The dangers of one SPCA
June 14, 2017 | 
Author 
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
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
(b)specifying—
(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 in 
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
4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
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
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
Destruction of the RNZSPCA.. Its is nothing new .. its a matter of public money
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 .
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED formed on 19-OCT-1926 incorporation number 222889
THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED Incorporated 11-SEP-1933 number 218546
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
Is Transparency New Zealand supporting the perception or being serious about corruption .
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 .
Today I signed the THE DECLARATION AGAINST CORRUPTION
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
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 ?
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 .
Background
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 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016nzlcdt34-waikatobayofplenty-standardscommittee-v-mr-m.pdf 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 http://archive.is/qbOdL or https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016-NZLCDT-24-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-v-Mr-M.pdf
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 .
There is profit in animals .. or why is the RNZSPCA restructuring and what is Neil Wells connection.
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
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
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
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
Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions
The officer in charge prosecutions pps.napier@police.govt.nz, 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
- that there was a legal suppression order
- that the suppression order was with regards to the person named
- 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
being
- 235 Quorum…which relates to interim name suppression orders), and for the purposes…
- Schedule 6 Enactments amended…in the Act(s). Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (2002 No 34…
- 1 Title…the making of interim name suppression orders (to align it with…
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
- the charges are withdrawn forth with
- That I receive an apology
- that the police deal with the historic file relating to the fraudulent application for law enforcement powers
- the use of the civil court to conceal criminal action
- and the identity fraud practiced using various AWINZ trusts.
- 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