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 trust —community 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 DEED – there 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 .
WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A MISTAKE AN OVER SIGHT ON THE PART OF MR WELLS?
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
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
WHAT FURTHER FALSE REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE
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
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 