Anticorruptionnz's Blog

29/01/2010

About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

What is  AWINZ

AWINZ is a private SPCA type organisation which has its roots in a concept established by Mr Wells in 1994  when the concept of a public private partnerships first emerged.

It currently operates in Waitakere city claiming to be a charity , It is a name  which has  had a number of people associated  with it but in reality is no more than a trading name for person or persons  unknown.

Neil Wells the manager of  Animal welfare Waitakere city, a public service role contracts  effectively to himself  for the services of AWINZ  . the  council  staff at animal welfare give their    paid time” voluntarily” for animal welfare work which is performed using council cars, from the council  facilities and using council resources. All AWINZ does  is collect the  donations from the public  for this  service which is effectively being paid for by the  rate payers.

Origins of AWINZ

Neil Wells   has a background in animal welfare , he is also a barrister , he used to head the RNZSPCA  but  decided to set up a SPCA type concept  which was a private enterprise which he headed.

His original  concept was a  nation wide territorial authority animal welfare  service as set out  in this document . It sets out his business venture which he was in control of.- it is a nationwide concept where by Dog control and stock control officers who perform the legislative  duties for territorial bodies( councils )  are  trained, supervised, controlled by Mr Wells for a fee,   to  become animal welfare inspectors. At point 7  he sets out the  costing  which in 1996 was $2500  and $1250 per annum there after  per inspector .

After lobbying  for a new animal welfare act , Mr Wells  offered to write it and introduced into the no 1 bill the  concept of using Territorial bodies . Had this  been successful this  would have facilitate  his  business enterprise as  above.

There were objections to local government being involved in what was seen to be a central government role  and a second Bill was introduced, the two bills were read together and during the process that the bills were passed into legislation Mr. Wells was employed as an independent advisor to the select committee.

A pilot programme had already been introduced  at Waitakere city in 1994  which was to run for a short period  but  continued on into an “interregnum” phase ( it has never been established if this  was done with the sanctions of government or  simply overlooked.)

Who is AWINZ

To overcome the hurdles, introduced by the objections  of local government being  involved in what was seen to be a central government role  , the concept of a trust was introduced by Mr Wells and had various  suggested  names ,  trustees and  concepts .

11/01/1996         Territorial authority Animal welfare services a trading name for a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time.

Jan-98                   National animal welfare trust  board Proposed  Trustees  Neil Wells ,Waitakere  city council        and  councillors

early 1998           Waitakere Animal Welfare Trust

Late 1998             AWINZ Waitakere  city council     and un named trustees

Late 1998 Neil Wells  recruits   Nuala Grove   , Sarah Giltrap    & Graeme Coutts to be trustees and is paid for it  by the city through tom Didovich  see copy  of the invoice

In  1999        AWINZ  which is later ( in court)  alleged to be an “oral “trust  makes an application for  funds an application to the minister of Agriculture . In each of these documents a claim is made that the trust exists by way of  trust deed  when   the reality is that no trust deed existed at that time. A statement is made in both and confirmed in the first document in Hand writing that the trust is being incorporated.

In 2006  we questioned the existence of AWINZ  when no trust deed could be found or evidence of incorporation . We incorporated a trust with the identical name  which  brough  attention to the falsehoods in the application    and after  nearly 7 years of not incorporating the trust or  having a visible trust deed it was now so urgent  that  they could not meet with us to resolve the issue  and needed to sue us to  force us to relinquish the  name.

A trust deed materialised in 2006  and later a second deed appeared  which  was in contradiction to  correspondence which I had received from Maf.  The trustees  allegedly  signed the deed 1/3/2000 when Tom Didovich the manager animal welfare Waitakere drive to   them and  collected the signatures.  I have long wondered why this was not done at a meeting of the trust board.

Trustees were   Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts,  Sarah Giltrap and Nuala Grove, the deed required no less than 4 trustees.

2006   On discovering the identities of the trustees I phoned them  and asked them  about their  trust, Graeme Coutts  said that  they had never met because they were not that type of trust, he then said he  had to  check with Neil before he could speak to me further . I never got any more from him and  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap  through Neil wells claimed that I had harassed them, when all I had done was phone them and asked them if they were trustees.

Nick Wright and  ex wife Vivienne Parre

I was intimidated  by Vivienne Parre , wife of Nick Wright    who later was to take  the matter to court as a solicitor for Brookfields.   Parre did the work pro bono  according to an email sent  by Wright  but despite this the  costs in court were crippling .

The statement of claim which  had no supporting evidence was filed  by David Neutze   and the plaintiffs  calling themselves AWINZ were  Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley.

These people were less than the  four required by the trust deed  and Wyn  who  with  the others claimed  that the trust we had incorporated in April  2006 was passing itself off a the trust which she had joined in  May 2006 ( but had no trust deed to prove that it was  more than a fiction )

Hoadley , Didovich, Wells and Coutts  sign a trust deed  on  5-Dec-06  and now claim to be the same  trust as the one which was granted the approval as  an approved organisation.

This requires some explaining.

A person or an  incorporated group  can own property. They can also sue and be sued and through the various  legislations  those which are not natural persons are registered  with the ministry of economic developments .

Those bodies  which are registered  can have some one act for and on behalf of the “ organisation.’

Trusts are one of those  weird things  which can be incorporate or unincorporated.  If a trust is unincorporated  they have  existence only through the  trust deed which the trustees have signed  , they  often pick a name  which may or may not  be unique  and the trust is  effectively invisible except for the  deed  which is   some where.

If an unincorporated trust  buys  property the name of the trust does not appear on the title   but the names of the trustees do.  The same occurs  when an unincorporated trust owns a company, only the trustees names appear on the  share holders list.

If an unincorproated trust enters into a contract  it is actually  the trustees  who enter into it  unless they have a document  which authorises  some one to act for them , this was never the case with AWINZ and such a document was never sighted  by  Central government before allowing one person to make an application on behalf of a group of persons.

If an unincorporated trust sues   they can only do so in the names of the trustees.  In this case the alleged  trustees  who    sued me  were Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graham Coutts  who at the time did not have a trust deed  or any proof of being a trust.

The action  taken against me  has been a legal process taken for  an improper purpose- the lawyers involved had a duty  to ensure that  the proceedings were being taken for a proper purpose  and that the  people making the claim  could  do so .

No evidence has ever been produced  and through manipulation of the court process  Nick Wright  from Brookfields  has obtained a verdict against me  by introducing prejudice  into the court by calling me vindictive  etc  and diverting the court from the lack of facts.

More on  dirty legal tactics later..  this entire scenario is proof of how dangerous it is to question corruption in NZ  the lack of support  and the penalties for speaking   the truth.

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. […] made a submission to this  bill pointing out that we  currently had organisations  such as AWINZ ( which is a legal fiction ) administering  the Bill.  The other approved organisation   is the […]

    Pingback by Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legilative powers. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 16/04/2010 @ 10:24 pm

  2. […] made a submission to this  bill pointing out that we  currently had organisations  such as AWINZ ( which is a legal fiction ) administering  the Bill.  The other approved organisation   is the […]

    Pingback by Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legislative powers. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 16/04/2010 @ 10:25 pm

  3. […] 122 (2) provides for approved organisations  and as  such the RNZSPCA  and AWINZ are approved Organisations  and can,  and do recommend  persons for appointment as […]

    Pingback by Select committee and press appear to be in the dark about the reality of animal welfare « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 02/05/2010 @ 3:37 am

  4. […] About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand […]

    Pingback by The right to question « Fighting Corruption in New Zealand — 28/06/2010 @ 1:00 am

  5. […] animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation […]

    Pingback by Update for the ombudsmen AWINZ SPCA will you investigate? « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 18/09/2010 @ 9:54 am

  6. […] animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation […]

    Pingback by Update AWINZ SPCA « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 18/09/2010 @ 9:59 am

  7. […] a mild stroke  which would limit the ability of this  retrospectively set up organisation  (see About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand) to monitor animal action […]

    Pingback by Would AWINZ be able to monitor animal action in the Hobbit ? « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 27/09/2010 @ 3:10 pm

  8. […] In the animal welfare matter I was sued for questioning the existence of  a law enforcement body which did not exist beyond a blank trust deed  until 2006  when  a document which could easily have been retrospectively signed emerged.   See the story on awinz […]

    Pingback by Defamation claims by Michael Chapman-Smith is it to buy silence? « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 11/10/2010 @ 12:58 pm

  9. […] See About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand […]

    Pingback by Transparency International again lists New Zealand as the least corrupt on the perception index. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 27/10/2010 @ 5:23 pm

  10. […] Now if  this guy is having so much trouble confessing     what would  it be  like if you   tried to report   Perjury or corruption…   well I  can tell you   that you are pushing it up hill and the  offender has a much better chance of taking you  to  court  than you  reporting the  corrupt practices.. I know because I have tried. […]

    Pingback by is there room in our courts for truth? | Transparency New Zealand — 25/06/2011 @ 5:37 pm

  11. […] 2006  I questioned the existence of the  Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) ,  it is an approved organisation under the animal welfare  act. And has the same […]

    Pingback by Corruption in MAF will it be exposed or hidden? | Fighting Corruption in New Zealand — 14/09/2011 @ 4:40 pm

  12. […] 2006  I questioned the existence of the  Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) ,  it is an approved organisation under the animal welfare  act. And has the same […]

    Pingback by Corruption in MAF will it be exposed or hidden? | Anticorruption New Zealand — 14/09/2011 @ 4:44 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: