisation, operate as an approved organisation; and
(c)information that will enable the Minister to assess whether the organisation meets the criteria set out in section 122.

The RNZSPCA is an approved Organisation  m the RNZSPCA is an incorporated society and therefore by definition  a legal person .

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand  on the other hand was a totally fictional organisation in 1999 and did not exist in any other form than as a name which Neil Wells, the author of the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act and ” independent  adviser” to the select committee.

In a hand book written  for animal welfare students  by Mr Wells he  himself  gives  an outline of what approved organisations are note that  it states “In deciding whether to recognise an organisation, the Bill provides that the Minister must be satisfied that an organisation meets specific criteria including adequate provision for training of Inspectors, robust accountability, financial and management arrangements and absence of conflicts of interest.”

He was motivated to   extend the power of  animal welfare enforcement  beyond the police,  and the RNZSPCA because he  had been voted off the RNZSPCA  he had developed his own business plan   to amalgamate dog and stock control  a local body  responsibility  with  animal welfare a central government   responsibility  he called this plan  the Territorial animal welfare 

while writing he bill and advising on the new legislation  he starts feeding the name AWINZ to MAF  and pretending that it exists  an early concept of his plan  was shown by him as shown below or at the link 

Where the diagram  shows Wells and associates this part later became the fictional AWINZ .

In 1998 Wells promotes AWINZ by way of borchure each time inferring that AWINZ exists  bu the reality is that id does not exist .

When the  bill is about to pass into law he writes to MAF  and  files a notice of intent for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority  under the new act

this notice   falsely claims that the applicant is the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .

He also includes   his cover sheet showing that he is a barrister . A barrister would  know that  only real and legal persons can make applications. He fraudulently signs it  “For the Board of Trustees of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ”  He knew that there was no  board, or trustees  and this was all part of the  overall fraud on the government.

Maf sets out the criteria for approved organisations  the discussion shows that this  excludes individuals  it specifically   states ..

 this posed a problem for wells as there was no trust   so He made  his formal application  on 22 November 1999 making multiple fraudulent assertions that  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand exists and that he himself is a trustee.

He attaches  a un-executed trust deed and  falsely states  that the trust has been formed by way of trust deed  and is being registered under  Part 11 of the charitable trust act .

the significance of incorporation is  set out here  , it makes a  trust comprising of a group of people a legal entity in its own right

AWINZ was not a trust  it did not have a signed trust deed  , it was  a total fiction, it could not apply for incorporation   because the first thing it needed was a trust deed.

more on the fraudulent application   tomorrow .

Your home work for today is to  learn to understand what a trust is and  the effect of  incorporation

also  crimes act 1961  240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

in that Neil wells  obtained law enforcement powers for himself through   deception

Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—

(a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(c)induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or

Please let me know  if there is something you don’t understand   happy to help

More tomorrow

Posted by: transparencynz | May 24, 2017

Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The officer in charge  prosecutions, copy to minister of justice

This morning I appeared in the  Napier district court

I have been charged with four counts  of ” while a suppression order was in place  Published the name of a person who has been  granted  name suppression”

I have been  bailed  to appear in two weeks time The conditions are to live in the house where I live any way  and not to publish the name of the Practitioner and his former client  with relation to the suppression order .

the  four offences being  as this  one  but on the dates 

18 April 2017  the  post being Was XXXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone?  ( now sanitized to  comply with bail conditions )

9 May 2017 Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs

17th May 2017 Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

22nd May  2017 Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower

The problem is  in the discovery  which you have supplied me  does not support the charges .  letter to police from justice        alleged suppression order

As a former police prosecutor  I identify the matters which you have to prove  as being

  1. that there was a  legal suppression order
  2. that the suppression order was with regards to the person named
  3. That I knew it was the person named  referred to in  the  article and not just speculation

to that end  you were  to provide me by way of discovery a suppression order, this is the first issue

If you were to search the lawyers and conveyances act  you will note that   there is no scope   for  suppression orders in that legislation .  The word suppression only appears three times see this 


This makes it clear that  there can be no orders for  Name suppression  under the lawyers and conveyances act 

Yet the charge sheet clearly states  that there was a suppression order and I breached it .

The alleged suppression order  that was supplied to me  was almost  totally redacted   showing only two paragraphs

From the redacted version  I  presume that   you rely  on paragraph 28  for  the existence of a  order   yet it states only

” [28] Given that there is no risk to the public posed by this practitioner in the future,we consider that the combination of factors referred to above do, in this unusual set of
circumstances, justify the permanent name suppression of the practitioner, his former client and any identifying details.”

this left me to wonder if there  was an order some where else in the document.   How that I had a court number I ws able to search the tribunals web site and located the full underacted   document the on  the Justice web site  see this link here

reading this document we note that the law society opposed the  the suppression  application  and under   orders   there is no mention of any order  in terms of section 240(1) (c)  and it could well be that the suppression was given   for the purposes of  their published  decision    only.

As such there appears to be no evidence of existence   of an order under section  240(1) (c)  being

240 Restrictions on publication

(1)If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:……

(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.

Since  no such order exists  so it would appear that I have been wrongly charged as  no one can breach an order which has not been made and  section 263 states

Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).

Until  I received the  discovery today I was unaware of  the content of the decision  I was merely commenting on a news item on the law society web site .  “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer

I was not at the hearing  and the information I had was nothing I gained from any  tribunal process but knew from my own involvement with mr X

Mr XXXX is in the habit of telling the  government and other people what to do and they accept that what he tells them  is true  Because he was a barrister. he continually gives false information and again he  has made out  to the case manager  for the tribunal * that there was a decision in his favour when none existed.   As Usual No one checks .

the full version of the decision states

He has been an advisor to Government.

His reputation with  government is such that  he is trusted  to the point that  the trust in him  allows him to perpetrate offences   such as making a fraudulent application to the minister of agriculture for a fictional trust to   be granted law enforcement powers  under the legislation  which he advised on  and wrote to facilitate his own business plan

I have 12 years  of experience of this   and this again is an example of mr XXX saying jump and every one says how high  and again he   gets to  get away with  his crimes. This time he has had me charged when there are no grounds   and because  he says so.

If only 1/10th  of the  effort had gone into him that has gone into me then he would be behind bars.

I will be providing transparency to  this matter through this site  using this  site . I am a whistle blower and in 11 years the police have not acted yet   mr X writes to  the ministry of justice and  within two weeks I am charged with  four offences I could not have  committed .

I look forward to   whistle blowers being taken seriously , I don’t care about mr XXX  health  he did not care about me when  he destroyed my family and repeatedly tried to bankrupt me, his dirty tactics  are un unprecedented.    His ability to call  the authorities to  action show the the regard they have for him and  how   the bias  wold   possibly have prevented investigations in to his  very public fraud  .

I note that this week is anti bullying week  and I can assure you I feel bullied.

Your officers have to ensure that the ingredients of an offence are met  and they fall well short  even to the  extent of supplying me a  redacted document when the full version is publicly available.

Request to prosecutions

Due to your lack of  evidence  I request that

  1. the charges are withdrawn forth with
  2. That I receive an apology
  3. that the police deal with the historic file   relating  to the fraudulent application for law enforcement powers
  4. the use of the  civil court to conceal criminal action
  5. and the identity fraud  practiced   using  various AWINZ trusts.
  6. there is more  e.g. misappropriation of charitable  funds   but   in the fist instance  please  provide the order or  withdraw   the   charges.

Should you continue with the prosecution  I  will be pleading not  guilty  and  will seek indemnity costs for my legal representation  . loss of income  and stress caused.

regards Grace Haden



*as provided by police in discovery

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »