Anticorruptionnz's Blog


whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection.

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 10:55 am

To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘pita.sharples’
Subject: whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection thereby protecting NZ’s least corrupt status .


Open letter to transparency New Zealand  .. What protection do Whistle blowers get ???

Good morning Alex

You may remember me I am  a fellow member of the association   certified Fraud examiners  and  a  corruption whistleblower.

I  am writing to you  in your role of director of Transparency International.


I am not wishing any assistance from you with my   personal  case but wish to express to you the issues  which I have faced over the  past 4 ½ years since asking what I thought were some simple  questions of public  accountability of a  private law enforcement “ organisation”. Background to my case is on see the INDEX for  specific headings

The best form of  defence  is attack  and those seeking to  conceal the corruption attacked me in the civil jurisdiction.  I have been financially drained , they have had me in bankruptcy   my family has been torn  apart.. I am sure that you  will know the symptoms  it is classic  of what Whistle blowers endure.  We need only look at  case studies of high profile fraud cases  which   all start by attacking  and discrediting the whistleblower.

My Issue  is that   I have  over that time been unsuccessful in getting any one   in  government  to act. I have   been everywhere and all I get is  walls to knock my head up against.  I know I am not alone   I know of others who experience the same.

New Zealand cannot  keep on pretending that there is no  corruption  by simply  making it impossible for people to expose it .

By allowing corruption to be concealed we are creating a breeding ground for  corruption which  left unchecked will be uncontrollable.

I have just returned from the ACFE conference in Melbourne   and there whistleblowers were recognised as the No  1 means by which  fraud and corrupt practices were exposed. Yet in New Zealand we have no protection  for  persons  such a as my self  as I am not protected by the   protected  disclosures act.

New Zealand has signed but  not ratified the UN Convention against corruption.   Had we signed it  the convention would  provide  protection.

Could you please advise  what Transparency International ( New Zealand) is doing  in creating corruption awareness  in the government sector  and  providing  protection to persons  such as myself.

Do you have any plans to put  effective systems in place where by those who   wish to question corrupt practices  are not left on their own to be crucified by those  who can attack them using a bottomless pit of  charitable dollars and legal  expertise.

Had I been a criminal   I would have served my time by now  , instead this is my 5th Christmas where I am fighting court decisions which through the  cunning  manipulation of the  court process by those seeking to conceal their  corrupt practice  have sought to  deny me my basic   human rights of a fair hearing and a right to justice .

For your information  My matter is of gross public interest and strikes at the heart of State capture  and  public private  relationships  where by a person in public office was acting in circumstances as  defined by the UN as  using a  public office for private gain.  What makes it worse  is that this man even wrote the legislation to facilitate it.

I have no doubt is the tip of the ice berg

I look forward to your response and a way forward so that others  do not have to endure   what I am going through.


Grace Haden



“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 4:01 pm

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition refer  source

Mr Key

I wrote to you this morning   regarding  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   a law enforcement authority which is  fictional in structure and  although it has legal powers  is no more than  a trading name for one man  who wrote the legislation to facilitate it.


Because of the lack of substance of AWINZ  there are  no binding contracts  but  despite this  those  using the name in the pretence that it exists  have  the legal ability ( and has done so ) to prosecute  citizens and keep the proceeds   section 171 animal welfare act.


AWINZ   came into being  when  a citizen who had drafted a business plan for  his own  business venture  , wrote  the major part of the  animal welfare act, he then  became an employee of the  select committee and  was their independent advisor, he was also advisor to MAF .


When the  act he had contributed to and advised on  became law he told  the minister that  an organisation existed   and applied in the name of that organisation for approved status under the act to  give himself the same rights as   the RNZSPCA   of which he had been a former director.


The statements in the application was false  and in 2006 there was no evidence of any organisation and an alleged trustee stated that the proposed  trustees had  not met since late 1998 .  The deed  which was supplied  had expired in 2003   and he contracts with local and central government was  signed without  the deed or any evidence of  trustees being provided.


Despite claims that AWINZ  no longer exists  it is still a registered charity and   has never been removed from the list of approved organisation.


I   have been  informed that this is  a good example of state capture  which is a form of corrupt practice.   The article    whose title  has been used  was published in 2000.


I again emphasise that I questioned this corrupt practice some 4 ½   years ago and have been held in the court  without right of trial   having been arbitrarily found  guilty  of defamation on the basis of my own  affidavit which was submitted   in mitigation of damages as the  act allows for.


I have been unsuccessful in finding any  government department  which  deals with this  aspect of corruption and therefore seek your assistance.


Could you please advise  to whom one makes a complaint with regards to state capture and By way of OIA please supply all documents which consider this form of corruption and methods we  have employed to combat this .


More information  with regards to AWINZ  can be found  on my blog site




Grace Haden


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:42 p.m.
To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: whistleblower protection United nations convention agaisnt corruption


Good afternoon  Mr Key



Some 4 ½  years ago  I asked questions   of a  private law enforcement authority   which contracted to both local and  central government .


The so called organisation was  run by the man who wrote  and advised on the legislation to facilitate it  he


1.       Applied for approved status under the act which he had written ( animal welfare ) for  an organisation which did not exist to become  an approved organisation  making it similar to the RNZSPCA

2.       Avoided sending a trust deed when Maf requested it

3.       Failed to register the  so called trust under the charitable trust act  as assured in the application and  in correspondence to the then  minster  of agriculture

4.       In 2006  when I questioned the existence of  the trust and the lack of  trust deeds on public  record   I was sued  for defamation  for calling it s sham trust.

a.       In a game of legal manoeuvring  I was prevented  from having a defence  and no  decision has ever been made that I  defamed Mr wells  and that  what I said was not the truth .  the court  has continually been misled  and I have been denied  the right to a fair hearing. ( the only hearing was for Quantum  in which  my affidavit of mitigation of damages  was used against me

5.       The trust documents which first saw light in 2006  claim that the deed was signed 1.3.2000

a.       This is some 4 months after  the  trust was claimed to be in existence ( application  22/1/99 )

b.      The deed  states that the trustees are appointed for  3 years   this means that without further proof the trust ceased to exist after 1/3/2003

i.      The  trustees claim that the trust did not meet  and there is therefore no evidence of re appointment of trustees .No evidence has been provided  or is available to show that the trust   continued to exist

6.        The author of the legislation  acting  as trustee  of the trust whose deed had now expired  signed  agreements  with   MAF and to Waitakere city through his  colleague Tom Didovich  the manager of  dog and stock control ,  who’s job he was to acquire  a year  or so later.

a.       This manager had also collected the signatures for  the deed, witnessed them and  then became  a trustee of a similarly named trust which attempted to show continuity.

I have been to every government department  which I can think of   , I have been stone walled all the way .

Had New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  I would have protection through the court , instead   all these  years of litigation  have  taken their toll on my  family , my financial resources , my health, my business , my friends .

Not only  am I not provided  with any  protection  I have been left entirely in the cold  by all government agencies which have a responsibility to ensure that corrupt practices  do not occur.

This is far worse than  John Davies, Marianne Thompson  and Stephen Wilce,  yet no  one will investigate , I have been left entirely on my own

Could you please advise  why a matter of  government  and local bodies  contracting to  fictional   bodies  through the staff members     is not seen as  fraud and corruption and why  no one investigates.



Grace Haden


Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at




MAF gives Law enforcement powers to a Mythical creature

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:29 pm

For the information  for the ombudsmen’s office and  for the information of the ministers  Please  do something!     ..   also a further OIA for MAF  by way of clarification of the  letter attached.

MAF gives Law enforcement powers to  a Mythical creature .. then runs and hide and allows a woman to be destroyed because she asked  why it wasn’t real?

Why steal and identity  when you can make one up and have it treated as real and given more rights than a real person has?

How can MAF condone this ????  Why do our ministers  not get involved?

In 2000  The  then minister of Agriculture , based on direction from  the labour cabinet , gave law enforcement powers to   a mythical creature called AWINZ. It had  been  created by one of  their party members, an advertising man well versed in spin,  and  supported  by  the labour party  president   at that time ..Bob Harvey a former  associate  in advertising  of  AWINZ creator.

AWINZ, the mythical creature   and sounding  just like a government  department   became a  private law enforcement  authority  with ability to keep all the proceeds of  prosecutions  it under took through the animal welfare act.

It was Given” Life”   through the animal welfare act  which   had been written  with   the creation of AWINZ in mind   by the man  who  advised on the act, wrote the bill and  applied  for AWINZ  to be an approved Organisation.

AWINZ the fiction which has been personified  has been  better than  any Identity fraud I have   ever seen . No one is interested in it because there is no proof of how much money it took from the people , but  I can assure you that the potential  was massive.

Like a great parasite  it leached on to   Waitakere city council functions of dog and stock control, the city in which Bob Harvey was mayor.

It operated from the council  premises, used council Logos, staff, resources  and  vehicles. Like a true  mythical creature  it was there  but not there. AWINZ  creator   became the manager of animal welfare   and although he contracted to himself through this hypothetical trust which no one had  seen a deed for   it was not seen as corruption  as defined by the OECD  or the united nations  .. being public office for private Gain  and was apparently   condoned  by all to who the issue was raised.

When dog registration came up  funds were collected   and banked in to the creatures bank account  which   the manger of animal welfare administered.

When the  staff under his council supervision noticed  some one being naughty with an animal  they would  tell their boss  who would report to the  creator of  the mythical creature  who would then  pass it to the barrister   who would get money from the prosecution   and  would then put it in the bank account.   This system was highly efficient  as   the one man  wore many hats..  we were to find out in court  that this is because NZ is small.

Something  got in the way of the creatures growth   and that was me…  I said one day  excuse me  but isn’t this a  fiction (  I actually used the  words  sham trust )     and  from there on  I have been held in court for  some 4 ½  Yeas , been denied a   defence  had costs trumped up against me, , I have paid out nearly $200,000  to lawyers, it brought about the end of my marriage,  torn may family apart  and destroyed my business  . You see the creature fought back   by misleading he court and using  the public  charitable dollar  which  it had ferreted away.

I am a reasonably astute person  , Former Police Sergeant, Private investigator    and have found it impossible to get MAF  to  investigate AWINZ. I have  found it impossible to get justice .

Wells   the  man  who created AWINZ  is  obviously so trusted by MAF ( advised  both  MAF and   the select committee on the legislation ) that  he has not had to provide  any evidence of the fictional  creature he created.  And with Mr Wells firmly in control of the creatures bank accounts  and  the public paying into this  he has been able to fund the litigation to silence me .

MAF on the other hand  provided me with the brick  wall to hit my head against  while I have been  sued for defamation  where no evidence has ever been produced and I have been denied my statutory right to a defence of  truth and honest opinion.

This has gone on for too  long . MAF   they treat me as if I a   nuisance  yet  their neglect in confirming the organisation    set me up for the fall when I asked  why  there was no evidence of its existence   and therefore questioned the accountability.

There are now so many people involved in the cover up  that I feel it is easier  for me to be sacrificed  than to admit that there was a law enforcement agency which did not exist in reality and no one   did anything when it was brought to their attention.

I  had  hopes  that National would  do something about it   because it is not involved in this cover up    but we are now 2 years into National  governance  and nothing much has changed.    Does National     condone  this   ?  or have they simply been too busy    I ask the ministers  to whom this is addressed  please to  investigate.


Thank you for the attached response  reply re awinz ceasing to be an  approved organisation it does however raise a few more questions  which  I hope  can be addressed by  virtue of the official information act.

1.       I have ascertained from the new council that there are still a number of warranted officers   at the  Waitakere city  animal welfare facility.  Could you please provide  all correspondence with regards to the warrants for these   inspectors    which shows the   accountability and  lawfulness of their  appointments in terms of the act. IE

a.       who were they accountable to

b.      who did they report to

c.       who supervised them and

d.       since the  existence of  Waitakere city council who in Auckland city approved the continuation of  this arrangement.

2.       Please provide details of any animal welfare  prosecutions which have  occurred in the past year as a result of work done by the   warranted inspectors  in Waitakere.

a.       How many prosecutions were there

b.       Who prosecuted the  cases

c.       Which approved Organisation received the  compensation  form these  prosecutions as provided for by section 171 of the animal welfare act.

3.       Any correspondence to Waitakere animal welfare , Auckland transitional council  and  Auckland city council  regarding the r  continued appointment of the   animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere  and termination  letters if applicable.

Your letter makes it clear that  that the MOU dated  4 December 2003   is the current MOU .

This MOU was signed By Neil Wells as trustee of  AWINZ  could you please provide

1.       all evidence on which you relied  that Mr Wells was Trustee of AWINZ  and  had   authority  to sign for  and on behalf of other trustees.

2.       Provide  the  copy of the trust deed which you relied upon to show that this  Trust was a legal entity

3.       Please advise when you received  copy of this trust deed.

4.       Please provide all documents  that show the   resignations and appointments of all trustees to the trust

5.       Copies of all trust deeds which you have on  file .

Your letter also states that AWINZ has ceased to be an approved organisation.   Please provide  all correspondence gazette notes  letters from ministers  etc which indicate that   it  now  has no  further legal   powers.

I also have  to raise an issue with  the use of the  word AWINZ   .   AWINZ the acronym  for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  is  no more than a trading  name  of a group of  people , various  people at various times    Please advise  which group of people, or which person  had accountability , and please provide evidence of their support  and agreement to  being accountable  at the  various times

1.        When the application was made  in the name of  the unincorporated trust  in the application which  was unsupported  by a trust deed.

2.       Approved status was given to AWINZ, which was done at a time when MAF neither had a trust deed on file or  had seen a trust deed.

3.       When the MOU was signed  .. which was signed on 4 December 2003   which  according to the trust deed which you were supplied   with By Mr. Wells in 2006  had expired  8 months earlier   .. see page 4  term of office and vacancy  .

4.       When  AWINZ requested   the revocation of its approved status   (some 6 years after the  deed had expired and  some three years after this  obsolete  trust deed with no legal standing had been supplied.


Do New Zealanders have a right to Justice?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 5:02 p.m.
To: ‘Human Rights Commission Infoline’
Subject: Right to justice

Good afternoon

This morning I phoned the Human rights commission to see  some assistance to the  lack of observance of my rights to   Justice.

The web site states
Right to justice

If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to

  • a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker
  • apply for judicial review of that decision.

You have the right to bring civil proceedings against, and defend civil proceedings brought by the Crown in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals

I am now somewhat confused  as in  speaking  with Neil I was told that the right  to justice means that   I have  access to a lawyer.  This  somehow falls short of the standard set in the bill of rights.

A brief summary  is that   4 ½  years ago I raised questions  of public concern  to activities which the United Nations  describes as a corrupt practice.

To conceal the  practice and to silence  me  legal action was taken .

Part of that legal action was a defamation claim   all other claims were  withdrawn

The court burdened me with  some $19,000  cost  before any evidence was   heard    and as I had no independent access to funds ( I was a married woman with no independent cash reserves )  my defence was struck out

In the same directive the judge ordered the  Plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim which never occurred. ( as attached Unless order )

After some time of inactivity the plaintiffs  asked for the  mater to be determined on Quantum   on the original statement of claim.. there by ignoring the courts order.

Both parties were asked to  submit an affidavit   and I  submitted an affidavit  in accordance with section  30 of the defamation act

30 Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages

  • In any proceedings for defamation, the defendant may prove, in mitigation of damages, specific instances of misconduct by the plaintiff in order to establish that the plaintiff is a person whose reputation is generally bad in the aspect to which the proceedings relate.

At the  hearing  for quantum  before judge  Joyce,  a hearing for which the scope had not  been determined and  which  all parties believed to  be a hearing for quantum only  my affidavit  in mitigation of damages was used against me as evidence of continued defamation.

During the  hearing , the judge  briefly touched on formal proof    which was covered off my the plaintiff swearing to the best  of his knowledge that the Statement of claim was true  .No further comment was made to the substantive  issue and no determination was ever made that the statements in the statement of claim were defamatory  that is not the truth.

While the statement of claim was  determined , without comment,  to be true , my affidavit  ( a statement of truth )  was used  to prove continued  defamation .How can you  submit an affidavit showing the plaintiff  is of bad character by saying nice things?  Everything I said was backed up by evidence,

Every affidavit I have submitted to the court has been backed up with documentary evidence which the court has repeatedly dismissed and because of the bulk of this evidence ,now criticises me for.

While  I was  arbitrarily  found guilty of  defamation  I had the right  to submit  an affidavit   in mitigation of damages.

The court also has an interest  in not allowing itself to be used   for a corrupt purpose  and not once did the court consider the consequences is what I was saying was the truth, it was more important to find me guilty than to  question this corrupt use of public facilities and funds.

In  essence the court  is  being complicit in the   exercise of concealing corruption  which is against its fundamental role of acting in the public interest .

Truth is never defamatory.      IF  my  affidavit ,  a sworn statement , was defamatory then the statements mad in it  must be    lies  and  I should have been charged with  perjury .

The fact that this evidence was accepted as truth   and used against me  brings up the question of entrapment  brought  about through  legislation.

I have   appealed and asked for a judicial review, which was opposed  but no reasons given and  I found myself in a position where we had to give a reason for the  judicial review .

My lawyer  filed papers which  I had not seen and  also  which did not comply with my instructions to him.

I have now spent 4 ½ years   $200,000   and have lost my marriage and have seen my family broken up.  All in the quest  for justice. Justice should  not be this difficult to  obtain and   had I had the right to a fair trial    it would have been over a long  time ago. The plaintiff has been fighting me with  appears tobe a bottomess pit of charitable funds  which he has misappropriated to  secure silence and a  pay out for himself..  again this is true and I can show this through publicly available documents    but we don’t care about  corruption we condone it.

Had I been a  fraudster I would have served my time and  my costs would have been less, the chances are I would still have some   in the pocket profit from my criminal behaviour.  But I am  in essences a whistleblower who has no right to protection  and everyone including the court seems to stand by and condone the corrupt practices which I questioned.

All I ever wanted  was for  a hearing on the issues.. being that of the statement of claim  and  to be treated equally to the opposing party  who  were able to get away with  ignoring the direction of  Judge sharp  while it  was enforced against me.

I am disappointed that I was fobbed off  by the human rights commission this morning, there are many who will be  amazed by my story as it is the expectation that in New Zealand you can have  a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker .

My application to the  court for judicial review has been  turned down as the judge  relied  upon  case law to assume that  facts pleaded in the statement of claim are true.

The  case law  which is relied upon   was Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267 which is inconsistent with the  New Zealand bill of rights  27 (1) and cannot be appropriately used in a case of defamation  where the onus of proof to prove truth . Guilty until proven innocent  so how can you  be found innocent when you have no defence..  Yet the court  not once  determined that   what I said was true  and  when it accidently  brought out the fact that  what I had said was true the court resorted to making excused  for mr Wells  by saying that he got a head of himself.

It is therefore essential that a judicial review should be considered to see if this case law is applicable to   defamation. And consider the following

1.       That plaintiffs can succeed  without production of any evidence

2.        The strategic manoeuvrings which saw my defence struck out is equivalent to justice.

3.       That  one party can be held accountable to an order from the court   while the other parties failure to comply is   ignored.( filing a new statement of claim  and proceeding on the old one.)

4.       Allowing a party   to claim defamation without  showing  why the statement was untrue

5.       The maliciousness finding  was made without any prior notice to the court as required by legislation .

6.       That an affidavit in mitigation of damages  can  be used as evidence against the  party producing it.

7.       The obligations the court has to  the public in  ensuring that the court is not used to conceal corruption .. Ok   I know  no one cares about this. We are the least corrupt and  long may the pretence last.

The   human rights  which we  believe  we have , ie the right to justice   needs to be upheld and enforced .  I therefore request that you  assist in bringing the right to justice for me and  all others like me  to the attention of  the judiciary  and to the public bodies  who continually slam the doors in the face of all those who have been the victims of corrupt practices.


Reply from Chief Executive MSI Global Alliance

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:58 am

From: James Mendelssohn []
Sent: Monday, 22 November 2010 11:18 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: What are the expected ethical standards of you member companies.

Dear Ms Haden

Thank you for your recent e-mail.  I was obviously concerned to read about the matters that you raised.  As a global organisation of professional firms, we take any allegation made against any of our member firms extremely seriously.   Indeed, the whole rationale of our organisation would be undermined if we could not rely on our members.

I have now had the opportunity to consider your e-mail carefully and to read the links provided.  I would like to make two specific comments.

First, I think that it is extremely unfortunate that your blog contains speculative and inaccurate comments, particularly when you say that MSI Global Alliance does not appear to have a Code of Conduct.  We have a document that has that exact title which is available on our website and is in the public domain.  Your comments are therefore incorrect and, by implication, defamatory.  I must ask you to remove or correct those comments on your blog immediately.

Secondly, I understand that you are pursuing a legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander, and that you have also raised the matter with the appropriate professional bodies.  I believe that this is the correct course of action if you have a grievance, and I would be pleased to learn the final outcome of any such matters.  I strongly believe that where our members are operating in a country with a developed and transparent legal system, it is better to allow due process to be followed in the local jurisdiction, rather than us trying to impose our own ‘judgement’ from afar. Therefore, until these matters are finally resolved, I believe that it is inappropriate for us to second guess the final decision.

I hope you understand our position.

Kind regards

James Mendelssohn

Chief Executive

MSI Global Alliance


my reply

Thank You Mr Mendelssohn

First of all I am not pursuing a  legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander  and I do not know  where you got that notion from,  I will be reporting the   incident to the law society , which   typically results in no action at all  as New Zealand prefers to  keep its  least corrupt status by condoning  such practices there by not acknowledging them as being corrupt.

As to your code of Conduct:  the only document I found   was one which prescribed the conduct amongst members   as I stated in my blog  I did not find a code of  conduct  “ which embraces ethical values outside their organisation”

Your   Code-Conduct.pdf does not  extend  to  or  include the expected   ethical  values  which are accepted and tolerated  by your associated partners  .

As an Anti corruption campaigner  I look for   the ethical  values to be enshrined in the code of  conduct  and expect these to be upheld and enforced.

I do hope that you can bring this to the attention  to the   directorship of your organisation , You will find  that many of  your members will be in countries where the united nations convention against corruption has been ratified, however New Zealand is not one of those countries  and our tolerance for corruption is somewhat higher than  most of your members would accept , it is therefore important that your own rules  set the standard as you do not wish to have your reputation tarnished by  low ethical standards of others.

Ethics are  like a chain   it is as only as strong as the weakest link .  You have control over that link  you  could cut it loose ,tidy it up  or live  knowing that it will be the link that sees the whole chain collapse.

The choice is  yours  I  have brought it to your attention  and I hope that you will take time to read the comments of Harrison J   those are  the comments of a justice  about Mr  Spring and Keegan Alexander  –    not mine.

If you would be so kind as to point me to a document in which   you set out the expected ethical standards   I will post the link on my blog to accurately reflect your expected standards .

In interest of transparency I will post  both your reply and my response on  my blog .


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at



What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:03 pm

I have just returned from a certified fraud examiners conference in Melbourne, one of the topics was that of ethics another very interesting one was on the foreign corrupt practices Act.

Both of these are issues which relate to the dealings I have had with an American national Terry Hay who has been charged with offences and  sought refuge in  Honolulu.

The FPCA does not only implicate him it also   implicates the director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED William Donald DRAKE 43-006 Nana Place, Honolulu. We will be making a complaint under the provisions of that act and will keep you posted as to the outcome.

Basically it all comes down to ethics.. The ethics or lack of, of one person, when condoned by management of a company ,reflects the ethical values of the  whole company and  when a company’s  standards are condoned by organisations they are members of  it also reflects on the entire organisation .

It is therefore a very good ethical bench mark to look at companies and organisations  in terms   of what conduct is condoned.

This is a picture of Peter Spring LL.B his associated partners at Keegan Alexander are

Keegan Alexander is a member of the world wide MSI global alliance . MSI does not appear to have a code of conduct which embraces ethical values outside their organisation  but will be sure to raise that with them  when we bring this matter to their attention.


For the past four years peter spring has pursued me through he courts on behalf of his client Terry Hay on a number of claims. The purpose of these claims were initially to remove me from   attempting to prove that a liquidator a director were fictitious.

The circumstances were that Hay was the  owner of a company fresh prepared Limited which  he had placed Lynne Pryor  in control of  as director and shareholder

The company took legal action against a former director Steven DE JONG

The court action  is reported in the following judgements



[3]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG & ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 15 May 2006

[4]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 9 June 2006

[5]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 16 August 2006

[6]  DE JONG V FRESH PREPARED LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-5306 3 November 2006

Perhaps the most  significant of these is  [5]  where on page 2 the judge states “in my provisional view this is one of those unusual cases where the successful party should not be awarded costs, and that they should lie where they fall.”

His  honour also refers to   The unnecessary use of interlocutory procedures, and the  failure to properly assess the true value of its claim well before trial. Stating that a realistic appraisal would have shown that this litigation was an uneconomic exercise for all parties; at the very least it should have been pursued on a restricted basis in the District Court.
He states at point 3
[4] This proceeding was issued in March 2004 and has seen an extraordinary amount of interlocutory activity, predominantly of FPL’s making, which would have been avoided if the company had undertaken an early evaluation of the arguable legal issues and its prospects of success.FPL has apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction. It was not until the company instructed Messrs Clayton Luke and Richard Harrison less than one month before trial that its case was properly formulated. I shall return to this subject when discussing costs.

Fresh prepared Limited  ( FPL) then   failed to pay the  lawyers  who had represented them  in the final proceedings ( they took over from SPRING)

Liquidation proceedings were commenced and the   company was sold  by Lynne Pryor to Sanjay Patel  who  on the eve of the   liquidation proceedings  placed the company in  voluntary liquidation with Bahubhai Patel

I was asked to locate the locate a director and  liquidator Pacific flight catering blog for  full details

Neither the liquidator nor director existed   both having been fabricated .see Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

During this time  Terry Hay  saw it fit to  harass  me by placing advertisements in a Chinese newspaper mandarin times and  joined himself in  harassment proceedings   which had been initiated by Lynne Pryor against me.

The claim of harassment came  when I tried to contact Sanjay Patel  and  did the  usual  of phoning the company and calling on   his residential address and continually finding Lynne Pryor there and discovering that She had the same Po box number as  the liquidator.

The interesting thing was that I had never met, spoken to or investigated Hay  yet  Peter Spring LL.B laid a charge of harassment against  me on behalf  of Hay and Pryor and secured a restraining order  on fiction.

When   the ministry of economic developments investigated , Hay and Pryor were charged . Hay skipped the country and took up residence in his native USA.

Pryor pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business but not before taking further action against me for alleged contempt of court.

Not only  did they take  me through district court but also  through  to the high court  despite the  court stating that  it did not believe that there was a contempt.  This is reflected in the  judgement PRIOR AND ANOR V HADEN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008134 20 May 2009

“The Judge went on to express cautionary views as to whether the undertaking the contempt proceedings relied on was still in force at the time of the alleged breach and raised whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a finding of civil contempt. He invited counsel to consider the matter further.

Despite the  opinions of  judges  Spring continued to pursue me through the court  causing  great stress to me and my family contributing to the end  of my 24 year marriage.

Spring had obligations under the lawyers and conveyancers act but  never ensured that the facts were there to substantiate the claims made .

I made a complaint to the law society   based on the conduct of Spring in my case and   the observations made by judges in the previous reported matters  which reflected the same  excessive use of interlocutory measures and scorched earth approach .

My complaint to the law society they have never investigated.    They simply wrote to me and told me that I had other redress available to me.  Strangely enough that letter was not received by me until after the appeal period.

I have since then asked Spring as to what was happening with the current proceedings, where I won the interlocutory at the high court and they now have to  provide discovery to progress the  case.

So far the proceedings have cost me  $49,000  in  court action and I sought to have this sum recovered and I wrote to him. Spring carefully twisted my letter   to be an allegation against his company  but  most importantly stated  on 2 November 2010

As to the court proceedings itself, we are not in receipt of instructions in relation to the same from our clients at present

I replied and  asked him  to  contact  his clients with regards to the proceedings  and on the 4th November I received this reply

“We cannot put the same before them as we are no longer acting for them in this matter and have not for some time.”

I can only assume that two days is a long time in law . But to me  it  shows a certain lack of integrity  ethics  and  accountability to the truth , had the clients  ceased being clients  would he not have said so   two days earlier  and ist it a proper procedure to withdraw  from the case in court?

I don’t  know   what others think but in my opinion  it  is dirty pool  and  any one  being a partner  of Keegan Alexander who support this  are all  tarred with the same brush.

I just hope that the multinational organisation  which Keegan Alexander are associated with  do have a policy for ethics .

I  will forward this post to MSI global alliance and see what their  view is on lawyers supporting corrupt practices and taking court action  to  help conceal corruption   and then   coming up with mind challenging statements  as to  their involvement with clients.

Will keep you posted.

In the mean time I am contacting all those who have  had the misfortune to have had Peter Spring on the opposition team in court, I have already met with a few of you  please  do  let me know who you are and we can work together to ensure that Lawyers are accountable to the code of conduct.

Grace Haden

Further related posts are at


Minister of Police is kept in the dark -cops fabricating offences is condoned

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 12:05 pm

In early October I sent a letter to  the minister of Police   after I  had received a ticket for a fabricated offence offence which I defended in court and  for which the police later acknowledged they had no evidence for .

I sent an open letter to  Judith Collins in  which I boldly stated “I expect that you will just cast this aside and I will never hear again”  How true

I  did however receive this  email on Mon 11/10/2010 3:38 p.m.  claiming that it had been sent on to the commissioner of police

Well    three weeks later and not a word   obviously  cops fabricated offences is condoned.

Dear Ms Haden

Please find attached a response letter from the Office of the Minister of Police.

Yours sincerely

**** this was left blank ****

Sent of behalf of:

Inspector Scott Spackman

Police Private Secretary I Office of the Hon Judith Collins MP I

Parliament Buildings I Private Bag 18041 I Wellington 6160

attached a response letter as  below

11 October 2010 Ref: Min 10 / P / 1418

Ms Grace Haden

Dear Ms Haden

The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence of 5 October 2010 concerning an infringement notice issued by police.

Your correspondence relates to matters that are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. I must point out that politicians cannot instruct Police in operational or employment matters.  This is a long standing convention that was enshrined in law with the passing of the Policing Act 2008.  It ensures that law enforcement and investigation by the Police remain free of any political influence or interference.

I have therefore referred your correspondence to the office of the Commissioner of Police for consideration.

Yours sincerely

******This was not even signed *****

Inspector Scott Spackman

Police Private Secretary


my reply  2/11/2010

Dear  minister.

Several month ago I wrote to you about a ticket which I had received in the Waikato, I had asked  the police a number of time to review the  claim as  I  knew there was no evidence .

I defended it in court  and won because surprisingly there was no evidence.

I made a complaint to the IPCA  who decided that counselling the cop was sufficient.

I  wrote to you because I have this strange notion that cops should be honest.

I received an unsigned  letter  purportedly from Inspector Spackman  stating  that   this was no concern for you and that  it  has been  forwarded to the commissioner.

I  do find this unusual  because I would   have thought that  the performance and  the manner in which the police conduct themselves would  be a matter for the minister.

I therefore ask that this letter be brought to your personal attention  .  I  am posting  this with the other back ground information on  my blog site


Grace Haden

Wilson home for crippled children .. which trust is what?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:43 am

Several years ago I  became involved on a pro bono basis  for the parents  of the children at the  Wilson home for crippled children

a group of people who had taken over the management of the  place were looking at  splitting off and on selling part of the land

what I did  was to unspin the  documents which had been  placed before the  parents  so that the  reality shone through

this is the documentation  they supplied wilson home flyer

I located the following

  1. Wilson home trust deed
  2. Local Legislation Act 1949 No 31
  3. Local Legislation Act 1949 No 35
  4. JUDGMENT OF LAURENSON J Wilson home trust

The following is what I unspun It is provided as a PDF  with  the comments in red THE ORIGINAL LEGACY with my notes in red

There is now a Wilson Home Trust set up on the charities register   and  it shows this as the deed amended deed

What is significant is the  confusion which is created with regards to a trust, the  trustees for the  Wilson home trust certainly are not  those set down by the original deed   and  those who took  it to court for  amendment  were not  the trustees named int he deed either.

It is interesting that  the person who asked questions  about  the process promptly lost his job…  it is what we do to whistleblowers in New Zealand.


Transparency International again lists New Zealand as the least corrupt on the perception index.

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:23 pm

What is perception.. It is a view point and according to Transparency international corruption is defined  as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector.

For New Zealand there were 6 reports  which collated the information from which the perception was deduced these reports were

EIU 2010, GI 2010, IMD 2009, IMD 2010, WEF 2009 & WEF 2010  see source English

These were set out in tables in this document English

Abbreviation EIU GI IMD WEF
Source Economist Intelligence Unit Global Insight IMD International, Switzerland, World Competitiveness Center World Economic Forum
Name Country Risk Service and Country Forecast Country Risk Ratings IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook Global Competitiveness Report
Year published 2010 2010 2009 & 2010 2009 & 2010
Who was surveyed? Expert staff assessment Expert staff assessment Executives in top and middle management in domestic and international companies Senior business leaders, domestic and international companies
Subject asked The misuse of public office for private (or political party) gain: including corruption in public procurement, misuse of public funds, corruption in public service, and prosecution of public officials The likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption Category Institutional Framework – State Efficiency: “Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist” Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1) exports and imports, 2) public utilities, 3)tax collection, 4) public contracts and 5) judicial decisions are common/never occur
Number of replies Not applicable Not applicable 3960 More than 12,000 &13,000
Coverage 135 countries 201 countries 57, 58 countries 133 & 139  countries

So let’s analyse the  questions asked

1.       The misuse of public office for private (or political party) gain: including corruption in public procurement, misuse of public funds, corruption in public service, and prosecution of public officials

2.       The likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption

3.       Category Institutional Framework – State Efficiency: “Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist”

4.       Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1) exports and imports, 2) public utilities, 3)tax collection, 4) public contracts and 5) judicial decisions are common/never occur

But is it fact or fiction  check this out

1. The misuse of public office for private (or political party) gain  etc

See About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

including corruption in public procurement,

see What is New Zealand doing about corruption – why is it better to be a fraudster than Question corruption ?

misuse of public funds,

How to get your litigation funded through the public purse

corruption in public service,

see Submission to the select committee

and prosecution of public officials

see Constable Connors of Waikato Fabricates offences, receives counselling- IPCA condones this course of action.

2. The likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption

High   just don’t question it  except if you want your life destroyed. Questioning fraud gets higher penalty than those who are convicted of fraud

3. Category Institutional Framework – State Efficiency: “Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist”

Where as in many countries money changes hands in new Zealand the” old boys’ net work” is so strong  that it reaches  far and wide , those with an LLB  or  have been in a position of trust are protected because we do not  wish any one to think that  we may have made an error in judgement.  It is far better to conceal than to  reveal  those who are corrupt.

Using the court to conceal corruption

4. Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1) exports and imports, 2) public utilities, 3)tax collection, 4) public contracts and 5) judicial decisions are common/never occur

We have no one checking  so how would  we ever know ?  Councils allow contracts  to be signed off by  managers    and  without  accountability  and auditing  who would know what goes  on.

Bribes.. no  we don’t bribe  but a  Christmas ham is a traditional gift to those offering contracts..  that’s not a bribe its tradition.

so there you have it  folks  that is why NZ is the least corrupt .. we hide it so well

Funny that New Zealand is the only country in the top 10  which has never ratified the United nations convention against corruption   yet we do so well.. its called perception or is that deception .

Funny how NZ is  the only one in the  top 10  which has not ratified the United nations convention agaisnt corruption.

Denmark New Zealand Singapore Finland Sweden
Perception rank
1 1 1 4 4
signed UN convention
10-Dec-03 10-Dec-03 11-Nov-05 9-Dec-03 9-Dec-03
ratified UN convention 26-Dec-06 6-Nov-09 20 Jun 2006 A 25-Sep-07
Canada Netherlands Australia Switzerland Norway
Perception rank
6 7 8 8 10
signed UN convention
21-May-04 10-Dec-03 9-Dec-03 10-Dec-03 9-Dec-03
ratified UN convention 2-Oct-07 31 Oct 2006 A 7-Dec-05 24-Sep-09 29-Jun-06 



RNZSPCA same issues different country

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 1:25 pm

Animal Advocates, British Columbia

We, Animal Advocates of British Columbia, figured out why there is so little concern for animal welfare, and protection from cruelty for animals in BC. This led us to the reform of the BC SPCA, for which we are being sued.


to see the work which  Judy does visit


details of the charges which were withdrawn against the Toronto Humane Society


Dear Judy,

Thank you for your email in support of the campaign for accountability, transparency and governmental oversight of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.   Problems with the Ontario SPCA appear to be similar to what you are experiencing with the British Columbia SPCA.  Indeed, Ontario and BC SPCA’s have a long history of exchanging staff.

In Ontario, a motion calling for governmental oversight of the OSPCA was recently tabled by PC MPP Frank Klees.  Both the provincial PC caucus and several NDP MPPs have publicly endorsed the motion.

FYI, the following is a broad overview of the components of our advocacy campaign.

Ontario web designer Doug Brown.  A man touched by the May 2010 goings on at the Newmarket SPCA, he built the website independently.  Doug’s  approach is measured and lawful.

Gord Macey ably administers a 40,000 member FaceBook page entitled  “Stop the Slaughter of over 350 animals at the Newmarket OSPCA!!!”   A independent, passionate, multifaceted group with the skills and tenacity needed to understand and reform this flawed SPCA system/model.

We have been inadvertently blessed by major faux pas on the part of the OSPCA, the timing of which has been very much in our favour.

  • The OSPCA’s 2009 investigation of their largest and most troublesome affiliate, the Toronto Humane Society, culminated in the withdrawal, by the Crown Attorney, of ALL  animal cruelty charges laid by the OSPCA against THS management and directors.   The Crown Attorney publicly, scathingly cited multiple, serious charter violations.  As this was arguably the OSPCA’s most significant investigation ever, and as such, it would have been in the hands of management and senior staff, let the Crown Attorney’s statement be a clear indicator that investigative and enforcement powers of any kind, let alone the right to warrantless entry, do not belong in the hands of this organization.
  • The emptying of and subsequent shut down of the THS on April 11, 2010 following weeks of highly publicised legal skirmishes between the two parties, served only to highlight how utterly dysfunctional Ontario’s animal welfare system really is.  The THS “re-structured”, re-opening with fanfare in June of 2010.  Both the public and the media appeared to take these OSPCA/THS theatrics in stride.
  • On May 11, 2010 the OSPCA confirmed they too would empty their shelter and shut down; citing the need to eradicate a stubborn, exceptionally virulent strain of ringworm which allegedly posed a grave danger even to the surrounding community.  All animals in the building would be euthanized.  In the face of unprecedented public and media outrage, the OSPCA stopped the killing, but not before 102 animals lay dead.  Ironically, testing revealed none of the saved animals were infected with ringworm.  The OSPCA has not seen fit to release information in support of their “ringworm” claims.  They confirm only that the Newmarket shelter remains contaminated and closed until January 2011.  We have noted though, that the organization has begun distancing itself publicly from statements they originally made about the severity of the strain of ringworm.  In the meanwhile, the OSPCA, like the THS, is  busily “re-structuring.
  • An Ontario Veterinary Medical Association’s press release directly linked the practice of importing and selling “Katrina/hurricane puppies” by OSPCA affiliates and animal shelters over the years, to a tenfold increase in heartworm in south western Ontario. Puppies housed in stacked crates were sold by OSPCA affiliates; at times out of transport trucks in mall parking lots.  Press releases confirm sales often occurred within hours of arrival without veterinary examinations.  Ontario dogs were being euthanized while this was going on.
  • Multiple locations in the OSPCA’s province wide network of affiliates and branches recently exhibited examples of utterly dysfunctional governance.  Resigning boards. Ousted boards.  Allegations of misspending. Boards suing and being sued.  Boards attempting to strip members of voting rights.  Directors and management charged with animal cruelty.  Multiple provincial directors earning income working for the very organization whose enforcement activities they’ve been elected to oversee, in blatant violation of Charity Law.

The OSPCA’s head office, the infamous Newmarket “ringworm” shelter,  is located in the riding of a seasoned Progressive Conservative MPP who mobilized every resource at his disposal in the wake of the events of May 11, 2010.  Ontario advocates are truly grateful for the support of MPP Frank Klees and the PC party of Ontario.

Nearly 2,000 legislative petitions covering 101 provincial ridings have been hand delivered and receipted at Queen’s Park.   MPPs are strongly encouraged to represent their constituents by publicly reading at least one petition each.   No Liberal MPP has yet stepped forward to publicly endorse governmental oversight of the Ontario SPCA. Frustrated constituents remind the Liberal Party  – the October 6, 2011 provincial election is just around the corner.

A cabinet shuffle occurred recently.  The new Minister (perhaps inadvertently) revealed the government’s position…. the OSPCA follows a universally accepted model, in use without incident internationally, we therefore see no need for change.  The litany of accusations against the OSPCA and cries for accountability repeatedly heard during province wide Committee Hearings for Bill 50 in July 2008 must have fallen on deaf ears.  Residents of England, Australia, New Zealand, British Columbia, Manitoba and the US  are invited to share with Minister Bradley how well the SPCA is working in their neck of the woods.  Ontarians are also welcome to email the Minister. .  Frankly, the “SPCA model” isn’t working well at all in Canada or internationally.  Animal welfare and enforcement does not belong in the hands of self-administered, self-funded charities.

Faithful protesters represent the cornerstone of our advocacy efforts.  They’ve kept vigil for months holding up their homemade signs on a lonely, windswept stretch of Woodbine Avenue in front of the Newmarket OSPCA.    Although increasingly intimidated by the bullyboy tactics of OSPCA (defamatory press releases, being filmed and followed by security guards), these dedicated women kept the issue of governmental oversight of the OSPCA front and centre.  No doubt, without them, the slaughter of 350 animals by the OSPCA would simply have just gone ahead.

The Ontario Landowners, a powerful provincial advocacy group with approximately 15,000 pre-dominantly rural members, is very aware of, and perturbed by, the OSPCA’s antics.  A 2008 policy statement, drafted in the wake of repeated calls for help from animal owners targeted by inexperienced, overzealous OSPCA inspectors and volunteer agents reads as follows:  “The responsibility for the care of animals rests with the owners. When owners demonstrably fail in their responsibility, it is in the public interest to ensure animal welfare. Public authorities must accept all resulting responsibilities for both their enforcement activities and animals in their care.” The Landowners are renowned for travelling province wide in support of animal owners during OSPCA raids, Animal Care Review Board hearings and court cases.

I mustn’t forget the stalwart victims of the OSPCA and the many animals who have been killed by the OSPCA over the years. Both truly have paid the ultimate price for the flawed legislation that is Ontario’s SPCA Act.

In 1989 Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Brigid Pyke formally lobbied the province to have police powers removed from the OSPCA.  In 2006 twenty nine OSPCA directors resigned, among them the Chair and the Treasurer.  A letter was sent to Premier McGuinty, signed by eight directors, demanding police powers be removed from the organization.  Requests of this magnitude can only be the direct result of systemic, entrenched abuse of police powers by an organization.

The province obviously reacted differently, responding in 2008 with the passage of Bill 50 granting the OSPCA extraordinary new powers including the right to warrantless entry.  For good measure, the OSPCA also received a one time provincial grant of $5 million and a federal grant of $1.8 million among others.

Ontario families, farmers, animal businesses and animal lovers are outraged.  They have silently and patiently suffered the indignities and lawlessness that only a private police force operating entirely without governmental oversight dares to so brazenly inflict.  Families have become outcasts in their communities in the wake of sensationalist, opportunistic press releases seeking  donations, glory and publicity for the OSPCA.  Repeated harassment by the OSPCA even resulted in a distraught Massey Ontario farmer attempting suicide in the presence of the OSPCA.

Sadly Judy, your advocacy campaign for accountability and transparency of the British Columbia SPCA resulted in you being sued by the BC SPCA.

Even more disappointing, frightening even, is the BC government’s lack of response in the wake of your evidence.

It would appear then, that our achievements here will be of great import not only to the people and animals of Ontario, but also across Canada and internationally.


Sunny  Reuter

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at