Anticorruptionnz's Blog


How to get your litigation funded through the public purse

News Item this morning Pressure on law firms to do free work

Asking  a law firm to do work pro bono  is one thing  but there is another way which  is a win win for  law firms  and the barristers who  are taking legal action through that firm.

It is called funding the litigating through Charitable public funds  – this is how it is done.

You have a dark secret which is about to be exposed so you need to find a way to silence those exposing you .

It is deeply embarrassing because in 1999  you had  told the minister that your trust existed and that  you were in the process of incorporating it but you really got ahead of yourself  so much so that you forgot that the “ trust” which you  were paid to set up with public  funds never actually operated as an “ organisation “

You get  law enforcement  powers though this  “ trust’  but being an independent person you don’t want to trouble the other trustees with   things like meetings.  Some of the trustees are   society ladies and    their names look good being associated with   an animal welfare group but they are really better at bridge, they   don’t understand what a trustee is supposed to do.

So when things  get sticky  7 years later  and after some ones moggy was illegally euthanized   by one of your so called Volunteers  who are really council paid  dog control officers ,some one starts looking for accountability and  finds none.

So when the  questions  get to tricky and the  people are asking  embarrassing questions in parliament , from Waitakere city  council , MAF and the minister  something has to be done to  silence  those who  could  blow your  whole game and heaven forbid  discredit you  for your actions.

The  people doing the questioning in the mean time have  formed a trust in the identical name ( look up  ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST previously Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) and have legally registered it  on the register of Charitable trusts .     This  now proves  that  you were not being exactly truthful when you told the minister in 1999 that a trust had been formed and  was being  registered , because it only takes a couple of days to register trust  but you know that  because you have registered others previously and since.

The society ladies have decided that the whole thing has become too tacky and they don’t  want to play any more,  there is no record of them   having resigned but some how  they   do  put pen to paper and sign the trust deed. Possibly retrospectively    … but the date is wrong  it is dated   three months after  you told the minister that a deed existed  and 5 months  after you  told  the community wellbeing fund that you had a deed  and  it is in the process of being registered

Now this trust deed is an agreement between those four people and not any one else, Being unincorporated  it has no perpetual existence. Then there is the minor matter that the trust deed says there will be four people   now we suddenly have two .. You need to cover up fast- Confusion is always a good tactic .

So another Barrister is approached one   who is held in  high esteem QSM, former Mayor and  had past involvement with  animal welfare.

She becomes a “trustee” of an alleged trust, there is no trust deed   or proof that   she is part  of any trust    and  it is later revealed that  she  claims to be part of AWINZ   some 2 weeks after   the legal entity AWINZ  was registered.   .( see charities commission  and  click on  Wyn Hoadley at the bottom of the page for date of allegedly becoming a trustee )

Then Wyn is made  chairwoman  and   solicits  donations which are sent out with the dog registration in Waitakere city  using a Logo   which  is not unlike that on the building  where Waitakere city council run their pound from .

We know that   the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand does not operate from  those premises  as the council solicitor has told us at least twice that they don’t.

After  I had received what I considered to be  intimidating  phone calls  by their legal representative* ,( purportedly  a law clerk , according to evidence from the law society at the time ) who they instructed  and made threats against my private investigator’s licence if we did not change the  legal name of our trust  ,Wyn  and  Neil Wells and a JP  called Graeme Coutts  together take  legal action as AWINZ   despite the fact that they have no evidence at all of  having ever  existed  as a trust together or having any legal standing  . Despite this they claim   passing off and breach of fair trading …now hang on didn’t Wyn  start using that name after  the  legal entity  she is attacking was set up?.. *Question  why would two barristers instruct a  Law clerk   and  why is this such a sensitive matter so as to require defamation action  some 8 years later  ? 

They turn  down the offer to  disuses resolution  and see suing  as the only way forward  , so  the other  Barrister   throws in defamation   for  good measure  because he didn’t like the idea of people  pointing out the  untruth of the statement to the minister and  questioning  accountability when it comes to using public funds .

So Nick Wright  gets  Brookfield’s to take on the matter   and David Neutze puts  his name to the statement of claim without checking to see  if AWINZ  really has a claim.

I have copies of a total of $99638.22  in invoices made out to  AWINZ. Now AWINZ is an acronym, it stands for the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

If Brookfield’s tried to recover the debt from AWINZ they would fail as at that time  there was no trust deed  and  only those who comprise AWINZ can consent to a  debt being incurred , AWINZ could not enter into an agreement in that name and could not sue or be sued in that name.  Yet this leading law firm writes invoices out to it.

The chronology  goes like this

Date Event
27/04/2006 AWINZ  incorporated by  appellant and fellow trustees Highlighting that there is o other legal entity by that name.
3/05/2006  web site set up by appellants which states  that they are not the same as the Awinz operating in Waitakere
10/05/2006 Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of AWINZ   but has no  trust deed , We are told that Nuala grove and  Sarah Giltrap have resigned.
1/06/2006 To  fund the litigations  there is  a request for public funds by Hoadley  who uses the same  logo as on the council building for  AWINZ
30/06/2006 Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ See a sample
18/07/2006 Statement of claim By Hoadley, Graham Coutts  and Neil Wells- Passing off, breach of  fair trade and defamation ( speaking the truth  – truth hurts )
28/07/2006 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ See a sample
14/08/2006 Didovich, the former manager animal welfare Waitakere  becomes a trustee  there still is no trust deed – He is the man who approved payment  for the trust to be set up using council funds  he  also witnesses and gets signatures for the 2003 deed  he lost his job at council and Wells took his job .
30/11/2006 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
5/12/2006 trust deed signed
2006 2007 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
March 2007 A receipt is issued with the  now  slightly modified logo after I complained to council   the word “The” is included
1/06/2007 Further public request for  public funds
2007 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
28/09/2007 The 2005 AWINZ trust   becomes a  charity
2007  2008 More Brookfield’s  invoice made out to AWINZ
04/06/2008 Email asking for mayors signature on fundraiser
More Brookfield’s  invoice made out to AWINZ
total Invoices 99638.22
Note : all invoices are made out to AWINZ
See a samples here  note the first  invoice  dated 2006   was amended  to read 2007 , is this  what law firms do?

The  financials  posted on the   charities web site show that the charitable funds were used for  litigation but discussion could have resolved everything   why   discuss when  legal action  using public  funds  can be so effective.

Also refer to the Email asking for mayors and see if you can find proof of the assertions made in that  email –  where is the income  where is the expenditure  where is the transparency  the accountability?

Please don’t hesitate to contact me  if you have any observations .


Open letter to Nuala Grove Sarah Giltrap and graham Coutts JP

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 1:09 am

Nuala  Grove 47 The Strand Takapuna Auckland  0-9-486 0535 Facsimile 0-9-486 0735

Sarah Giltrap wife of Richard Giltrap ( director  of Giltrap Toyota etc ) residential  address 18 Bella Vista Road, Herne Bay,

Graeme John  Coutts JP  15A Saltaire St Avondale Auckland 09-820 2180  of Graeme Coutts Assocs Ltd

Together with Neil  Wells  Trustees of the Animal welfare institute of New Zeeland  by this trust deed.

This is an open letter asking information  from  all three of you,  the information I see  is in the public interest  and we  believe that everyone’s interest would be served if we could have an urgent  reply .

An  application was  made on your behalf  ( but without your apparent consent )  as  prospective trustees  for a trust which  you were to call  Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand to  become a law enforcement agency under the provisions of the animal welfare act. application. And for  funds  from the community well being fund. as well as  funds from the public purse.

You had  involvement in the  monitoring of the Lord of the rings  where you as a trust board  as AWINZ  must have authorised the end title which  the American humane association was to  claim as  false aha.pdf

You later obtained significant funding from  the lord which you took over  control of  .

As members of what is alleged to be a bona fide organisation, you must have been involved in the decisions pertaining to these issues and the inspectors under your control.

I am  seeking  minutes of the meeting of  your   organisation which show

  1. that  made decisions were made as a board
  2. dates of resignations  of  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap
  3. Discussions with regards to engaging Nick Wright as solicitor to take  legal action against myself and a legally formed charitable trust .
  4. And what  arrangements were made to  fund the  litigation  out of the funds which  you had had entrusted to you .
  5. What action you took to ensure that  your trust was incorporated as claimed and   had the charitable status as claimed.

I would also like to know

  1. why you did not meet with  view of resolution
  2. why  you could not  even get together to sign the trust deed.
  3. What  financial arrangements you made about the bank account and why Mr Wells was the only name on  the bank account  which held significant  charitable funds  when at the time you  were not a body registered  with the IRD as being a charitable  entity.

I would like these supplied to me in a sworn form  as being  true.

I cannot understand why  I was sued  by   Neil Wells  Wyn Hoadley and Graham Coutts  claiming to be AWINZ at a time when I was provided  with  a trust deed that had your names on it .

There is no shame in being duped, but to stand by and watch some ones life be reduced to tatters and remain silent  is a sin   and it is not what  true humanitarians do .    If you hold the truth  you must step forward   because to stand by and watch me be beaten up through the courts  and my  family torn apart  makes you an accomplice to  this  whole  sorry saga . I will make copies of this publicly available in the interest of transparency

Grace Haden  see blog


LGOIMA request Waitakere City

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Tom Didovich,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 10:46 am

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:42 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: LGOIMA request

Good morning Denis        and  for the information ministers  of agriculture  and local Government

I have  a few more questions  by way of LGOIMA

Neil Wells had been employed by the  city to set  up a trust  ( as per attached invoices ) invoice re trustees.pdf invoice trust 97.pdf The  document  waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdf claims that an interim trust had been set up .

Attached is a  report from Mr Wells   to  Mr Didovich    dated  1996( Teritorial authority Animal welfare services.) where by   Mr Wells shares his  views of setting up an organisation which  he was to head   and  provide animal welfare services   to councils , by using the  dog and stock control officers. Mr Wells subsequently wrote  the   first bill for the new animal welfare act to  facilitate this concept   but  this was amended  through the no 2  bill  and animal welfare  was deemed to be ultra vires to  council  activities.

The manager animal welfare worked actively   with Mr Wells to  overcome this hurdle  and a trust was proposed  apparently while  Mr. Wells was still  on the pay roll of the select committee where he was an independent advisor

Mr Wells  purportedly  proposed the concept of  trust  which was to  have the  city  as  trustee , the city paid Mr Wells to set up the trust and even recruit the trustees. ( odd that  for a voluntary organisation )

I now find that  I have conflicting   documents  which   show that   the city decided not to go ahead with the trust  (19 jan 1999.pdf)and then  documents from Didovich 14 june 1999. stating that “There is a very real need to establish the Animal Welfare Trust so that preparation for MAF auditing and subsequent  audit and acceptance of the TRUST/IWCC link is achieved in a timely fashion”

I also have a  memorandum  21 march 2000. shows Didovich writing to Wells  about contracting to the trust . Correspondence which I have  obtained form your files would indicate that Mr Wels and Mr Didovich were   in close contact with each other over that period of time  and it would  appear unlikely that Mr Didovich  did  not know of the  intended structure of the trust .

These documents  give rise to a number of questions which I request answers to  pursuant to LGOIMA

  1. In the  email  “waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdfit states  “An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. Please provide the copy of the signed trust deed  .
  1. In the letter 19 January 1999 Mr Wells refers to the discussions  with  of  the city secretary , please advise
    1. who   this was at this time
    2. please provide  the notes  jottings , correspondence or   computer entries  generated  as a result of that discussion including the date when it  took place
    3. under whose    authority the secretary was acting in making this decision .
    4. Please provide all copies of  documents   notes and  outcomes  from the  meeting referred to   on 26 January at 3pm or the one which was rescheduled in  its place also if this meeting  overturned the secretaries  decision  not  to include council
    5. Please  advise  why  a trust had purportedly been formed on 23  December  and  had been over ruled by the city secretary  by the 19th January  and why Mr. Didovich  needed it  to  be set up urgently in  June  and why  it subsequently became a  private trust which needed your manager to  drive about Auckland collecting the  signatures.
    6. Please advise   the dates on which the   council secretary  worked in the period between 23  December  1998 and 19 January 1999
    7. Who authorised the statement  that the  council will continue to fund the institute .
    8. Please advise what the status  of the institute was at that time ,( this is quite confusing  we  seem to have a   trust then we don’t, if there is no trust   please advise who or what  the institute   that Waitakere  supplied funds to  was.
    9. Please explain how  Waitakere could  fund something which did not appear to exist , who was the money  paid to ? and in what name were payments for the “ institute” made out to .
  1. Please advise  what the  councils criteria are for  accepting a trust  involving the city as  formed.
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We have put it to councillors
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. Trustees have met and  signed the trust deed  and we have a copy of the signed deed.
  1. In terms of funding n institute  when does an institute exist
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We believe it  exists
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. We have a copy  of a  signed deed  and we know the organisation  exists in reality .
  1. With regards to the   letter  21 March  Mr Didovich states “On behalf of Waitakere City Council and as the contractor for North Shore City Council (North Shore Animal Care and Control) I am able to provide an assurance that Council is satisfied for staff to enter into an arrangement with AWINZ and that no problems are fore seen and that benefits are expected. Waitakere City Council is aware of any liabilities  involved and accepts that responsibility. The intention is that each individual Officer will enter into a “memorandum of under standing” with AWINZ. All fourteen potential Officers have already signed a letter of assurance of which the Minister of Agriculture has received the originals. A copy of the standard letter is attached(attachment 2).
  1. By what authority could  the then manager animal welfare provide an assurance on behalf of  Council with regards to
    1. i.      the use of its staff by an outside organisation  for no  remuneration
    2. ii.      give assurances with regards to liabilities  and responsibilities
    3. iii.      As the staff to enter into contracts with a third party  as part of heir  employment
  1. With regards to the statement (“letter  21 March  )Waitakere City Council possesses a strong intent to hold a “memorandum of understanding” with  AWINZ
    1. How could the city   form an intent to   have a mou with an organisation which did not exist
    2. Who authorised this statement, did it pass through council ?
    3. Why were councillors not involved
    4. What policy does the council have  which enables  head of a department to give assurances for and  on behalf of  their city
    5. Why did the city not sign the MOU  (as attached  ) and  what authority did the city give Mr Didovich to sign it.
  1. With regards to the mou waitakere. does the city have any concerns that Mr Wells  was through his employment as manager  animal welfare  contracting to itself.  As attached .  What is council policy on this ? the OECD  find it unacceptable  why does Waitakere city condone it?
  1. In the letter  21 march 2000 Kensington swan is reported as providing a legal opinion  with regards to the funding of  animal welfare from  general revenue, please advise  when this proposal passed through council and   provide  the  minutes of  that council meeting.
  1. Please advise who authorised the expenses  involved in this legal opinion  and
  2. provide the  costs of  this advice.
  1. In the email 14 June 1999 Didovich to Neil Wells , Didovich  copies Wells in  on correspondence with the  city lawyers  other correspondence indicates that  Mr Didovich and Mr. Wells   were working together .On 28 June  Mr Didovich follows up with 2 emails    in the first he volunteers the services of Neil Wells  as Solicitor to  do some tweaking and in the second he  reiterates   “it is becoming a huge issue for the Animal Welfare Services Business Unit to establish the “Trust”. Please advise
  1. what discussions occurred between December 1998  and 28 June 1999 with regards to  establishing a trust  and
  2. why  would  Waitakere city need to tweak the deed  when   it was  not  going to be a party  to the deed.
  1. Could you please provide any  documentation or information which would explain why   Mr Didovich states “Our last meaningful meeting was early in January and at that stage the deed was on the verge of completion Nothing has changed in almost six months,’  when the current manager of animal welfare   at that same time   advised MAF that the city would not be involved. “
  1. Please provide the  criteria  the council has   for the ability of   heads of department
  1. to contract to themselves.
  2. To sign  agreements on  behalf of council
  1. Please provide the councils views as to whether Mr Wells appointment  as manager  Animal welfare was not  seen as  a conflict of interest   when he was  representing himself to be  the CEO of an organisation which that department  contracted  to and  assigned staff to.
  1. Please advise what council did to ensure that AWINZ was bona fides  and actually existed , i.e. obtained trust deeds , verified that it was actually an organisation not  just a tradename for person or persons un known.
  1. And lastly What  concerns the city  now has   in view of  Mr. Didovich used council money and facilities to set up a trust  which   had  no legal existence on its own ( independent of trustees ) and ability to use council staff to  perform  work for  the “trust” which had no deed,  trustees did not meet and   he is now  claims to be a trustee of a similarly named trust which uses a logo  confusingly close to that of Waitakere animal welfare.

I look  forward to having the   reply   urgently as I  am preparing   documents  for an appeal to the  court of appeal.

I have posted this  request  on my blog in the interest of transparency


Tom Didovich – the insider ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Tom Didovich,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:34 am

I am presently working on documents for my appeal  and am in the process of putting my chronology together.

It is funny how  every time you look at something   you see things which were not relevant before  but  in the light of new  information are like  seeing that piece of the jigsaw  which you  couldn’t see  for looking before.

What is happening in Waikato has parallels with Waitakere city.

The Question which has to be asked  is  What is the role of Tom Didovich and   why as  a manager of Animal welfare Waitakere  city  was he so heavily involved in the setting up of a trust  which he later became trustee of.

Tom Didovich had a conflict of interest in the setting up of AWINZ  and  that he in fact was the  person in council who facilitated  the “contracting to AWINZ ‘

He was aware of what was going on and in my observance and my opinion , if he  had been an astute impartial manager    he should have seen what was going on , but  the documents would indicate  that he was either    part of it or brain dead.

How many managers would allow  the staff under  their direct  supervision to be used    by an outside organisation without seeking approval  from the  top

How the concept  worked in  Waitakere is explained in this email” Inspectors will not be employed directly by AWINZ but will remain employed by their principal employer. When an Inspector is performing a function under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 he or she will be doing so on a voluntary basis. That is to say that the inspector will not be paid by  AWINZ for performing that function.”

Didovich in an affidavit to the court even admitted to  driving about  Auckland   and collecting he signatures of the trustees ( who didn’t meet  apart form maybe once  in 1998 )

Didovich was the interface with council ,the trusted  employee   who  worked with Neil Wells  on a project which  intended to set up  a national  animal welfare body which  interlaced with councils and was  eventually hopeful of taking over  the  assets  of the cities assets as  expressed  in  the application to the minister at point 7.

Change is brought about one step at a time  and it involves  suggesting things to parties  as if the idea  was fresh   new idea  when  in reality   it is a step in a  larger  well orchestrated plan

  • 14.4.98  Didovich is  advised of  a letter to MAF – in the letter a  supposed  statement is made “What if Waitakere City put its animal welfare and control services out for tender and a national charitable trust succeeded” The What if  being  a suggestion  when all along  the “what if “ is being planned for
  • But   the chronology and the invoice which  Didovich   approves for  public funds to be paid to NE Wells associates  for setting up a trust  shows that this concept had already been put to  council some four months earlier .
  • There was the discussion between Wells and Didovich   in an email dated 3 march 98 about the involvement of council officers in trust.  Which leaves you to  wonder why the council continued to pay for   matters relating to the trust and Why Tom Didovich continued to have a role  and even   applied for  funds for  AWINZ   from the  community well being fund

Catherine Smith ex president NZ Vet Association

Michael Scott Director of Operations Telecom

Neil Wells LLB Animal Welfare legal specialist

  • What is interesting here is   that  Michael Scott  went  on to  form two trust  with Neil Wells , ironically the name of one of those trusts was the national animal welfare trust which is   also  the name proposed  in this document which  was put to council  by its author Neil Wells “It is proposed that the “National Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand” (which is referred to later in this document) is established under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”

On that note I would love to hear from  Michael Scott or any one who knows him

  • Then there is the confidential  document 17 September 1998 from Didovich ,  passing on  the information  that Territorial authorities  will not be recognised in the Bill and the information is provided that there will be  “ approved organisations.
  • Why the confidentiality.. Neil Wells was employed at the time  as  an independent advisor of the select committee  and  Didovich had to steer the   concept through council to  circumvent the   issues  which got in the way.

Further points as raised before are that Tom Didovich wrote the minister  for and on behalf of North Shore. and Waitakere city.   Yet   the issue had never been put before  either council  and  the agreements  which  MAF believed would involve the cities  only went so far as to involve the manager of Animal welfare. – Again   we don’t verify- left hand does not  know what the  right hand is doing  thereby  opening the doors to    corrupt practices.

And  did the council care  well apparently not     their lawyer Denis Sheard  said I was sparring with shadows, Mayor Bob dismissed me as a fruitcake  and all the other councillors are silent on the issue.


Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ

Filed under: Lord of the rings,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 1:44 am
  1. Have a look at this  document  click here you will see who the author is and the references made to the RNZSPCA.
  2. Then there was also an issue when it came to AWINZ giving the Lord of the rings  a false end title than no animas were hurt in the production of the movie see AHA report.
    1. MAF wrote  a report  and expressed its views  see the report
    2. It confirmed that  SPCA  staff  and  resources  were used   on  an AWINZ enterprise.
  3. Now we have the link  Between Neil Wells and the Waikato RNZSPCA
  4. The  connection of Tom Didovich  a Trustee Of AWINZ,  also being in a position of authority in  the RNZSPCA  and employed by the RNZSPCA
  5. Sarah Elliot   who was a lecturer with Wells at Unitec and worked for AWINZ on the Lord of the rings, ( now Sarah Elliot-Warren) is now the RNZSPC inspector at Waihi .
  6. Neil Wells was  a formerly  RNZSPCA December 2         1978 see news clippings    most of the page right side page       bottom      & page 13

We have to ask the question   Are the RNZSPCA aware   of all of this ?


The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

I have been working with members of the RNZSPCA Waikato branch, where things are not at all well and  an overwhelming  similarity  exists between  its branch and what has happened in Waitakere city with AWINZ.

I have been supplied with a list of members   who  were voted on to the executive of the  incorporated society   and have compared that to those listed on the charities web site  – you would  expect the two to  co relate   but   they don’t

So what is going on   and why can’t elected members   be on the executive  and  why  do the executive have to sign a confidentiality agreement.. These are public funds which they hold

I have also noticed that the lawyer  who  processes the trust deeds Brian Adams   shows  a conflict of interest in that   he is also a trustee.

I also hear that the   officer listed as  Keith Houston    is the vet to which the society contracts

I am disappointed that the charities commission  does not require  certified copies of the  minutes of the AGM  to validate the names of the people put on the Charities  web site.

It appears  that if you make it up  its fine  there is no verification no cross referencing  and this  firmly closes the door on transparency and opens the door to corruption.

This ties in  with the larger picture  of AWINZand has surprising parallels

In 1999 Neil Wells  who had previously  expressed his intent of setting up a territorial animal welfare service  and had written  the  first bill for what was to  become animal welfare act 1999 to facilitate it , applied to the minister for  AWINZ  which did not exist at  the time to become an approved  organisation  to facilitate council  employees to be used as SPCA type officers.

In Hamilton  at this time the RNZSPCA Waikato branch was told that the land would be rezoned and that they needed to sell  so their property   at Higgins road  sold to  Mr & Mrs Kettle and  the  Hamilton City council  facilitated   the RNZSPCA in the same building as their dog  and stock control officers.

Back in Waitakere city  the pilot  programme  which Neil Wells had set up  in 1995 was still ongoing  despite the fact that  MAF had revoked the licences of the inspectors ( this information passed to me by a former inspector  who I have no reason to doubt.)

Waitakere take on   the dog control for North shore  and  call the contract Animal care and control.

Hamilton city   also uses the name animal care and control , I have as yet not identified any other  cities  who  use that name .. most call it dog control or the pound.

In 2000 Nearly $400,000  is GIFTED  from the RNZSPCA Waikato  to a newly set up trust  of which Neil Wells is a trustee . ( he does not live in the Waikato  he  lives in Waitakere city )

By 2003 the deed is amended and  the RNZSPCA which was a trustee  is dropped off.

No wonder I was  sued.. for speaking  the truth  this iceberg keeps getting bigger. I will not  stop chipping away at it  until I get it down to an ice cube.

History  does repeat  you only need to  read  the Star Weekender  December 2 1978    most of the page right side page  bottom    &

page 13


Whats happening in the Waikato RNZSPCA – Parallels with AWINZ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:14 am

To get a perspective  on what is happening in Hamilton you need to  understand the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA

New Zealand structure RNZSPCA and SPCA  explained ( cut and  paste from the RNZSPCA web site )

The national governing body of the organisation is the National Council, elected at the AGM by representatives from the districts. Each of the 54 local SPCAs incorporates in its title the name of the district in which it operates. For example – the Waikato Branch RNZSPCA; Canterbury Branch RNZSPCA; and so on. Not all local SPCAs are “branches”. A small number are member societies, some the original ones from last century. These member societies do not use “RNZ” in their name (eg Wellington SPCA, Otago SPCA).
Each of the 54 local SPCAs runs its own affairs and handles its own finances. A voluntary committee controls the activities. The larger SPCAs have some paid staff, but most rely on unpaid personnel. Each has one or more warranted inspectors, paid or unpaid, to investigate complaints of cruelty and to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

So the structure for  Waikato  is

RNZSPCA-  national body   incorporated society

Waikato RNZSPCA  incorporated society

The Waikato SPCA  trust Charity Rules.pdf but these were amended  to this

So why has the Waikato RNZSPCA set up a  trust which represents the name of the older   societies  and why was  this  trust not incorporated for 5 years  after being set up  .

I have done some home work and found some more parallels with the Waikato RNZSPCA and AWINZ

In about 2000 The Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA was apparently told that the land they were on was to be rezoned and it would not be suitable to remain on the Higgins road property.

The property was  sold   and the proceeds of the sale and some extra  were given to a newly formed unincorporated trust  ( the deed of which  is similar to that  of AWINZ  in style )  .

The council  provided facilities for  the SPCA   to operate along  side their  dog and  stock control officers .

The RNZSPCA  Waikato  gifted in $397,547.00  to the  unincorporated trust   in 2000 which was composed of   trust  deed

  • The Waikato branch RNZSPCA Settlor
  • Derek Clive Dalton  agricultural scientist
  • Gavin James Shepherd  ( who I  believe is the vet who contracts to the SPCA.)
  • Neil Edward Wells- The man who set up AWINZ and wanted to integrate SPCA with councils
  • Gwendolen Garrick  ( now deceased )

A updated  deed was filed Amendment Of Trust Deed which included the newly appointed trustees  and two more to  replace  the councillor who  left council and  the  deceased  trustee

It now appears that  the incorporated society  is no longer a trustee  and so with a stroke of  the pen   some $400,000  has been moved from the   societies reach  and   into a trust which calls itself the SPCA. … dangerous  stuff I can see why the natives  are getting  restless.

But it appears that when any one opens their mouths  they too are dealt to like I was    on the Auckland Air cadet trust when Neil Wells    got rid of  me  by bad mouthing me and amending the trust deed  because I sought  accountability.

The Waikato SPCA  has been in the news of late.. more people need to speak up   there  is  strength in numbers

12/10/2009   SPCA concerns

22/10/2009 SPCA: benefactor’s cash safely invested

29/10/2009 AGM sideshow

18/11/2009 Money wasted

18/11/2009   SPCA bias

1/12/2009 Quick to blame

Keep those cards and letters  — and emails rolling folks  ,  information collated is a powerful tool

Grace Haden  Licenced Private investigator , member Certified Fraud Examiners Association   former Police Sergeant

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


Food for thought

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 2:30 am

A Herald item on the weekend alluded to  employees  who could not find their bosses who were the trustees of Mangere East Medical Care Services Trust (MET).

In reading the article you   can sense the despair of he employees  who  have no  idea  who is what. But the  good news for them is that all the trust   associated with the venture were incorporated.

This means   that there is a legal person   who they can   make  a claim of ,  through court.

But what would have happened if their employer was  AWINZ?     The news would not have been good because who would they   take to court.   Every one could duck for cover and say not me , I am no longer a trustee.

And because it is a private trust there is no obligation to show the minutes.

Accountability- zilch

In  2006 I  asked the  minister of Agriculture   what accountability AWINZ had since  it could not be identified as a  legal person. Accountability is required  by section  122 Animal welfare act because AWINZ is an approved organisation under the act  and has  the ability to   seize any ones  pet and  have it put down  if  they think  so.

That is what happened to Chloe the cat   whose  “dad “  asked me   for help .

Chloe  has been dead for 6 years now   and this cat  who I never knew   made  a massive impact on  my life   only because we asked for accountability  and here was none.

When questions are asked   and  the answers need to remain hidden  then apparently  attack is the best form of defence  and this is exactly what   Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graeme Coutts did as alleged  trustees of AWINZ.   Nuala Grove and sarah Giltrap  had the opportunity to speak up and say ” hey  thats not right’   but they chose to stay quite.

In my book those who  help conceal coruption as  as guilty as those  who commit the  corrupt act.  In my Policing days this was called  accessory after the fact.

will keep you posted.


Where MAF missed the point

They could not have opened an account  or obtained a loan  but  MAF and the minister gave them law enforcement abilities. .. A secret well worth  protecting.

While it appears that MAF went through the motions of due diligence in approving AWINZ as an approved organisation under the act , they never checked out the  most vital details –

DOES AWINZ EXIST IN A LEGAL FORM? – no it does not   the trust is set up in the  structure which is normally  used for  family trusts , the structure  it has is not suitable for a trading  entity let alone one which has  law enforcement capabilities.

Incorporation makes the trust  a “ legal person’  capable of acting  like a natural person.

Without incorporation only the natural people can act- this is well set out   in various official documents and acknowledged by any one who would expect accountability .

1. characteristics of different legal structures Ministry of Social Development; Department of Internal Affairs sets out the various structures

2. Companies office because the trust does not have its own legal personality the trust’s details are not presented in its own right. Where an unincorporated trust is either a General Partner or a Limited Partner of the Limited Partnership the details of the trustees must be recorded A Limited Partner can not be an unincorporated body hence the reason for providing details of the trustees.Only the Trustees of unincorporated trusts  can hold shares.

3. Trademarks Section 183 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 provides that:  No notice of any trust may be entered in the register, and the Commissioner is not affected by any such notice. Pursuant to this section, an application may only be made in the name of a trust where the trust is incorporated (for example under the Charitable Trust Act 1957).Where an application is filed in the name of an unincorporated trust, IPONZ will require the applicant to amend the name to that of the individual  trustee(s) of the trust as it is the trustee(s) who legally own the property, not the trust itself.

4. Societies A society that is not incorporated cannot sue or be sued in Court.  Any Court action would either be taken by, or against, the members individually.   An unincorporated society cannot own property or enter into contracts.

5. Land transfer the names of the trustees   not the trust appear on the  title. Each trustee has to sign to make any transfer valid.

6. unincorporated groups- How-to Guides – Community Resource Kit The rules of an unincorporated group will derive from an agreement between the members or an implied agreement based on past practice, or both. But as an organisation, it will have no particular legal status.

7. Unincorporated charitable trustcommunity resource kit–  this may be used where someone sets up a trust to provide funds for a particular cause. They have the limitation of any unincorporated group and are not recommended for an ongoing community group.

8. Resource consent Waikato –partnerships and unincorporated entities (such as private or family trusts or unincorporated societies) we must have the details of all authorised partners, trustees, members or officers. We may also request a copy of your society’s rules to verify your status as a formal body or society.

It should be noted  that The charities commission however is not a register for entities  and  is only a register for charitable purpose  it states

Can an unincorporated collective be registered as a “Charitable Entity” under the Charities Act 2005?Yes.  An organisation does not have to be a legal entity to register with the Commission.  The Commission expects most organisations that meet the charitable purposes test will be either:
1, a trust, or
2, a society or institution
but not necessarily an incorporated trust, society or institution

DOES AWINZ EXIST AS  LEGAL PERSON AS  IMPLIED   IN THE APPLICATION  AND SINCE.– no it does not  much has been made of the requirement to be incorporated  and  by being incorporated the  trust  would have had perpetual existence and would have been a legal person in its own right. The manner in which  AWINZ has been represented both to MAF and to the court is as though it is incorporated.( which it is not )

It takes a very short time  to incorporate a trust Mr Wells incorporated two other trusts  only one month before he claimed  to MAF that he was in the process of incorporating  AWINZ.

National animal welfare trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

Ark angel trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

So why did he  claim to    MAF  22nd august 1999 the  minister22 November 1999 , and  in the application for funding 28 October 1999 that   it was being incorporated  when he knew that he needed a trust deed and quite obviously  there was not one? (Please note a copy of  the  notice of intent docs are attached to the  funding application)

What would happen if such a declaration was made for the DPB?  Why is this statement acceptable from Mr Wells and being defended in courts and by Government department as  being an acceptable   statement to make   with regards to setting up a law enforcement agency?

DOES AWINZ HAVE A TRUST DEEDthere are two trust deeds   for two groups  of people using the name AWINZ  one dated 1st march 2000 some  7 months after the  first claim that   such a deed existed. ( this is based on the assumption that the deed was not retrospectively signed in 2006  when MAf  first realised because of my actions  that there was no deed on file and had never been sighted. ) and a second on 5 December 2006, this  second trust has a different purpose  from the first  and  added the word the to the name.

ARE BOTH THE AWINZ TRUSTS WITH A TRUST DEED  THE SAME No  only the first trust  was the one  which  MAF and the minister considered when “ approved” status was   given.  The trustees of the second trust have no formal obligations or agreement   to  the  legislative powers of the   first group, and have adopted this role only by implication and assumption.  There is nothing in writing in which  Hoadley, Didovich  or Coutts   have agreed to  the  legislative responsibilities. Only Wells has   signed the MOU with MAF with no evidence that he  had the consent of any other person to sign for and on behalf of them.

It has to be debatable therefore that  the second group of people can ask the minister to relinquish their approved status, for they do not have one.

CAN ONE PERSON REPRESENT  THE OTHERS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY  EVIDENCE AT ALL– No  for a person to be legally responsible   for  something  there has to be  an agreement from that person . It is usual to ensure that

1. That person exists.

2.They are who they claim to be ( usually with some sort of ID )

3. They  are aware of their responsibilities

4. They  consent to it their involvement

Did MAf  check this  out.. apparently not !

DOES AWINZ HAVE  PERPETUAL EXISTENCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT TO ALLOW  TRUSTEES TO COME ON BOARD AND GO . No  AWINZ is but a trading name   it is  not a name which has been registered any where  as  an entity in its own right ( legal person )

WHAT IS UNTRUE IN THE APPLICATION There were many  false claims in the   application form for approved status  as follows

1. Name of applicant: Animal welfare institute of New Zealand – there was no legal person or natural person by that name therefore a non person cannot be an applicant.

2. Registered Office: 1156 Huia Road-  this is Neil Wells residential address the  address was not  that of a registered office for AWINZ because  AWINZ was not registered  it was  but a name.

3. Relevant information – contained specifically in paragraph 10 – Paragraph 10

a. 10.3. Has any one seen accounts back to the date of this application, Wells maintained in court that the institute had no accounts and Waitakere claimed that no start up funds had been provided.

b. Because the institute will be registered under the charitable trust act 1957-this never occurred even though he had maintained since  August that  this was  happening.( he had incorporated two  trusts  by this method  just one month  earlier)

c. 10.8 the Waitakere city animal refuge  will be the deemed place of custody- Waitakere City  denied that  AWINZ operated from  their  facilities , Wells in correspondence to MAF claimed it was  leased for $1 per  year.

4. Application made by : Neil Wells Trustee- no trust deed existed

5. 2. Function of the Institute-It did not exist   it had not functioned, there was no trust deed and it was not   and never was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.

6. The principal purpose of the institute is to promote the welfare of animals– how can something which does not exist have a purpose?

7. 5. Management systems -The integrity of the system will be maintained by

· Memorandum of understanding MAF and AWINZ –this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

· Performance contract between AWINZ–this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

· Memorandum of understanding between inspectors employers and AWINZ-The inspectors employer is Waitakere city council , no one  in authority  from the council, i.e. the executive signed such an agreement. Tom Didovich the then manager Animal welfare division signed for and on behalf of North shore city and Waitakere city.

8. 7. Linked organisations – there is no evidence of the claim that the public assets of Animal welfare services Waitakere will be vested with AWINZ, and there is no evidence that this was ever put   into an annual plan.

a. Waitakere city  animal welfare service, contracted and won the dog control  contract for North shore, it is misleading to say that it took on  animal care and control.  This was the name which Didovich and Wells gave to the dog control service.

b. “Longer term the institute will compete for territorial animal control services “- this is inline with the original concept which Wells had in 1996- being the Territorial animal welfare services, which was also to be a trading name for himself.

9. 9.Legislative  Requirements – the  criteria  are set out in statute section 121 animal welfare act  and require the full name of  the applicant – a name  which has no  legal standing on its own cannot be  an applicant.   It therefore also follows that if it does not exist and as I am told ,the trustees did not meet.. Then it cannot have a purpose and cannot meet the criteria of the act. – I  personally believe that at all times AWINZ was  a trading name for Neil Wells

a. See also the correspondence with regards to the Lord of the rings, the American Humane association again only dealt with Neil Wells.

b. Until I questioned the existence of AWINZ in 2006 no other person was visible. We incorporated a trust with the identical name to prove that  AWINZ did not exist. Wyn Hoadley  claimed to be a trustee  commencing  two weeks after we had been registered  and then claimed that we were using the trading name with which she was associated.

c. Wyn Hoadley was pushed to  the fore as” chair person “ she  was not a  trustee by any other  means than by inference and  had not signed a deed. Wyn and Didovich are both part of the cover up , Coutts I believe is   dangerously ignorant  and the man is a JP .


1. The court on the basis of Mr Wells  evidence  claimed  that “ he got ahead of himself “ Had the court seen   the full evidence I doubt if this conclusion  would have been reached.

2. Mr Wells in correspondence to the council pointed out the requirements of the trust being incorporated  these documents are

a. It is proposed that the “National Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand” (which is referred to later in this document) is established under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

b. The name of the trust needs to be approved by the Registrar of Charitable Trusts in the Ministry of Commerce.

3. It takes a very short time  to incorporate a trust Mr Wells incorporated two other trusts  only one  month  before  advising MAF 22 /8/199  that  the trust was in the process of being incorporated

· Ark angel trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

· National animal welfare trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999     Please also note that  national animal welfare trust  was the name of a proposed name for  the trust  he was  trying to initiate with Waitakere city council in 1998   National animal welfare trust  board


Assertions made in applications  and correspondence as to incorporation “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. The founding trustees are:

• Nuala Grove

• Sarah Giltrap

• Graeme Coutts

• Neil Wells

1. 22nd august 1999  notice of intent to MAf ( copy of proposal below at point 2)

2. Application to community well being fund page 2  of the attached proposal   and in writing on point 1.8   document date 28 October 1999

3. Application to minister for approved status

In correspondence to MAF assertions were made with regards to the progress of  incorporation , see the full version

It is interesting to note that when the full version  was obtained  there was an item  which read

MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City

Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal

welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work). This considered

necessary as the evidence you have provided suggests that the Council’s staff will be

delivering animal welfare services at the Council’s cost, with the Councils also providing

facilities to meet the requirements of section 141 and 142 of the Act.

This  was apparently satisfied By Tom Didovich the manager of the animal welfare division  when he wrote these two letters on behalf of  the councils Waitakere letter North shore  letter

Blog at