Chair woman WINIFRED ( WYN) Hoadley

Today I received the much awaited reply from Waitakere city – the   letter where by  AWINZ relinquished its approved status.

the letter signed By Wyn Hoadley as Chair person . It  is interesting  as it  states that the trustees met with senior Maf officials on 11 August and gave notice of their intention to give notice to the minister . cf audit report

Wyn  was appointed to the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) in August 1999, which was just months   before AWINZ applied  to become an approved organisation.  She was not a trustee of AWINZ according to the original deed which was allegedly signed  some three months after the deed was claimed to be  in existence

The” trust “ never incorporated  and in 2006  Nuala Grove  ( whose husband I believe was a former Judge )   and Sarah Gilltrap   ( whose husband is Richard Giltrap of  Giltrap Toyota) “resigned” this meant that the trust which  requires no less than 4 members (according to its deed ) now had 2  .

We formed our trust on 12 April 2006 and incorporated it on the 27-APR-2006.We called our trust the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  our successful registration proved  that the statements  made in the  application to the minister and the subsequent correspondence was false as to the claims of incorporation. ( and so was the application for funding )

On checking the charities register the  filed documents as to  who is who on the  unincorporated  AWINZ trust ,shows that Wyn Hoadley became  a trustee on 10/05/06 this was   over two weeks after we had incorporated our trust.( ours being an entity in its own right  through  incorporation )

Despite the requirement of  4 trustees  and the requirement for them to  be at least bound by a deed, there were now three “trustees” on the trust which used the trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand   .  Wyn  and Two others  took action against us  for  Breach of fair-trading. And passing off,  even though Wyn  and the other two had never traded as AWINZ and had “formed” their  Trust ( without any documentary proof)  they took action against a legally  constituted entity for the purpose of forcing us to give up the name so that they could legitimise the  shaky ground they were on.

Now  we were legally registered  and had IRD donee status.  They were but a  trading name for three people  who did not have a trust deed. When I started blowing the whistle that they claimed to have donee status and did not  they hurriedly applied to the charities commission and found themselves wanting   for a trust deed.

Tom Didovich  who had  been involved since the  beginning was called in   and a  new deed was drafted ,

Tom Didovich  is the former manger of Waitakere city animal welfare who had commissioned law reports to  facilitate set up  of AWINZ  and   corresponded with MAF  on behalf of both North shore and Waitakere cities  to  pave the way for AWINZ to be approved .This deed was signed on 5 December 2006.

Unincorporated trusts do not enjoy perpetuity, and there are serious legal issues surrounding the claim of one AWINZ claiming to  be another. An unincorporated trust can only sue or be sued through its  individual members  and so you could never sue this AWINZ   as without sighting a deed  there was no accountability.  No trust deed was on record   prior to  June 2006.

In Mid 2006 Wyn put her name to  a fund raising  flyer, I phoned her and  expressed to her my concerns about being sued. I asked if the trustees  form her trust and  the trustees of  ours could meet with view of resolution. Her reply was simple “ I am not the messenger “

Wyn has been fully aware  of the court action against me and has supported it  even turning up at court one day  with  her purchases from Smith and Caughey . She is a barrister  and I am disappointed that she  has  supported this action   and I cannot believe that a barrister would not know of the   finer details of the legalities of trusts or at least if  so closely involved  take the time to  find out.

Barrister Wyn Hoadley is an Auckland Regional Councillor and chair of its finance committee. She is a former North Shore City councillor and was mayor of Takapuna City from 1986 to 1989. She is patron and trustee for various North Shore performing arts, sport and community organisations.

She holds the New Zealand Suffrage Centennial Medal 1993 and the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal and is a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for Public Services (QSO).

Wyn Hoadley Like Neil Wells  and  Mayor Bob  has labour party roots .

Tom Didovich  had to leave  his Waitakere city  job  because of a personal relationship with  a  staff member. Neil  Wells  took over his role. Tom then obtained work with the RNZSPCA  where he  has  had various roles and is now SPCA NZ National Branch Support Manager

What did Judge Joyce see on line

Kiwisfirst  has published an article about Judge Joyce trawling the internet  during the course of his  deliberations on my  case. Interestingly Justice Rodney Hansen  commented on Judge Joyce’s  unfavourable view of me- what did he see on-line  that cause him to have such a view ? How could I possibly have defended  any thing he saw? read article

Reply from Mayor BOB does he condone corruption?

From: Mayor Bob Harvey [mailto:Bob.Harvey@waitakere.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2009 6:35 p.m.
To: Grace Haden; enquiry@oag.govt.nz

Grace you must love this stuff..To be honest I am so over you and your battles… do me a huge favour take me off your list and your private hell…give peace and  honest people a rest.Happy New year Bob Harvey

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2009 10:36 p.m.
To: ‘Mayor Bob Harvey’

You have previously acknowledged that Wells is a colleague of yours from advertising days, You worked  together on the labour campaign that got the Kirk government into power.

Neil Wells Managed to get approval   for  his non existent   organisation when you were president of the Labour party .

It appears to me that you either trust him so much  you cannot see  the reality  with regard to  AWINZ  which he   controls and contracts to as Animal  welfare manager  or you know more and  just wish this would go away.

The OECD    defines contracting  under these circumstances as Corruption , but  it is good to see that Waitakere City condones  such practices. In any case   making an application to the minister  with false information  is surely not something to be defended? And why was I sued  for questioning  the false application , our courts are full of   lesser people  who have been charged and sentenced  for making  false claims  in applications to the government , why is this  one different?

I wish I had known that you condoned this practice  before  I asked questions about  it.  My Battles began when I was   sued for defamation  and prevented me form  having a defence of truth , my battle was to  prevent the loss of the vast sums  money which I  have had to pay to defend myself  against the action he took against me using charitable funds ( being public donations  from the residents of Waitakere ) This is called Slapp action overseas where there is legislation to protect whistle blowers.

I realise a lot of covering up has occurred and I also realise that to expose the true extent of this corruption will take many others with it   so the old boys have to work together to keep that woman quite.

The fact that  my family has been  torn apart  and I have lost everything I held  dear    only encourages me to speak out about this injustice , I have nothing to fear Bob  you have helped  and supported this process which has  taken everything I valued from me.  I have nothing else to lose  .

I will not  stand by  and see this happen to any one else,  too many people in Waitakere city  council have lost their jobs over this, it is time   that the corruption in your city is exposed. Your HR department has made good use of confidentiality agreements .. I am certain that AWINZ is  but the tip of the iceberg.

What this proves  is that in New Zealand we   keep our  least  Corrupt  status  by   silencing those who question corruption .

Bob – Mayors  should not be seen to condone corruption. Corruption  exists in new Zealand  it will only flourish if it is condoned.   I will post this   and your reply on my blog  https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

Proof that Mayor Bob  has been involved in this from the early days is found in this document  note the cc at the bottom

Open letter to the Baptist Church

I am addressing this to the head office of the Baptist church   and passing  it to  other  branches for transparency.

It  is timely  that I make this request of the  church as this is   Christmas time  the season of  joy  and good will to all men.( and  hopefully Women )  Luke 11:9

My Christmas  is some what different  this year , my life , my family has been torn apart  by a elder  of the  Laingholm Baptist church, a barrister   who through false evidence sworn on the bible in court  has  discredited me  , it appears nothing has changed since the time of Jesus.      Luke 11: 37-53

His false evidence has provided him with potentially vast financial rewards and the opportunity to cover up the corruption.  I questioned his conflicts of interests and the false evidence he gave to  the Minister of Agriculture with local and central government. Proverbs 14:25, Proverbs 19:9,

His action against me  was  funded with charitable funds and the  pecuniary gain to him is personal.

The background story is on my Blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com you can navigate that blog thought the tabs both at the top and the sides to get the full story. Proverbs 19:5 .

My Crime   which has cost so much ,( financially   and personally ) was to question the activities of this  elder of the Laingholm Baptist church a man who according to  the   constitution of the church should portray the qualities displayed in 1 timothy 3: 1 -7.

I turned to the pastor of the church for assistance to help to mediate  to intervene in this hypocritical action  but I was told by him  not to contact him again. Proverbs 21:28

This is  to me  the most unchristian thing to do  and here a man of the cloth has become   living proof that the parable of the good Samaritan   is still true to form.  Mathew 23:28

My issue is that I am still on the road side bleeding; I am still being beaten up by a member of your church community.   My question is how many of you will pass me by   and is there a Good Samaritan amongst you who will assist or are you all going to cross over to the other side of the road.

I make this plea to you first   because   out there in the Christian community there must be some one who believes that this is not right.

We cannot pretend to be one thing and act as another to do so would not be Christian and  when  by silence others condone these false hoods in character, then we truly are on the path to a Godless society and a Godless society is GOOD  LESS . Exodus 23:1 ,

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,

the power and the glory,

for ever and ever.

Amen

Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it

I hope to hear from  your church  so that this  matter can be resolved for  all parties and the common good  of New Zealanders.

Open letter to auditor general

First of all I would like you  to look  at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day

Bear that  clip in mind  and then please  don’t ignore   my request or look for ways  to  “ write it off “

For convenience I have hyperlinked  documents  to show that I am not making this up

Please take it seriously  questioning this corruption has  come at a far too great a price   for me  and  no New Zealander should have to go through  what I have been through for asking simple  questions of corruption.

Both MAF and Waitakere city  contract to  ANIMAL welfare institute of new Zealand (AWINZ)  an unincorporated trust ( therefore just a trading name )  which  signed a MOU with MAF  to be an approved organisation under the  animal welfare act .

Both MAF and Waitakere city  have sunk public funds  into the setting up and facilitating this private  body  which  without proof of  independent existences  became an approved organisation under the  Animal welfare act and undertook law enforcement work, piggybacking its “charitable”  work off the back of council .

To clarify the situation AWINZ is  like a SPCA  , but instead of fund raising  and using the charitable funds to  employ staff,  pay for facilities and resources, AWINZ  ,run by the  manager animal welfare Waitakere  uses council staff, resources , facilities and vehicles to  carry out its  work , which is prioritised over council work  . The donations solicited from the public have been used to sue me to keep me quite.

AWINZ  obtained approved status  when  the man  who is now manager animal welfare Waitakere ,  made an application to the minister for approved status   under the animal welfare act 1999, this  act which  was written by that same man and had had clauses added to facilitate his  ambitions of setting up a territorial authority business akin to the SPCA but using council staff which he would train and be remunerated for  in various roles.

Both MAF and Waitakere city contracted to him , Waitakere using public funds to set up and pay for the recruitment of trustees and for legal opinions to facilitate this private  enterprise.

I have now been advised by the minister that the current trustees of AWINZ have asked to relinquish the approved  status section 121 Animal welfare act 1999

Everything  involving AWINZ is muddled, nothing is straight forward or transparent.

1. The current trustees are not the ones who  signed the MOU with MAF or Waitakere and are  not the ones in whose name the application for approved status was made to the minister.
2. The current trustees formed a trust in  December 2006 to obtain  charitable status for which  real evidence was required , the purpose  was changed, the name   had a The  added, the trustees were different. ( see earlier deed )
3. No trust deed had been sighted  prior to 2006  but once I and some others incorporated the identical name to prove that the application to the minister  was  a fraud.  A deed materialised showing the date  1 march 2000 conflicting with  the statement that  a trust had been formed by way of trust deed in 1999. The trust never incorporated.. probably due to lack of a trust deed .
4. As soon as the trust deed materialised two trustees resigned  and the trust “existed“ against  its own   terms deed  where by 4 trustees were required.( 7 (a))
5. The  person who signed the contract purportedly for AWINZ  is now the head of  animal welfare Waitakere and therefore effectively contracts to himself.( which  the OECD says is a corrupt practice)
6. Public money  was banked  into the  AWINZ bank account over which  the  person who made the application to the  crown , was the only one to have  access and control over.
7. As manager animal welfare Waitakere   contracting to AWINZ  Council  allowed  him to solicit public funds by sending out a flyer with the dog registration, this money also went into the AWINZ account.
8. As Barrister he undertook animal welfare prosecutions which arose out of the investigations of council employees, money obtained  by offering  diversion was paid into   the AWINZ bank account only he controlled.
9. He has used council facilities , resources , and  council staff to run this private trust  . The staff were un aware that they did this in a voluntary capacity.( page 2 near bottom)
10. He told MAF that the premises were leased for $1 per year. Waitakere were unaware that  AWINZ operated  from the premises.
11. Staff  at Waitakere  still hold AWINZ warrants  despite the minister claiming that AWINZ has relinquished their approved status.

I here by  request an investigation of the use of  MAF’s resources and Waitakere Cities  resources with regards to  the setting up and  operation of AWINZ in terms of section 18  of the public audit act 2001

18 Inquiries by Auditor-General

(1)   The Auditor-General may inquire, either on request or on the Auditor-General’s own initiative, into any matter concerning a public entity’s use of its resources

I am happy to provide the auditor generals office with more evidence than those hyperlinked above Maf has also incurred   costs with the crown law office for  a legal opinion  and  many hours of  research for the purpose of deciding if this organisation was suitable to be approved.

As it turned out  no one ever  checked the most elementary parts of the application in that    the application made  was made using  a false name, a false claim that the organisation existed   and that it had a registered office.

I make this request as  an open letter  in keeping with the spirit of transparency, it will be posted on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

No reply from transparency International

I am a Former Police officer ( Sergeant )  now a  Licensed  Private Investigator ,member of certified fraud examiners association .

I am a whistleblower  who has paid a very high price for  questioning corruption in New Zealand .   I have found it impossible to  question corruption  and found that the judicial system  protects white collar criminals  and that Transparency NZ prefers to remain  ignorant of the reality.

I have sent an open letter to  Transparency International NZ   and they have not replied  to my open  letter  which was sent to them and posted  here

What was I blowing the whistle on.. A Private law enforcement organisation which does not  exist.. it is founded on lies  to the minister – Lies  which the  Court condoned.

Why do they not reply  why are they ignoring  corruption in New Zealand ? why do they say fight it  then stand by as David takes on Goliath ?

The Transparency International web site   says

Who Should Join Transparency International (New Zealand)?

If you are concerned with issues of transparency, accountability and corruption both here in New Zealand and internationally, you should consider membership of Transparency International (New Zealand).

So please tell me why was I turned down for membership  and why will transparency NZ not  provide me with a   reply ?

Today we extend our questions over the ditch  and will be asking  our Australian  cousins if New Zealand TI is being transparent, Perhaps Australia can give their New Zealand associates a few tips on dealing with corruption .

In Australia  they   even have a page  devoted to Whistle blowing as follows

Introducing Whistleblowing

A number of useful weblinks and PDF downloads are available at the Quicklinks page below.

The Whistleblowing Quicklinks Page

Whistleblowing is one of the main means by which corruption is discovered, and as such is of interest to Transparency International and TI Australia. During 2001-2002 several high profile cases in the USA and Australia bought this subject again to public notice, and soon opinion and comment on the need for improved or additional protected disclosures legislation was being voiced.

So Why does transparency International New Zealand not want to know   of the problems  which Whistleblowers face and why do they ban whistleblowers from  joining ?. It is not that  I went to them  for help  , I went to them  to let them know of  the reality, the  issues the obstacles the costs  the lack of support,  so that others  would not have to endure the same.  If they do not  know  what is going on how can they aim to fix  anything.?  When things go wrong there is a lesson to be learnt, if the lesson is not learnt  others will suffer the same fate and other  families like mine will be torn apart.

Transparency New Zealand   there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see  nor those as deaf as those who do not  wish to hear.

If you choose to  remain ignorant of the micro problems  how could you possibly fix the macro ones?

I  am looking forward to hearing from you

Open Letter to Paul Brown & Gerald Mc Ghie Transparency International

This is an open letter which will be published on my blog. https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

It is  an open  letter in the interest of transparency.

I recently applied to become a member of transparency International using the document I downloaded from your site .  The information I provided you with is on that document.

The application form   provides an assurance that any one declined would be advised of the reason and that   declinature are reviewed at the AGM.

I attended your AGM, only to find that on the  agenda for the AGM no reference to  any declinatures was made , so how could my declinature be  reviewed?

I note that you have now changed your application form on line (and I also note that your on line rules and the rules made available at the meeting are different)  Where is your transparency ?

Without being given a reason I was asked to leave. On my way out I took the time to  explain  to  some of your members  why I was there   that in my line of work I see the reality  that transparency  it is  but a word  which is repeated  often but in reality  is an illusion and as such allows corruption to flourish.

I attended the AGM with Penny Bright and Vince Siemer  , this is the same Penny Bright  who is hailed  in  several of your publications  as an anti corruption campaigner and in  issue  October 2008 is acclaimed for seeking an independent commission against corruption

Vince Seimer,  like myself has been sued  for speaking the truth , both of us have  had penalties harsher than  any criminal could expect and have been denied the right to defend our truth in court. Vince has been to  Jail twice  for speaking the truth  and attempting to expose corruption. Our original innocence in believing we could question corruption has devastated our lives and ripped our families apart. We fell into this trap  because we were assured  that there was Transparency.

I was told by David Mac Donald that I was not welcome because of my association with other persons. ( what happened to freedom of association ) . Is it my association with these anti corruption campaigners or is it because I am ex police? Why is your decision making process  not transparent and where are your  guidelines for  criteria for membership?

Your  Annual report on page 3 states it is the role of TINZ to ensure that we expand the numbers playing the transparency  game . So How does one  qualify  to  become a member , if we don’t qualify  who does?

I noted the flyers on  the table and they state Corruption Ruins Lives Fight back  This is exactly what   we have been doing   yet you  do not  welcome us as part of your organisation?  Where are the guidelines from membership  when did we ask you to  take on our particular cases?  I  feel that we can contribute  with our knowledge to show  how  there is no transparency , and have to ask if  that is that what you are afraid of?

Your organisation   encourages people to question corruption yet you do not wish to hear of the obstacles they have encountered, the corruption which exists and the transparency which does not exist, where are your checks and balances to  verify that the work you are doing for the public funds you are receiving are actually  attaining  the objective?

Not wishing to be arrested , I  left  but  Penny and Vince stood their ground after all you had our  membership money  what is so secret that we could not  quietly attend  your meeting  you chose instead  to have Penny and Vince arrested for Trespass. FULL STORY LINK

There is a lot here which does not make sense and to all I have   told this story a response   involving the  word Hypocritical or derivatives there of  is  repeatedly heard.  I would have thought  that  you would have welcomed us with open arms, we are not  on about a single issue,  our  issue  is the corruption and lack of transparency  which  exists in new Zealand TODAY , we are the  foot soldiers  fighting corruption in the field  and you dare tell us that you only deal with  Corruption on a Macro level .

I would like you  to look  at this clip   this clip in my mind  brings home the reality of the situation.  I hope that I am wrong.   I suspect that you are but keeping an illusion of transparency alive and seriously question the vested interest you and your members have on keeping the  transparency perception alive  instead of allowing reality to be exposed.

In terms  of the privacy act  I would  like to have from you all information you obtained and collated  about  me   from which your board made a decision  to decline me   and I would  like to know  which  associations I   have  which render me  ineligible  for this fight  for transparency  and  against corruption .

I look forward to  your response

Grace Haden

Grace  at Verisure.co.nz

Day light is a cleanser

Yesterday after advising a number of government  and Local bodies that their OIA’s were over due  and that  I was  using this blog  something  very unusual happened.

I had responses.    Not answers  but responses.. excuses  but  it was a sign of life.

below is the  response from Waitakere   which I received earlier

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 5:44 p.m.
To: Denis Sheard
Cc: david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; ‘Rodney Hide (MIN)’; Mayor Bob Harvey; Councillor Hulse; ceo@rnzspca.org.nz;

Subject: RE: official information act request.. council employees as spca officers.

Thank you for your prompt reply Denis , could you please advise    the act and  section which  allows   “the Director of Animal Welfare.” To warrant  your council officers as inspectors  under  the animal welfare act.

My copy of the legislation states that this is done  through the minister  on the recommendation of an approved organisation.

124 (2)The Minister may from time to time, on the recommendation of an approved organisation, appoint any person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.

Please advise by virtue of  the Official information act

1. which   council officers hold warrants under the animal welfare act  and

1. which “ approved organisation    recommended the appointment  and

1. which “ approved organisation the council officers warranted under the animal welfare act are responsible to by virtue of section  122 1  d) the employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation; and (e) ii) subject to section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.

1. Please provide a scan of one of  the warrants.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 303  1252  Please note new phone number
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

From: Denis Sheard [mailto:Denis.Sheard@waitakere.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 11:43 a.m.
To: Grace Haden
Cc: david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; Rodney Hide (MIN)
Subject: RE: official information act request.. council employees as spca officers.

The answers to your questions are as follows;

Q1 –      Gillian Hildreth

Ian Freeman

Nick Thomason

Rochelle Deane

Stephen Bone

Suzanna Gentry

Tania Brown

Vicki Whitaker

Yvette Young

Q2        AWINZ

Q3        AWINZ

Q4        I have attached a sample copy of an Instrument of Appointment given by the Director of Animal Welfare under delegated authority, and the covering letter.

Denis Sheard

General Counsel

DDI phone (09) 836 8004

Mobile phone 021 946 310

Fax (09) 836 8046

Email – denis.sheard@waitakere.govt.nz

LGOIMA requests

last Month I  made a LGOIMA  request  to Waitakere  city , this is a request for information under  the local government  official information and meetings act .

I had received information from MAF that the trustees of AWINZ were no longer wishing to be an approved organization under the animal welfare act.  This was expressed in JULY     It is now DECEMBER  and Waitakere City  have just responded that the animal welfare officers   who are employed by them    are still accountable to AWINZ

This is the OIA  I sent on Tue, 10 Nov 2009  edited  so that I don’t defame Neil Wells. ( Truth is never defamation  but  truth has cost me  $200,000)

Official information act request for Waitakere  City and the minister  of agriculture and minister of local government

In 2006, I  questioned the  legitimacy of the approved organisation AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of New Zealand)

I had discovered that the statements made to the minister in 1999  by the Baptist elder ( who  also co wrote the act) were PORKIES and made with intent of setting up his own business venture being to utilise  territorial agency employees for a private SPCA  type organisation.

The only place in new Zealand that this existed was in Waitakere  where Neil Wells  as  trustee of the  trust   AWINZ -contract to himself as manager animal welfare  so that staff could be trained by him for extra remuneration and he could collect  donations for the AWINZ  account  which only he had control over.  ( it’s a fact I can prove it – I don’t believe  that   that is defamatory)

I have recently been  advised  by Maf  that  the trustees of AWINZ ( trust deed dated 2006 )  have decided to relinquish the approved status. ( in this case the trustees  are not those on the trust deed but are   different ones,, not to be confused with the ones who sued me  they didn’t have a trust deed )

I am now informed  that the former AWINZ officers have become  warranted through the RNZSPCA.I  believe this was facilitated through Tom Didovich a trustee of AWINZ and also National Education & Branch Support Manager of the RNZSPCA.

By virtue of  the OIA  could you please advise

1.       The mechanism by which the council employees have now become Spca officers,

2.       please provide all documents  discussions, minutes of council meetings ,  correspondence  with relation to this  .

3.       Please also  provide a  copy of the contract between council and the spca  which allows council employees to be  deployed as RNZSPCA officers.

4.       Please also advise if this   role as RNZSPCA officer is  voluntary  and if it is are your employees aware that   it is a voluntary role.

5.       In  1999  local government NZ was  opposed to  council officers being used in a central government role  please advise if  there have been any changes  to this regard.

6.       I would still like to know  why making a false representation to the minister with regards to  claims that  an organisation existed when it did not   is not viewed seriously . why is this acceptable  when it led to  becoming a  law enforcement organisation   based on  the  fraudulent statements. ( as opposed to john davies and Marianne Thompson who were prosecuted for their lies )

For more info see http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/77852/animal-welfare-institute-new-zealand

The reply  from Waitakere was as follows  nothing has been  heard  from the others.

From: Denis Sheard [mailto:Denis.Sheard@waitakere.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:58 a.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Cc: david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; Rodney Hide (MIN); Mayor Bob Harvey; Councillor Hulse; ceo@rnzspca.org.nz
Subject: official information act request.. council employees as spca officers.

Your email has been passed to me for response.

Questions 1 – 4

You are misinformed. Council officers have not become “SPCA officers”. Nor is there any proposal under consideration by the Council that this should occur.

The information requested in questions 1 – 4 does not therefore exist.

Those Council officers who hold Animal Welfare Act warrants continue to do so, under appointments made by the Director of Animal Welfare.

Question 5

I have no idea. You will need to address your question to LGNZ.

Question 6

This question is not a request for information but a request for the expression of an opinion.  No response is proposed..

Denis Sheard

General Counsel

DDI phone (09) 836 8004

Mobile phone 021 946 310

Fax (09) 836 8046

Email – denis.sheard@waitakere.govt.nz

tomorrow.. my reply  and  the next  replies from Waitakere .. still waiting on  Minister f or local governemnt and   minister  of agriculture

The Parable of the good samaritan NOT

Some one kindly posted the parable of the good Samaritan on the Lord of the rings page (https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/lord-of-the-rings/)

It is indeed sad that  people such as Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap , who put their names forward to be on a trust  of such significance as AWINZ and SIGNED the trust deed chose to resign and remain silent  as soon as questions were asked.

They also knowingly stood by  as peoples lives were devastated  and  families ripped apart. at any time they could  have spoken up  at any  time they could have made a difference .

Another such nominee is the pastor of the Laingholm Baptist church  who like Sarah and Nuala, chose to cross over  to the other side of the road and did nothing  while people were unjustly being beaten up  . Intervention by any one of these people least  of all   by a man of the cloth  would have made a difference.

further nominees are MAF and he various government departments  who prefer to turn a blind eye  and while the  larger wrong continues  there are many who are prosecuted for  far smaller transgressions,