Anticorruptionnz's Blog

31/03/2010

official information act request Office of the auditor general

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:50 am

Sir

I make this Official information act request   with regards to   those who are involved in   the production of our legislation.  I will illustrate my request with a real example   to substantiate the fact that this is not a hypothetical matter and is very real.

The circumstances

In 1996 a former RNZSPCA director  drew up a concept  to integrate the  statutory provisions of  local bodies, being dog and stock control , with   animal welfare services traditionally provided  by the RNZSPCA. He had already initiated this concept though a pilot programme with Waitakere city council and wished to take the service he called Territorial Authority Animal Welfare Services nation wide.

The document   locatable at the hyperlink above shows that this was clearly a commercial venture.

In the years which followed Neil Wells volunteered to write the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act this was reported in a parliamentary release The next Animal Welfare Act – Pete Hodgson Speech29-06-2001 .

The bill went before the select committee and Neil Wells was employed  as an independent consultant to the select committee.

At this time he was also a  Legal consultant to MAF in relation to the development of the animal welfare act and at the same time was communicating with them with regards to his own personal ambitions .

When the act was finalised and   about to become law Neil Wells applied   for AWINZ ( animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) to become an approved Organisation under the act he had  been  so heavily involved in.

AWINZ eventually became an approved organisation under the act despite the fact that   it had never been incorporated under  the  charitable trust act  nor  had a trust deed  been sighted  .

In 2006 I had cause to question AWINZ   and it was only then that a trust deed   , which could very easily have been   retrospectively signed, materialised. This was dated 1.3.2000 proving conclusively that the statement in the application to the minister, being that a trust deed existed on 22 11.99 was false.

The reaction for questioning the accountability of the  organisation was over the top  and I was sued by three people who claimed to  be  AWINZ but were not supported by a trust deed and were not the same group of persons who had signed the deed.

This group of persons  then represented themselves to be the  approved organisation and  later were joined by  another  , they subsequently signed a trust deed  and pretended to be  to be the same trust as the first .

I have recently made submissions to the select committee   with regards to   increased penalties  in animal welfare.

In that submission I made reference to the  reality that animal welfare  Inspectors

  1. Do not appear on a publicly available register
  2. Unlike   many other professional persons who  do not have  law enforcement  ability  they  do not have to  apply for a licence annually
  3. are not subjected  to accountability  to a tribunal
  4. Have very little accountability  cf  private investigators, mortgage brokers, real estate agents.

I suggested to the   select committee that this lack of accountability my be due to the fact that the person  who had such a high degree of input  had a vested interest in the act, in that he was  going to use this act as  the foundation of his own  business venture.

My official information act request is

  1. What policy provisions are there to safe guard against the conflict of interest where by a person can be involved in writing legislation which he proposes to use himself.
  1. Has Mr Wells at any time  thought  his involvement of  writing the act, employed as a independent advisor to the select committee ,and as  legal consultant  to MAF declared a conflict of interest, if so please provide copies of these documents if you have access to them  and where would these documents  be   found if they existed.
  1. The animal welfare act has very little accountability for inspectors  who are private individuals  and  have wide sweeping  legislative powers .
  1. Do animal welfare  inspectors have any accountability to the   auditor general because of their delegated authority ?
  1. Where do we find a register of  those warranted as animal welfare inspectors.
  1. Do  council staff  volunteering their paid time   as inspectors  have accountability to the auditor general  through  their  council positions?
  1. i.      If so   and given the fact that   it was considered Ultra Vires for  council to  enforce animal welfare  legislation   what has the  auditor general done   with regards to this conflict in duties.
  1. With regards to government  departments  and local authorities contracting to an unincorporated   Trust  ie a trust  which itself is not  a legal person   but can be a legal person if  it  is  registered  by an enactment which confers  body corporate status.
    1. Please provide all policies that the government has for contracting or entering into agreements with unincorporated trusts.( non body corporates or non legal persons)
  1. When entering into an agreement with unincorporated trust what provisions do policies provide  for one person to sign  on behalf of  others .
  1. What policy is there that enable local or central government to enter into an agreement with a trading name?
  1. What are the expected steps of verification which are laid down for   councils and  government departments to verify that they are entering into an agreement   with a legal  body, i.e.  one capable of suing or being sued.
  1. What policy exists that would allow a person , contracting to   central or local government , to represent themselves as being a trustee if their name does not appear on a deed.
  1. i.      What legal authority does such a person have in terms of  government contracts.
  1. What investigations have been carried out by your department into the legitimacy of
    1. i.      the   MOU of AWINZ to MAF,
    2. ii.      AWINZ to Waitakere city
    3. iii.      And the   legitimacy of AWINZ as a law enforcement  authority for enforcing of animal welfare  legislation.
  1. Please provide copies  of  all reports , research , notes references  and policies  which  have investigated or examined.
    1. The  use of private individuals for law enforcement
    2. The ability of private organisations to  use  law enforcement as a means obtaining funds for charities
    3. The  issues arising  out of organisations  enforcing the  law for their own pecuniary  advantage.
    4. The issues and consequence of accountability of contracting law enforcement to  a  trading name .
    5. Accountability issues of private law enforcement bodies.
    6. Cost benefits analysis of use of private law enforcement bodies.
  1. Further the collection of charitable funds   By a council employee
    1. What policies are in place for a  managers of a city division to use the  logo which is on their building   to collect revenue   by way of   donations from the public they serve  the example I use is the document located at this link which  shows the city  logo  and  the  logo which Waitakere City  animal welfare uses  and is  shown on their building.
  1. Funds which have been raised from the public  have been used for  prosecuting me  in order to silence me  to  prevent me from asking the  questions  which I continue to ask.   Please advise if there is a policy  which deals with the use of public funds by a manager of a city  council  in this  way.
    1. i.       The documents are located at http://www.charities.govt.nz/  search animal welfare institute of New Zealand    the  annual reports show that over the past three years $105,366 of charitable funds  have been used on litigation . The only person  who stands to gain from  this personally is the manager of animal welfare  Waitakere city  who  contracts to himself as a trustee of AWINZ – Please advise of any policies  which facilitate and condone this.
  1. Prosecutions   – Animal welfare prosecutions are carried out  By   Barrister Mr Wells  for  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells  who has matters reported to him by the manager of  Waitakere city council  animal welfare  through a  MOU this person is also Mr Wells .  Please advise of any policies  which facilitate this and advise why this is possible .
  1. The  web site of animal welfare Waitakere  City council  has a page for animal welfare http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/aw/index.asp#services it states

What we do at Animal Welfare Waitakere?

Animal Welfare Waitakere provides a range of services, all directed at improving welfare standards of the animals in our community, educating the public in a better understanding of animal welfare and of-course finding good suitable homes for those animals less fortunate, abandoned, neglected and unwanted.

We also provide other services such as:

  • Adoptions of dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, birds and sometimes even stock
  • Impounding and reuniting lost pets with their owners
  • Dog registration
  • Microchipping for just $20 per dog
  • Enforcement of local and national dog control and animal welfare laws
  • Animal Welfare Officers who are also Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act
  • A holistic approach to animal welfare at the Animal Welfare Waitakere
  1. Please advise  the policy  and the   process   through  which  this territorial body can undertake    the  duties  described  with regards to  duties other than  the statutory duties of  council being dog and stock control.
  1. Since when have council officers been able to be involved with animal welfare work .
  1. Which other councils  have   dog and stock control officers  who are also animal welfare   inspectors under the  animal welfare Act.
  1. Finally please advise why it is not seen as a conflict of interest for  one person to  wear the  hat of manager, contractor  barrister and banker of   funds  for  the work which council paid staff carry out.  Why does the United nations Convention against corruption define this as a corrupt practice and why is it condoned in New Zealand.

This request  will be posted on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Advertisements

30/03/2010

Pensioner prosecuted – will we be next

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 8:30 am

A news item was forwarded to me today   it is what is happening in the UK t he item was about a sick pensioner who was prosecuted because their pet  had become sick  so instead of  helping the pensioner and the   beloved pet  they put it down and    fined the pensioner..  such compassion   probably will result in the death of the pensioner.

It made me look at the 5  Freedoms of animals   in the UK  they are

1. Physiological needs – e.g. food and water, appropriate temperature/humidity, air and light conditions etc.

2. Social needs – preference for living in solitude, in pair bonds or in a group.

3. Psychological needs – appropriate stimulation and activity to prevent boredom.

4. Environmental needs – suitable home, space and territory.

5. Behavioural needs – e.g. hibernation, nest building, burrowing.

But in New Zealand where  our legislation was written by a former RNZSPCA director  who saw  his own opportunity  for setting up an animal welfare  “organisation” which  could prosecute  offences  the freedoms were   written into  legislation as

Definition of physical, health, and behavioural needs

  • In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term physical, health, and behavioural needs, in relation to an animal, includes—
    • (a) proper and sufficient food and water:
    • (b) adequate shelter:
    • (c) opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour:
    • (d) physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:
    • (e) protection from, and rapid diagnosis of, any significant injury or disease,—

being a need which, in each case, is appropriate to the species, environment, and circumstances of the animal.

The  difference is the    last one   it leaves the door wide open for people to be   prosecuted  when  their animal  is  ill.  It may be that the person is  ill , Penniless, or does not  realise that the animal is ill  it is an offence.

I use the analogy of a mother I knew   she was a doctor  , her son hurt his leg  skiing  , because he could weigh bear    he skied for a week,  the following week  it was found to be broken  .. she felt  very bad  and it was not intentional, now this was a child  who was old enough to  say something  about  the pain  , he obviously didn’t  complain hard enough  but if he had been a dog  the doctor  mother would have been prosecuted and  banned from owning a dog  for life.

Why do animal support groups need to prosecute?  If  there is no deliberate cruelty  they should  help  and maintain the bond between animal and owner.

It appears to me that we have arrived at a stage where  animals have more rights than Humans

It seems to that because the legislation which he wrote was to be self serving that it was left without  accountability  to   the public  , in that they are not registered or  subject to tribunal action at all .

Just a thought

With regards to clause  D in the animal welfare Act  – physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:  Now if this had been a punishable  offence I could have taken AWINZ to task and all those who  have claimed to be part of    for they have   gone to all lengths to   provide distress to me and my family.

The  word Hypocrites   comes to mind.

27/03/2010

Waikato SPCA

Filed under: transparency,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 4:04 am

There must have been a sense of  Déjà Vu at the Waikato RNZSPCA meeting  the occasions we refer to are to are the times in the 1970’s  when bus loads of supporters turned up  to  ensure that  one party would be victorious – one such event is described in the

Star Weekender  December 2 1978 most of the page right side page  bottom page 13

more onhttp://animalscams.webs.com/neilwells.htm

The connection being  that Neil Wells was a former director of the RNZSPCA   he  wrote the animal welfare  bill and acted as an independent advisor  to the select committee to see the bill become law.  he then set up his own SPCA type organisation in Waitakere city  where Tom Didovich was  manager animal welfare of the council- they called  their service animal care and control .

Tom   was closely associated with one of the  ladies  in Hamilton and  the  concept of animal care and  control  was also  set up in the Hamilton Council  . Neil Wells became a trustee of the trust which was  gifted $400,000  from the RNZSPCA Waikato  . A trust which he was a trustee of  three years alter  when  the corporate trustee the RNZSPCA was removed from the deed  see https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/more-submissions/

Great to see  Close up  having a look at  the Waikato RNZSPCA.  what we  find  unusual is that   $400,000  was given from the RNZSPCA to a trust which then became  the Waikato SPCA  and that the   incorporated society  also used  the name Waikato SPCA on its annual returns ( societies.govt.nz )- it appears tobe  blurring of boundaries.. confusionary tactics  like AWINZ and Waitakere city .

Keep your eye on the money    some how $400,000 of the RNZSPCA’s money has been taken  and is being used by the SPCA.   I’s time some one clarified    who and what the RNZSPCA is and what associations the SPCAs have   and why some   drop the RNZ bit.

http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/animosity-within-spca-3435167/video

see previous articles Waikato RNZSPCA

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/category/waikato-rnzspca/

23/03/2010

Truth can not harm a persons character – why is select committee defensive

Filed under: corruption,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:43 am

Here with  the latest exchange from the select committee.   I have not  made any comments  I have merely supplied   evidence of   real events . If we do not wish to accept  that such things can occur   how can we  legislate to prevent  it from occurring? or do we as a nation through those who make  our laws   condone corrupt practices

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

14 Freedom of expression
  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

We should not live in fear  of speaking  the truth , if New Zealand had  ratified the  united nations convention  against corruption false claims of defamation  could not be brought  least of all succeed without any proof.

I would like you  to look  at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day.  Why  is one persons reputation   so valuable  when  hos own actions have tarnished  it.

I have a  simple  philosophy   if you don’t like people speaking the truth about your actions  then perhaps you need to look at your actions.  Don’t do that which  you feel is a blot on your   good name..   Those who act  corruptly   need to be exposed  not protected.

From: Andy Gardner [mailto:Andy.Gardner@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 1:15 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: submission re higher penalties in animal welfare act rejected.. is it because I question the corrupt practices in animal welfare?

Ms Hadden,

The committee’s decision to return your submission was due to its determination that the issues you raise are not relevant to the bill, and that the risk of harm to an identified person’s reputation exceeds the benefit of the committee hearing your evidence.

In returning your submission, it is not possible for you to make an appearance before the committee during its consideration of this bill.

I also note in your email below that you say that you have posted your submission on your blogsite. To do so is entirely your decision, but you should be aware that the submission is not protected by Parliamentary privilege and that you are liable for any statements contained within it.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Gardner

Thank You Andy

I have trouble comprehending that  my submissions are not relevant to the bill and it would appear to me that 232   does not  give the  ability  for  my  submission to be thrown out .

The    Bill calls for higher penalties for animal welfare offences.  Is it  then not appropriate  to look at who enforces the legislation     and who profits  by it.  There are dangers  associated with increasing penalties  if the issues I have raised are not considered.

You cannot mitigate the unforeseeable  but when   something is known to have occurred and makes an impact on the legislation you are looking at changing  , then the good and  the bad need to be considered.

My  life has been devastated by the fact that I sought accountability of  an “organisation” which  enforced animal welfare  legislation.  There was no transparency or accountability   But the select committee are prepared to go ahead and consider this penalty change without looking at the dangers of doing so.

I have brought  factual matters to the attention of the select committee , without comment,  All I have done is brought  the physical evidence   yet that  is not enough. We would rather pretend  that    this does not occur  and allow it to  continue  than to  take notice of it and consider the  loop holes and legislate to ensure  that there is transparency and accountability .

Those who enforce  a law should be accountable to the law  and there should not be an ability for a private prosecuting authority  to have such wide sweeping powers   and have no accountability.

New Zealand wishes to ratify the  united nations convention against corruption  and to do so they have to consider issues such as those which I have raised , It appears that the select committee are prepared to turn a blind  eye to the fact that they have employed a person  to advise them in an “ independent “ capacity   who then  put the legislation  he advised on for his own  use. I realise that  it has to be an embarrassment to admit that this has  happened  and that is why it  is easier to stand by an  see my  life devastated than to act responsibly.

It is not as if Mr Wells   set up   his approved organisation  was an after thought , the evidence shows that  the idea  came first and  that he wrote the legislation to accommodate it  , what was done   was premeditated  and planned.

The  “organisation”   which was set up as an approved body   uses council employees  , paid for  through the public purse to  Volunteer their paid time   to enforce the law   which you are seeking to increase the penalties for .penalties which ultimately  could   be awarded   back to the  “ organisation” which took the  prosecution.

The animal welfare  Inspectors  have wide sweeping  powers but  have no transparency and accountability and I have illustrated this  by  using the example of my own profession which has no powers   yet has extreme accountability. Their accountability should be  at least the same as  we are subjected to  ensure that they are  properly accountable to the law they enforce, laws which call for significant periods of  imprisonment.

I would have thought that it would  be negligent of all those considering   this legislative change   to cast aside  submissions  which   suggest that the increase of penalties may  be unsafe to the  public.

The select committee has to be aware that the  legislation was written by some one  who   had a vested interest in  seeing the  legislation pass with as little accountability as possible and that that person was an advisor who  as it turned out was not independent at all.

I request under the urgency provisions  of the Official information act to   be advised of the names of those who were present  when the decision was made to    throw my submission out without  giving me an opportunity to  rewrite the submission.  I hope  that they appreciate  the fact that had I written the submission without  any evidence  they would probably not have believed me  , I  would be happy for them to consider my submission  but not put the matter on the public file  , truth  is  truth, I cannot change it  and when people cannot  bring truth to a select committee it is time for us to  take a long  hard look at ourselves.

I would also lie to know  what  legal advise was provided by crown  law  with regards to this  submission , please provide a copy of that advice.

I believe that this is  required in the interest of openness and transparency.

Regards
Grace Haden

20/03/2010

Will the politicians continue to turn a blind eye ? lets see who cares!

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,religion and truth — anticorruptionnz @ 3:31 am

Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 4:26 p.m.
To: ‘ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘colin.kingmp@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘sandra.goudie@national.org.nz’; ‘carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘cam.calder@national.org.nz’; ‘nathan.guy@national.org.nz’
Cc: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘Ian Wishart’; ‘lockwood.smith@national.org.nz’; ‘R Hide (MIN)’

Subject: animal welfare act

I am approaching  each of you because of the concerns  which I have with the  animal welfare act and the increase in penalties proposed with the new bill

I have also copied this to others  who should  be interested and this will also be posted on my anti corruption  blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

I made my submissions  to the select  committee which I believe are  very valid  , only to see them  rejected out right.

My submissions are viewable  at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/, I have  not posted the prosecution documents  on the  site and should you wish them  I can make them available to you

Issues I raised were

  1. The enforcement of the act by   approved organisations  –  In  once case this was  a non existent “ organisation” run by one person   piggy backing off a city councils  facilities , staff and  resources  which left nothing to be done but  collect ( into an account  on he managed )  the   donations and the court  fines which he himself prosecuted  as barrister  for animal welfare offences arising out of  the city  employees  duties which he as a city manager supervised .
  1. This man is also the person who wrote the No 1 bill   which  introduced the concept of approved  organisations into the act ,
  1. he was also employed as an independent advisor to the select committee for  legislation which was  later to be proved to be self serving and the intent of which I can prove was established  long before the bill was drafted.
  1. This activity is   considered  by  the untied nations to be a corrupt practice and  is cover dint eh  united nations convention against corruption  which NZ has signed but not ratified ( I guess I can see why..  apparently we condone  this type of action  only those who question corruption get  dealt to . )
  1. There is no requirement of a register for  people who enforce  the legislation  with wide sweeping powers  who can penalise people  and prosecute  in exchanged for  funds  being put into their “ charities” accounts. Unlike a register and strict conditions for  Private Investigators  who have no powers at all.
  2. the lack of accountability to the public  for the  funds which are  received through   these prosecutions ,  there is no other  agency  which  can prosecute people and keep the money for themselves.    It is a licence to print money  and while the cost of  lawyers are so high the economics of law enforcement encourages people to  take the economic route and enter a plea of  guilty  to something which they cannot afford to defend.

It is  also of concern that he select committee  apparently  feels that they  can dispose of submissions which   they do not  wish to consider , therefore they  can select the submissions before them , removing those  which should rightfully  be considered .

If New Zealand wants to move closer to ratifying the  united nations commission against corruption  then  people such as myself  should not   have to go through what  I have had to endure  in order to question  corrupt practices, neither  should my submission be struck out  when there is no lawful reason for doing   so.

The  select committee has options available to it  and   removing my submissions point blank is not one of them.

In the interest of a better New Zealand  and in  the interest of transparency and the fight against corruption I ask for your support.

19/03/2010

Submissions too hot for select committee and rejected unlawfully

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,religion and truth,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 6:26 am

Andy    was my submission to the select committee  on animal welfare  rejected    because of  practices by the ” independent ” adviser  who I believe  gained a  personal advantage of the bill he wrote and advised on ? Because he uses the legislation to  prosecute and  bring in revenue for his  non existent Organisation AWINZ

I refer to standing order 232  Standing Orders of the House of Representatives – 2008

232 Irrelevant or unjustified allegations

When a witness gives evidence that contains an allegation that

may seriously damage the reputation of a person and the select

committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to its

proceedings or is satisfied that the evidence creates a risk of harm

to that person, which risk exceeds the benefit of the evidence, the

committee will give consideration—

(a) to returning any written evidence and requesting that it be

resubmitted without the offending material:

(b) to expunging that evidence from any transcript of evidence:

(c) to seeking an order of the House preventing the disclosure

of that evidence.

I note that on the parliamentary web site it appears to be the current rules of the house

I have  gone to great  detail to prove   everything that  I have put  before the select committee  with  documents  which substantiate every claim  I have  made in my  submission , the comments are valid to the legislation  being considered My  submission is posted at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/ yet the committee  claims that my  submission will be rejected By stating   The committee will therefore not be accepting your submission, and it will be deleting your submission from its permanent record in accordance with Standing Order 232.”

In reading 232   it appears that there is no power for the select committee to  reject my submission .  I note that the provisions of section 233  and 234   give the select committee scope to deal with the matter

I note that  I  could have been asked to resubmit   my submission  but chose instead to avail themselves of something which was  not  written in the rules.

It is in the  publics interest  that the matters raised in the submission are considered  because the  public  need to have  the events which I described mitigated.

I believe this is a serious matter of pubic concern  as Mr Wells   was an independent advisor to the select committee in  when this act was considered , he  had also written the   first bill for the act  and   subsequently  used the provisions for the act  for  his own business venture

It  is  apparent   with hindsight that  Wells had self serving interest  at the time  that he was  an “ independent “ advisor  and  therefore was not  Independent.    I have no doubt that Mr Wells would have lobbied for  these Higher penalties  which are now being considered.

I believe that I make  very valid points with regards to the lack of transparency of the enforcement of   Animal welfare  law and it has to be of note that  Mr Wells contributed significantly to the   Mens Rae component   being removed form  the  legislation making animal welfare  offences strict liability  .. you own the animal , it suffered  you are guilty.. no defence .  Now we follow that with lets increase the penalties.

Since posting my submission on my blog  I have been approached  by  persons internationally who have concerns about the wide sweeping powers of  animal welfare inspectors   and the high penalties which are applied to  persons  who love their animals  and  are deemed because of the  lack of the intent  provisions to be allowing their animals to suffer. It appears that  those  with money are being targeted to supplement the income of   animal welfare charities  world  wide.   It is not  about   animal welfare it  is about  revenue collecting.   The evidence I provide is relevant.

I would  like my submission to be dealt with in accordance with the rules ,I cannot help that my submission contains serious  allegations  they are the truth  ,they are factual  matters  and  matters   which  should be taken into consideration   by a country which   is perceived as  the least corrupt.

It is even more serious that I have  paid such a high price for  questioning these facts  and that  no one seems to care a dam

this is the   content of the letter  fromt he seelct committee

PRIMARY PRODUCTION COMMITTEE
18 March 2010
Grace Haden
Grace@verisure.co.nz
Dear Ms Haden
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
The Primary Production Committee has considered your submission relating to the
above bill and notes that it raises issues of natural justice by making serious
allegations against an individual you identify as the Manager of Animal Welfare in
Waitakere City.
The conunittee is not satisfied that the issues raised in your submission are relevant to
the bill, and believes that the risk of serious harm to that person’s reputation exceeds
the benefit to the committee of hearing such evidence.
The committee will therefore not be accepting your submission, and it will be deleting
your submission from its permanent record in accordance with Standing Order 232.
Should you have any concerns about the process the committee has followed please
contact the Clerk of Committee, Andy Gardner, on 04 817 9522, or at
andy.gardner@parliament.govt.nz.
Yours sincerely
Shane Ardern
Chairperson
Primary Production Committee

16/03/2010

More submissions

Filed under: corruption,transparency,Wyn Hoadley — anticorruptionnz @ 5:09 am

Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill

Submission By Grace Haden  Licenced Private Investigator

I am a Licenced private investigator and  member of the certified fraud examiners association , I am a former Police sergeant ( NZ police )  as well as general investigations I  work  in the identify  fraud prevention area, I am a verification specialist. I am director of a new  company Transparency New Zealand which aims to  make  New Zealand more transparent accountable to the truth and above all encourage  ratification of the  united nations  convention against corruption .

In the course of my work I have come across several matters of concern which touch on the issue of fair trading act and charities and I believe should  be rightfully  considered  when reviewing this legislation .

In 2003 New Zealand signed the  United nations convention against corruption but  the principals in the convention have not been  ratified  by law. By ignoring the spirit of the convention we are stepping further from ratification rather than closer to it. In particular in the Legislative guide for the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption it mentions  (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/legislative-guide.html)

Prevention

5. The Convention requires States parties to introduce effective policies aimed at the prevention of corruption.

Criminalization

6. The Convention goes on to require the State parties to introduce criminal and other offences to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, to the extent these are not already defined as such under domestic law.

It is  therefore important while considering  the  changes  to the fair trading act  and the  charities  acts   for all aspects  and not  just for  third party  collection agencies.

While there are professional collecting  agencies which  take  a majority of the takings  there are also  charities  who obtain  funds from the public and are used to exclusively fund the corporate wages to the executive members  or use the funds  which will indirectly provide a return for themselves   or are siphoned off elsewhere.

While the bill considers third party collectors it does not go far enough to eliminate unfair practices between competing charities and provides no protection to the public as to the identity and legal existence  of the charities themselves  let alone  those collecting for it.

There is no consideration given to the ability for “ charities” to launder  money  and while  the charities commission sets out and claims to give transparency, it falls short of  the mark  , and  the should  be no way that  such registrations could  slip by. There is a very  large assumption that any  charity which is  set up  is set up for   legitimate and credible means.

I have voiced my concerns with the charity commission and it appears that here is more emphasis on the applications having all the boxes ticked than on the reality which exists behind the paper work.

There is also no apparent provision which holds any one accountable to false statements and false claims when applying for charitable status, the requirement of statutory declarations would easily overcome this issue.

As a private investigator I am aware that  you cannot foresee every possibility   which may lead to  a corrupt practice , but  I do believe that when you are aware of instances where the acts  have been misused  you are in  a more powerful place to see how  the legislation either does not work or is abused.

Charities like everything else in New Zealand have become a business  , they are no longer  voluntary organizations which  provide a service and requested funds for  survival, the focus  for many has shifted  from service  to revenue collecting, and a means of supplying corporate wages for those who control the charity and an alternative way of obtaining employment by creative means.

No matter what is done to  close the loop hole   for third party collectors  a creative  alternative will be found  , one that I can immediately identify is  that  it will be simple for  collectors  to set up with a credible name and become a charity themselves , there by paying their own costs  and then passing the balance on to  the charitable purpose.

I will illustrate my submission using   documents and examples to support my assertions

Issue  one   The inefficiency and lack of transparency of the charities register

Example : The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust

This alleged trust is a charity, it has registration number CC38365

  • It has a unsigned trust deed
  • There are no officers listed or identifiable
  • The trust is  not  registered under any act therefore the  name is not a legal name it is a trading name  which one or more person uses  – that person/persons cannot be identified.
  • Even its web site does not give a clue to who the members are.

Questions

Where is the transparency?

  • How much money is coming in,
  • who is receiving it, is it all being declared-
  • Who are the trustees ,
  • Why bother about third parties collecting when the Charities themselves have no transparency and therefore no accountability?

In this case the  lady whose name  does show in the data base  is  Alana Bowman , I contacted her  by phone (  regarding an unrelated matter ) and  she admitted to  being a  labour party member, she was  residing at the address  given for the charity  but  that is all the information we have. It was by having her name that I could find the trust, however  By having the trusts name  you cannot identify her .

Solution 1.

Before anything can be fixed   with regards to third parties the charities act requires amendment to make those applying for charitable status accountable to the truth.If this is not done then a third party collector could set themselves up in a “credible sounding name” collect funds than pass it to another charity after “administration” costs have been deducted.

I suggest that the Charities Act is amended to require

  1. A signed  and verified copy of the  trust deed, supported with a statutory declaration signed by a trustee  that is a true copy.
  2. A leaflet setting out the legal obligations and responsibilities of trustees of charities needs to be published by the Charities commission.
    1. Each trustee must individually,  through a statutory declaration ,  accept these terms and  conditions and  confirm  having read them and willing to comply with them .
    2. They must also provide their full name  , date of birth and address, these particulars are no more  than what  are required to be provided  for  registration on the personal property securities register.
      1. i.      If the personal property security register can show these details for  obtaining private funds  why should the standard for obtaining public revenue be any less.
      2. ii.      With regards to name it has to be remembered that  simple name like Jennifer Smith   does not identify the  person consenting, Names are not unique, addresses change , to confirm ID we require three points of reference.   If an Identity cannot be confirmed  then there cannot be accountability
  3. There must be  independent verification  that this person exists, this  can be done  when swearing  the document  where  it should be mandatory that a person provides Identification  before swearing a document  rather than saying  that is who they are.
  4. Provision could be made on a standard statutory application  form where  by the JP or  person swearing the document  confirms the nature f  the identification provided.
    1. i.      Ironically banks require more information for persons to go on a trusts bank account than the charities commission requires for the ability to obtain public funds.

Issue 2  Litigation  using charitable  funds to  conceal corruption

Although we provide a somewhat limited transparency it is dangerous for anyone to question corrupt practices as to do so can lead to litigation where   a bottomless pit of charitable funds   is used to silence those raising questions which could expose  corrupt practices.

We are apparently so determined to keep New Zealand’s least corrupt perception alive  that we   offer no support to anyone who says.. Excuse me is that not wrong?

Currently we have no legislation or protection for those  who  ask questions about corruption  or corrupt practices.

Example   : The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand- there is  profit in animals

In 2006 I questioned the existence of a RSPCA like  “organization “which claimed to be a charity and  had wide sweeping law enforcement powers.

For asking questions regarding conflict of interest   and what I saw as corrupt practices as defined by the UN  ,I was sued  using funds  which were raised from the public and later claimed to be charitable.

The UN  convention, which we signed in 2003  provides protection and support for those who   question corruption in good faith. But  without  support of  legislation  it doesn’t matter how much transparency we  get no one will dare question  anything  if they hear my story.

Articles 32-35 of the  convention provides protection  for persons  such as myself  who without  that protection would be subjected to what I have suffered.

It is ironic that  of 164  countries which signed the  convention, only 17  have not ratified the   convention and  that one of those 17  is despite this   the least corrupt.

Of the top 10 least corrupt countries New Zealand is the only one which signed the convention and failed to ratify it.

That would not matter if we protected those who question corruption but I can testily that those who question corruption are dealt to more harshly than any criminal. By preventing corruption form being exposed we maintain the pretence and in my mind makes us the most corrupt of all.    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html

Questioning corruption   has cost me   Over $100,000  in lawyers fees  defending myself  from  false claims ,  I have a further $150,000  to pay if my appeal  is rejected, It has cost me my marriage and further lawyers fees associated with that. My family has been torn apart, my business destroyed and my life taken over by fighting this gross unbelievable injustice, and I am not alone, others  too have been trampled in to the dirt by  keeping up pretences of our “ corruption free “ status.

If there is to be a  register  to provide transparency, then  there should be  facilities  for accountability and  accountability is  attained when persons  who use this transparency ask questions about things  which  they can see  don’t stack up.

Those who   ask questions so that the  public can  raise  concerns  about   discrepancies that they  may  become aware of  then there has to be a way for this to be done safely  and without  having their lives  devastated.

Background

  1. In 1999  an application was made to the minister of Agriculture for AWINZ to become  an approved organisation under the Animal welfare ACT  ( S121) the application claimed that the trust existed by trust deed  and was in the process of being registered  under the charitable trust Act 1957
    1. AWINZ was like a SPCA, it   delegates authority from the crown to animal welfare officers who have wide sweeping law enforcement powers.
    2. The new Act came into effect in 1999, the No 1 bill had been written by Neil Wells,  Barrister, who made the application on behalf of a non existent trust  and had introduced into the bill the ability  for  applications for “ approved organisations’
    3. He was also employed as  an “ independent “   advisor to the select committee which saw the act  which was  passed into law facilitate his  private business concept
    4. AWINZ called itself a charity   but in 2006 no evidence of a trust deed, incorporation or charitable status could be found. I was asked to locate and find accountability of AWINZ following the unlawful seizure and Euthanasia of a cat by an AWINZ inspector.
    5. Being unable to locate the organisation  and having exhausted our  official information act  and  LGOIMA request  , we formed  another trust called Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  which  was  incorporated under the charitable trust act Number 1809454, 27-APR-2006 this trust obtained  donee status through IRD.
      1. It was  proved  through both these actions  that  no other  legal person existed by that  name  or had   charitable status.
      2. In early June 2006  I received intimidating phone calls from one Vivienne Wright,  the purpose of the intimidation was to  force us  to give  up the incorporated name  which  was now drawing attention to the fact that  the “ institute “ in Waitakere city  ws not a legal person and had no  identifiable identity.
      3. Later that month  Nick Wright , barrister of Brookfield’s   backed up his wife’s intimidating phone calls with lawyers demand  and offered as proof  of AWINZ existence an   unverified  signed trust deed  dated 1.3.2000 .
      4. Despite writing to the   trustees   and making ourselves available for  out of court  resolution, we were denied the opportunity and we were taken to court on allegations of passing off,  breach of fair trade and  for  defamation .-The defamation amongst other things  for stating that the  application  in November 1999 was false    because AWINZ  neither had a trust deed nor was incorporated.   These are facts.
        1. I phoned the   persons named on the trust deed and was later to be accused of harassment because I had asked if they were trustees, these persons purportedly immediately resigned. I was however told that these persons never attended a meeting and some denied ever having signed a trust deed.
        2. These persons have now retreated behind lawyers.
        3. A new chair person came to our attention , she was not one of the trustees listed on the trust deed   this  Former Mayor , Labour party member Wyn Hoadley  made  her claim to  being  involved in the trust   though  a  fundraising  Flyer which went out to  all dog owners in Waitakere city council .
          1. The only other bit of “ evidence was a document filed a year later  with the charities commission by Mr Wells claiming that she was a trustee from 3/05/2006, there was no evidence of her being a trustee  by  any legally binding means.
          2. I contacted Wyn Hoadley and asked her if the matter could be resolved trust to trust   by all trustees meeting with view of resolution, her reply was simple.. “ I am not a messenger “
          3. When the court documents were filed, it was not  in the name of the trustees  on the trust deed  dated 1.3.2000  but   of three people  who together had no trust deed or proof of being  a trust and therefore could not have been a  charitable trust as they claimed.
          4. The legal action occurred simultaneously with Ms Hoadleys fundraising flyer being sent out  .
            1. It should be noted that the logo adopted for the flyer and used  by the so called Institute was deceptively similar to that used  by the council animal welfare services where Mr Wells is the manager of the  division which deals with dog and stock control
  1. This money was paid into an account which was with the national bank in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, only one person operated this account and there were no trust deeds associated with it.  Mr Wells was the person who operated the account.
  2. Within a month of  sending out a  flyer for  fundraising  the Brookfield’s lawyers  invoices  made out  to the trading name AWINZ commenced (total some $99,000)  and were specifically for suing me   for  questioned the  existence of AWINZ Their intent was to obtain the name and to silence me..  beat me into submission.
    1. Mr Wells was to get a cost award specifically for personal gain of  some $57,000  for alleged defamation   which was never proved and I was  prevented from  defending  with truth.. the chronology says it all it is as follows
    2. His lawyer Nick Wright of Brookfield’s achieved this victory by  repeatedly misleading the court , withholding  evidence  form  the court and manipulating the system so that my   defence of truth and honest opinion were struck out.
    3. In  August 2006, after litigation had begun  another “ trustee” was to  join  again without any proof of being bound By a deed , this person  was Tom Didovich the former  manager  of animal welfare Waitakere city ,who had  worked on the project alongside Mr Wells in the  years leading up wot the legislation being passed.
      1. He was also the person who had collected and witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the 1.3.2000 deed.
      2. He was also  employed   by the RNZSPCA as national education and branch support manager
      3. It is only in December   2006  , 6 months after litigation commenced  that  a new deed was signed , the deed was amended to   change the purpose  so that it could  qualify for the Charity   commission.  Charitable status  was obtained on 28/09/2007 ( 14 months after litigation began)
        1. This charitable trust  shows through its Financial statements filed on line ,that  funds were used for   legal action against me.
        2. The chronology of events  is as follows
date event amount
27/04/2006 AWINZ  incorporated
3/05/2006 awinz.co.nz  web site set up by incorporated trust stating they were not the same as the trust in Waitakere
10/05/2006 Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of  unincorporated AWINZ  there is   no  trust deed  or proof of any kind

1/06/2006

request for public funds by Wyn Hoadley as ” chair of AWINZ “
30/06/2006 Brookfield’s invoice 201163 2818.35

18/07/2006

statement of claim

Legal action  was taken by persons other than those  shown on the only trust deed  which existed  dated  1/3/2000

28/07/2006 Inv 202547 6309.43
14/08/2006 Didovich becomes a trustee
30/11/2006 Inv 208729 1894.31
5/12/2006 trust deed signed
20/12/2006 Inv 209947 180
31/01/2007 Inv 210963 1795.16
1/03/2007 Inv212325 10304.33
30/03/2006 Inv 212848 6609.16
7/04/2007 Inv 214744 2401.88
30/05/2007 Inv 216401 7767.11
29/06/2007 Inv 217964 4237.43
31/07/2007 Inv 219513 899.55
28/09/2007 The  trust formed by  trust deed 5/12/06 becomes a  charity
28/11/2007 Inv 226453 2554.65
19/12/2007 Inv 227421 1654.2
29/02/2008 Inv 230016 4130.52
28/03/2008 Inv 231294 13218.68
30/03/2008 Inv 232586 14343.81
30/05/2008 Inv 233901 5426.33
30/06/2008 Inv 235278 5423.91
31/07/2008 Inv 236729 2250
5/08/2008 Inv 236820 5419.41
total 99638.22
Note all invoices are made out to
invoice made out to AWINZ
  1. It needs to be noted that  the invoices to  30 June 2008  on the financial statements  total  $91, 968.81 this is not reflected in the   financial  statements  .
  2. A lot of confusion exists with regards to trusts, thanks to this litigation I have become some what of an expert in this field, and I know that only incorporated trust have perpetual   existence, but  trustees  still need to be shown on and off the trust through  a paper trail.
    1. Unincorporated trusts are an agreement between the parties to the deed. If the name does not appear on the deed or an amended or supplemental deed they cannot claim to be a trustee.
    2. There are only two trust deeds ,  and  the plaintiffs who took  legal  action    were not bound by a deed   and were therefore not  one and the same as the group  on  the first deed or the group on the second deed which  have claimed the  charitable funds and the payments   which are not  theirs.
    3. The confusion arises through the use of a trade name for various  trusts  as if it is one and the same.  If the legal name was used in each instance that confusion would be eliminated.
    4. As a result of litigation and the inability of the incorporated AWINZ to have access to public funds like the unincorporated trust did, they were put out of business. In the end  survival comes to who can raise the most money  and invariably the honest will lose.
      1. The incorporated trust  changed their name, under duress ,  to  animal owner support trust, they were to have supported people who could not afford treatment  for their animals
      2. Mr Wells prosecutes and  obtains revenue (purportedly for AWINZ) from people he charges for not being able to afford the vet bills, the charges arise after an interaction with the council  staff who he supervises.
        1. i.       I can supply  the information’s for these  showing Wells appearing in court  wearing  his barristers hat  and obtaining remuneration for    the bank account which he  had sole control over   in 2006.
        2. It was therefore in the financial interest of Mr Wells “AWINZ “to put a trust such as   animal owners support trust out of business, for when people  cannot afford vet bill they are better targets  for  animal welfare offences.
        3. One of the claims  in the statement of  claim was breach of fair trading act   But  the incorporated trust existed 27/04/2006  so how could Wyn Hoadley    bring a claim of Passing off and   breach of fair trade when
          1. the date she  allegedly became a trustee was after the other trust had formed
          2. There was no  proof of being a trustee.
          3. Of greater public concern is that she as Chairwoman of a non charitable trust solicited for funds and although the flyer makes no claims to the trust being charitable , those who rang council were told that the donations were tax deductible and the web site www.Awinz.org.nz states on the about us page “The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was formed as a charitable trust in 1999.”
          4. In 2008 Neil Wells writes  to the  Mayor Bob Harvey and asks for his endorsement for the next fund raising drive  He claims that it raises abut $5,000 per year. Yet the   2006 and 2007 figures in the Financial statements filed   do not reflect that and show a substantially lower figure

Solution 2.

  1. Charities registered with the charities commission should be open to review and   auditing.
  2. Funds can only be used for the charitable purpose  and penalties should be there for abuse.
  3. As with many of New Zealand’s  so called watch dogs  they appear to be run  by  people  who have little or no understanding  of the law and are easily duped by a barrister or persons  who are seen  to be persons of high profile  and are therefore perceived to be trust worthy.- No one should be taken for their word  and lawyers and  accountants should be    used to audit those about whom questions are raised.
    1. I have complained a number of times about the manner   AWINZ is being operated   but I may be more constructive in hitting my head against a brick wall.

Issue 3 transfer of  funds between charities

Transfers between charities could easily occur and   could be a way for third parties   to circumvent legislation by setting up as a  charity . The definition of  third party needs to be clearly defined.

  1. On 15 May  2000 the  Waikato  SPCA trust was established .  This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA  Waikato. The other  trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .
  2. Land  belonging to the RNZSPCA  was  sold  and  as a result $400,000 was transferred  from the  RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )
  3. 12 may  2003 the  trust  amends the trust deed  and drops off the corporate trustee .
  4. IN 2005   it  applies for  incorporation to  become  an entity in its own right  retaining the $400,000  and then becomes a charity .

A similar transfer of funds occurs   with   the 2000 AWINZ unincorporated trust and BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED

  1. BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION  had a trust called the lord Dowding fund.  In 2005   Neil Wells writes to the secretary of the  trust  which wound up on 6th September 2000 and asks for the  funds  to be transferred to   AWINZ  , and so  in excess of $100,000  are made over to  him into the account which at that time only he had access to .

Solution 3.

  1. Transfers of money between trusts   should be limited   to the same extent  as private individuals   gifting to  a trust, the sum being   $27,000 ( or what ever it is ) per annum  and   sums over that amount  being  subject to   a gift duty.

Issue 4  Registration of trustees of trusts

As previously mentioned unincorporated trusts   consist of people who come together for a common purpose and intent which is expressed and agreed to  in a deed.  If these person owned property it could not be held in the name of the trust  but is registered  in the name of the individual trustees who comprise the trust. Similarly   shares cannot not be held in the name of an unincorporated trust  and again are held by  legal  or natural persons.

The charities act  contains a fundamental flaw  in law  in  section 6 where it allows registration in the name nominated by the trustees , this name is not a legal name  .

And then in section 2  goes on to say

2) The registration of the trustees of a trust as a charitable entity is not affected by—

  • (a) 1 or more of the trustees ceasing to be a trustee of the trust; or
  • (b) the appointment of new trustees of the trust.

This statement leaves  it open to  an unincorporated trust to   bring any one on board without  signing a deed , it Fails to recognize the  difference between incorporated trusts and unincorporated trusts   and does not consider the fact that Unincorporated trusts do not have perpetual existence and when trustees  leave and new trustees come on  board there needs to be a new deed usually being a deed of variation of deed which explain, records and brings about  the changes.

Example :  referring to the AWINZ 1/3/ 2000  deed , if  that trust   had been  registered under the charities  act  and as there is no record of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap resigning  they could  equally have claimed to be the charity  and had  two others join them.

Mr. Wells and Mr. Coutts  did just that  they brought  Wyn Hoadley and Tom Didovich on board , changed the trust  purpose singed  a new deed in  December 2005 and claimed to be the same trust,  when It  is not.

Solution  4.

While section 6 (2)  can hold true to   incorporated trusts or societies  it  cannot be true of  unincorporated trusts as  persons  not shown on a trust deed   have no accountability to the deed.

It is therefore essential that all applications are done by the individual  trustee  through a statutory declaration  ( making a false statement is a criminal offence section 110 False oaths  crimes act 1961)

Issue 5   Legal name

The  charities commission web site is misleading  , on the  site  the   line identifying the charity  states

Legal name of the charity

The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand

  1. This should be a legal name, trading names are not legal names. As in the case of  animal welfare institute  of New Zealand the legal name would be the name which appears on court documents.
  2. The charities commission is therefore  facilitating a breach of the fair trading act  where by  it is allowing a trading name  to be represented as a legal name.
  3. There is no  register of trading names  and by law any one  in new Zealand can call themselves anything  but when it comes to  accountability  it is the legal name  which has to be known   as opposed to the  assumed, adopted  and trading names -yet the  charities commission   allows trading names to be  registered  as if they are legal names.
  4. To sue  a trading name , adopted name  or an assumed name  you must first identify what the real name is, if  there is no transparency in that  there is no accountability to the law as the  legal persons representing  what the charities commission calls entity  cannot be identified. E.g  how would you sue The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust? You would have  as much success  as suing “a tea pot”,  for both  are just names with no accountability .
    1. A true test of an Entity is would you give a loan to a group of unidentified persons. If they   failed to pay how would you  get  your money back?
    2. In the case of  the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  the legal name is  the one in which they can sue and be sued  which is  Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley, Tom Didovich  and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the animal Welfare institute of New Zealand.
    3. By allowing the use of  trading names   to be labelled as  legal names can lead to instances of identity fraud and open a raft of traps to people who are already very confused as to the status of trusts.

Solution  5.

  1. Only the legal name, being the one in which the   organisation is legally accountable in is to be used for registration.
  2. Penalties should be in place for those  who use anything other than the legal name.
  3. This provision would also prevent the   type or registration as seen in my  first example.

Issue 6  Loss of officers

It has also come to my notice that a number of incorporated societies which are charitable   do not have any more than one   officer listed. It needs to be of public concern when  only one person operates  such a trust  or society an example of this is

  1. The Waiheke Island Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  2. Kaitaia and Districts Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  3. Hawkes Bay Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  4. The Hokitika Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  5. The Central King Country Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  6. The Horowhenua Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  7. The Gisborne SPCA Inc

All of the above  have  only one officer   it is the same officer in each instance , when there is only one person on an incorporated society  there is no transparency or accountability

In my investigations I have  uncovered other   charitable bodies  such as  the Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated   which  had  self  funded manager  who used the charitable funds for her  wages  which were in  the vicinity of $60,000 per annum, she also  drove a $40,000 vehicle  belonging to the trust  and sacked the three members on the executive and recruited new executive at will.

Funding was obtained   simply by ticking the right boxes  and providing he illusion that services were being performed.

Again when I questioned this I was attacked  for those  who had provided the government funding did  not wish to  show their neglect in not assuring accountability.

An incorporated trust which I have identified  as existing without    trustees is the New Zealand fund for humane research . All the trustees except one  believe that this trust has been wound up , Mr Wells still claims to be a trustee of this trust. It is not   registered  as a charity  but  effectively  if one person  as in the instance of AWINZ can apply  on  behalf of others for   it to become one then the is nothing to prevent  defunct    trusts from being registered as charities.

Continually I have people phone me and tell me that the incorporated society to which tey belong is  wishing to   become a trust , rules need to be set in place where    incorporated societies are  liquidated  or have funds transferred  so that few can  have  greater control and provide less transparency.

Solution  6.

  1. All wages paid  by a charity should be listed to show  who they were paid to, those who are paid  from the public purse need to be accountable to it.
  2. Societies   have to have a minimum number to exist , if they fall below their 15 members they should be wound up .
  3. Society annual meeting   minutes  as well as the annual return  should be  visible including who the members are.
  4. The charities commission should work    closely with the charitable trust register and vice versa.

Issue 7   listing of  officers on the  charities web site .

A gain the Waikato SPCA  had until recently a large number of trustees shown,  the number was in excess of the number allowed by the deed.  It was expressed to me by those involves with Questioning the loss of the $400,000  that this was a deliberate move  so that no one would know who the trustees were at any given time.

This  has  apparently bee resolved  but it  does  show a need for the minutes of meeting to be sent in as proof as to election of officers and   changes of  officers.

Solution  7.

  1. Penalties need to be imposed for  those organisations which fail to keep the register up to date   and for those who file false returns.

Issue 8   Lack of verification as to the existence of   officers.

  1. To identify a person you need a name , address and a date of birth, i.e. three points of reference.
  2. The charities act   provides only for   a name for a trustee to be put forward, there is not even a requirement for  a person to do it personally and it can be  done on behalf of some one. Therefore there is not even a signature on file for those who are replacement trustees in incorporated trusts/ societies.
  3. Neil Wells made an application on behalf of  his fellow trustees for the trust to become charitable. ( as  shown by the documents on this file )
    1. Because the  trust is unincorporated and  only has a legal  identity through the  trustees comprising  it  there should have been consent from each  trustee  agreeing that the  application for charitable status   was being made.
    2. Mr Wells completed  the application forms for each person, in this case I know them to be real people  but  the reality is that  they could in other circumstances be entirely fictitious and there is  therefore no provision to  confirm that they actually knew that the  organisation had become charitable  or had consented to it.
      1. If  the trustees were to have more common names  like Mary Jones, David Green  you  would not have any basis  for identifying the trustees.
      2. Even in the trust deed there is more information available about the witness than the actual trustee.
      3. A signature and a written name does give enough accountability as people who cannot be found  have no accountability, there is  even less accountability for fictional characters.

Solution  8.

  1. Trustees have accountability to a charity, and the public  therefore there has to be direct consent from each person to show that they consent to being part of a charity and know their responsibilities.
  2. Full details  of trustees should be available as provided  by the personal property register, If one register can  provide  full names addresses and date of  birth  why is another  register limited.

In summing up

I have written to the charities commission with my concerns  and wish to comment on their reply

  1. 1. Each of the applications for registration provided to the Commission is scrutinised individually to ensure that the applicant meets the criteria set out in the Charities Act,

While the commission scrutinizes each application  there is no accountability to the truth and  any astute person can  fill in the application so that it meets the  criteria on paper. More needs to be  done  to ensure that the  charity is not a fiction. I would like to suggest an investigations branch for the  charities commission which has its own ability to prosecute and  enforce  criminal penalties for misuse of public  money.

  1. 2. A registered charity must also notify the Commission if it changes its name, address for service, balance date, rules, purposes, or officers (including new appointments).  This information is published on each charity’s page on the Register.

As in the case of the Waikato SPCA  there was an excessive number of people shown on the register , there needs to be a penalty element for not informing and keeping the register up to date, people have to be accountable to transparency.

Whist I agree that  third party collectors  need to be accountable to the fair trading act, so should charities themselves and to  allow the use of  trading names  as if they were  legal names is deceptive .

Summary of Suggestions

  1. The definition of entity needs to be amended    to being the name of the legal person , body corporate
  2. The  legal name for unincorporated  bodies need to be used   being   the name which would appear on  court documents or a loan  application.
  3. A statutory declaration needs  to be completed by each trustee or officer  giving   their name address   date of birth    and stating that they are   an office holder , giving the dates  from which they were elected etc  and stating that they have read and accepted the terms and conditions of becoming an officer of a  charitable trust.
  4. The bank statements   showing the legal name of the  charity need to be provided,  financials  are easily  doctored  and these too need to be filed subject to a statutory declaration  .
  5. When charitable funds are transferred  there needs to be a  limit  anything  outside that limit  should be questioned and be subject to gift duty.
    1. Spot checks and high penalties  should be a reality  to ensure that those running trusts do not abuse the process.
    2. Unincorporated trusts  should be  identifiable as such
    3. There needs to be a minimum number of  trustees or officers for a charity.
    4. Accounts  need to  have spot check by  forensic accountants, the  sum allowed for  payment of wages  should be a set  proportion of the  funds  raised .

I would like to  make submissions in person .

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator.

11/03/2010

Submission to the select committee

Animal Welfare Act. A private prosecution service with a licence to print money. Increase accountability of approved organisation  before  increasing penalties to  the public

Submitted By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator

Four years ago I asked questions about an approved organisation Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)as a result  I have  been hauled through the court  it has  potential of costing over $250,000  and it has  destroyed my family. In the words of transparency international.. corruption ruins lives  fight back .. I have   but corruption in animal welfare   funded by the  public purse  and private prosecutions  has  been a task too big for me.

Background

In 1999 Mr Neil Edward Wells  Barrister who wrote the first bill for animal welfare Act 1999 and had seen its passage into law   through his employment as independent advisor to the select committee , applied to the minister of Agriculture for   the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ ) to become  an approved organisation by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare act 1999.

Mr Wells applied on behalf of  AWINZ ( the  trading name for a group of people ) but there was never  any evidence  that these people  were  aware of their responsibilities, the legislative implications  ,that they consented to this application for approved status or that they even existed as  an “ organisation “

When I questioned the existence of AWINZ  ( following  the  euthanasia of a cat named Chloe and an inspector voicing her concerns ) I was promptly sued to keep me quite, Funds were raised from the  public  purse  in the guise of a charity  and used to pursue me through the court  ( this  is proved by invoices I have and  the financial statements  on the charities web site for a trust which  did not exist when litigation commenced )

I am a former Police Sergeant and am now a Private Investigator and member of the  Certified Fraud examiners association.

In obtaining evidence for my defence   I have obtained documentation which proves the following documents are attached as they appear below.

  1. Mr Wells a former  RNZSPCA director  had a business concept to utilise territorial dog and stock control  officers as SPCA type inspectors ( animal welfare inspectors ) he set up a pilot programme which he initiated in Waitakere city (letter dated 26 August 1994)
  2. In  1996 he wrote to the  then manager  Waitakere City Animal Welfare  division Tom Didovich  and expressed intent to take the concept nation wide 1/1/1996
  3. Mr Wells volunteered to write the animal welfare bill  and in so doing  wrote  in sections to  facilitate his business venture  and to that end   there was a clause pertaining  to territorial bodies   No 1 bill
  4. Whilst Mr Wells was  employed as an independent advisor to the select committee he continued to communicate with Tom Didovich  and  passed on information which was  not in the public realm, to over come the hurdles   which would prevent  territorial bodies  form having an animal welfare role  17 September 1998.
  5. 5. The intention of the act was to exclude territorial bodies so Mr Wells came up with a concept of a trust. A good independent summary of what AWINZ and its back ground is  in this letter by MAF 24/12/1999 “To overcome legal and policy issues that  preclude local authorities having an animal Welfare role , Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ, the trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare”
  1. In  August 1999 Mr Wells   advises the   director general MAF of  his intention to apply for approved status for the trust which he states has been formed  by way of trust deed 22.8.199
  2. On 22 November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for AWINZ to become an approved organisation again stating that  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”
    1. The significance of    registration under the charitable trust act is that it makes the  trust  which other wise   no more than a group of people with a common purpose  using a trading name , into a  body corporate( legal person )   which has perpetual existence , can sue and be sued .
    2. It should be noted that it takes just a few days to register a trust under the charitable trust act if the application complies with the act.
    3. In the period between August and November the trust   would have been incorporated if the statement in the August notice of intent was true.
    4. Mr Wells on this application makes out that AWINZ is a legal person in its own right (not even a trust deed exists at this time )
    5. In 2006 neither MAF nor Waitakere city council  had  a copy of the trust deed  for AWINZ  and  there as no record of it being incorporated  under any act.
      1. With others I formed a trust  called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  and we succeeded in  registering it under  the  charitable trust act  there by proving that no other legal  person by that name existed.
      2. When Mr Wells   became aware of our existence a deed was produced it was dated 1/3/2000 which proves that the statements in August and November to the minister were untrue. ( this was the first time MAF had had a copy of  a deed )
      3. We were threatened with legal action   and were told to give up the name and our web site which expressed our concerns about the   unidentifiable   law enforcement agency which had   wide sweeping powers.
      4. We asked if we could meet trust to trust to resolve the issue  but Mr Wells and   two other persons  who were  not the same group as those named on the deed  ,sued me in an  attempt  to silence me and  make us give up the name so that   they could  commence a  cover up .
        1. These three people later combined with Mr Didovich the former manager animal welfare Waitakere City ( who had  witnessed and collected the signatures of the   trustees  for he alleged 2000 deed )  to sign a trust deed and  form a charity in 2007.
        2. Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available form public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.
        3. I have been held in the courts for  nearly  four years now  the court has been misled and manipulated and I was denied a defence, no evidence has ever  been presented by Mr Wells  who has used  his  victory in court to  portray me as a person who is obsessed in pursuit of him . My pursuit has been for justice and the fact that I questioned what I saw as a corrupt practice and I have been persecuted for it.
        4. I have  evidence which shows  that
          1. Mr Wells is manager animal welfare Waitakere city  Council
          2. As manager Animal welfare he is  both parties in an MOU with AWINZ .
          3. The dog control officers “volunteer” their services to AWINZ while on full council pay. ( 5 Jan 2000 ) Most are not aware of the significance of their double role.
          4. AWINZ operates  from  council premises  but council deny this   email 8 May 2000 wells claims  he leases the premises for $1 per year but the council letter 11 march 2009  par 13.AWINZ  claims they do not operate from the premises.
          5. AWINZ uses the same logo as displayed on the  council building for   public fundraising sent out with  dog registration except that it has the words institute of New Zealand written below the  animal welfare  sign.
          6. AWINZ undertakes animal welfare prosecutions , I have   documents for two such  matters  the latest one  came to my notice in the past few weeks
          7. Prosecution 1. As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This lady inherited her mothers elderly dog it had arthritis. Her mother had passed away tragically one month before Waitakere dog control officers picked it up from her back yard.

Without being contacted the dog was Euthanized because it was deemed to be suffering  due  to  arthritis

She phoned dog control in an attempt  to recover the dogs body so that she could  have   it cremated  and  interred with her  mother.

  1. The matter was reported to AWINZ Mr Wells who approved the matter for prosecution.
  2. Mr Wells passed it  on to AWINZ barrister   Mr Wells
  3. Mr Wells Barrister sought diversion   for a donation to a trust which neither existed nor was charitable   and money  was paid into a bank account in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, which was  under the sole control of Mr Wells.
  4. Prosecution 2    As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This young man     had a dog with Mange. He went to the vet and got medication. The dog had a relapse and he went back to the vet who would not give more medication due to the boy’s lack of funds.

When he arrived back  home the dog jumped  out of the car  and  sought refuge under a nearby house.  When the boy could not get the dog out Waitakere dog control were called .

  1. The matter was reported to the manager Animal welfare Waitakere city Mr Wells
  2. Mr Wells  council officer  passed it To Mr Wells CEO of the  now  newly  covered up AWINZ trust ( But not  being the  same  persons who were supposedly  the approved organisation )
  3. Mr Wells of AWINZ passes it to their barrister Mr Wells who prosecuted the matter before the court and   had $398 reparation ordered.

Issues relating to both these prosecutions

  1. I have  good reason to believe that these are not the only prosecutions  however these are two  which I can conclusively prove , it should be noted that in both cases   the time of the offending is over allegedly a two month period and  prosecutions were commenced 6 months after the  last date of the alleged offence.
  2. The offences under the animal welfare act are strict liability  ,  so even if the persons had a good defence   it is hard to produce evidence  after 8 months after the first date I, it is ironic  that   in  two prosecutions so far apart the  pattern is so similar.
  3. There is  no knowing  how many prosecutions actually occur and how many “ diversions” for donation are given , nor is there any ability to see where the money goes.

Strict liability

  1. Animal welfare legislation is already harsher than anything pertaining to  abuse of children. I use the following example.
    1. A mother who happens to be a  GP  went skiing  her son complained of a swore leg after a fall.  Because he could weigh bear on the leg he could ski on it.  The following week it was discovered that the leg was in fact fractured.
    2. Had this been a dog she would have been banned from owning another animal   and she would not have had any defence open to her. The offence being complete when she failed to recognise that the leg was broken.
    3. Animals   should not have greater protection than children and  there should  be an “intent “ ingredient brought back in the legislation .
    4. Most pet owners who see their animal   hobble in won’t dash off to the vet,  just as parents  whose child complains of an ache  won’t  necessarily dash off to a doctor.
      1. The injury    is often assessed over time and frequently by the next day the animal is fine.
      2. The risk for pet owners is that if an over zealous animal welfare inspector seeking to line the   pockets of their “ charity “ intervenes the owner  is  charged   on the  sole basis that the inspector   thinks the animal is  suffering.
      3. There is also the matter of costs of vet bills. The charity which we had set up, which Mr Wells effectively destroyed through litigation, was set up with intent of helping owners of injured animals  with  financial assistance  which could be repaid  later.
        1. People bond with their animals and just as you would not put your child down if their leg needed amputation or pinning it is often a decision which cash strapped owners face.
        2. There was a time  when  the RNZSPCA used to help with such matters  now     with  the  “ charities”  being run as businesses  it appears to  be  about collecting money and  not about providing service  .
        3. Mr Wells has  probably the best set up of all   unlike SPCA’s  he  has no overheads  , he uses the councils premises, staff ,vehicles ,resources  and even uses  council phones and email addresses and logos.  He Sends out donation form with dog registration and possibly   also prosecutes in council time.  The only administrative task left over is counting money and depositing it in the bank account he in 2006 had sole control of .
        4. Several RNZSPCA   volunteer inspectors have confided in me that they are concerned with the wealth that is being acquired  within the RNZSPCA and the corporate wages being paid at the top.
          1. I believe that  animal welfare has become not a matter of service  but a money making venture and I support this  with a poster which Mr Wells had on file in Waitakere city  .There is profit in animals .
          2. I am a former Police prosecutor and am aware of the economics of prosecutions.  A lawyer charges $350 per hour   so any penalty or diversion of less than three hours lawyers wages is more economical to pay than  to  defend . In our cash strapped society it is money which dictates the  plea.
            1. Middle income New Zealand have no right to justice to defend a simple animal welfare matter would cost several thousand dollars.
            2. Added to this is the fact that there is no   defence is possible any way because it is the opinion of the welfare officer if the animal was suffering.
            3. Suggested   action for the  animal welfare amendment bill
              1. More transparency and accountability of approved organisations -those who do the enforcing should be squeaky clean.
                1. i.       This is the only legislation which is enforced by private citizens.
                2. ii.      There needs to be independent assessment of every animal welfare charge   before it is sent to the court no one   should be able to wear all the hats as in the case of Mr Wells.
                3. iii.      Authority to prosecute should be obtained through MAF .
                4. iv.      Auditing and spot checks by independent assessors to evaluate those prosecutions are not being taken unjustly. Heavy penalties for abuse of this process.
                5. v.      Those who enforce need to be held accountable to truth honesty and transparency.
  2. Giving Private trusts the ability to enforce the law is like giving an open cheque book especially when   they cannot be held accountable as in the case of AWINZ where the “approved organisation” effectively does not exist .
  3. Penalties for making   false claims as to approve status.
    1. i.            The penalty for making a false statement for the purpose of establishing an approved organisation  should be a prison  term  .
    2. ii.             No organisation should be approved unless a  statutory declaration  has been  filed,( Which would  bring its own legal protection ).And some one has  checked to see if it exists beyond paper.
  1. Animal welfare is the only law enforcement   sector where  civilians , non  government employees  are entrusted with   wide powers
    1. It is effectively a private prosecution and law enforcement service but there is  no register of  animal welfare inspectors and who they are responsible to ,
    2. Private investigators and  security Guards do not have powers more than an any civilian  , in fact Private investigators have less rights than the average person  ( we cant take photos or record  voice recordings )   yet we have
      1. to advertise our intention to be Licenced each year,
      2. we have to be re apply and pay a licence fee
      3. we have to be approved by  the registrar
      4. we have to have a security clearance
      5. we are subject to a  hearing if  some one  objects to our renewal
      6. we appear on a publicly available database so our licence can be verified at any time.
  2. But   animal welfare inspectors  who have wide powers are not subjected to these controls  and have no real process of individual accountability other than to the approved organisation which recommended them  and the average person would  no know   where to begin to look.
  3. There is no independent accountability of  animal welfare officers , no process for  disciplinary hearings  and it would appear that as law enforcers  and being  civilians  they  have all power and very little  accountability.
  4. As has been shown in the case of AWINZ , there is no transparency  or accountability to the enforcers and consideration should be given to  a complete review of the  way animal welfare legislation is enforced.
  5. I have further concerns with respect to the confusion of the SPCA and he RNZSPCA , those in the RNZSPCA claim that the SPCA is different  and the SPCA claim that they are not the RNZSPCA, so where do they get their   legal powers from, only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation . Every one of them is chasing the  dollar  if they really cared about  animal they would  provide  treatment  and assistance to those who love their pets but are financially embarrassed.
  6. Because these organisations are private enforcement authorities, all with  people at the top  wanting corporate wages ,   it has  become  a nest feathering exercise  for all but the  volunteers , those  who need the money do without  ,  which in this day and age makes them a dying breed,
  7. The  current system  is easily be abused  and there is no accountability for the  fines  which  can  very easily disappear into personal accounts and  to that end  all animal welfare fines  should  be paid into a  public purse   so that those who care about animals    act  for their concern   for the animal  and  not act out of pecuniary advantage.

I am happy to make personal submissions on this matter and assist you  with  information for any investigations  you  deem necessary.

I am a verification specialist  and will be happy to assist in  setting up  a system which will make the enforcement of animal welfare   more transparent accountable and just.

Thank you

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator

08/03/2010

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

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 8:11 am

Official information request   Simon Power

(the hyperlinks will open the  referenced documents)

Sir

Your ministry of  justice web site http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/crime/bribery-and-corruption/legal-framework/the-united-nations-convention-against-corruption relates to the United Nations Convention against Corruption  it   states in its opening line

“In December 2003, New Zealand signed the UN Convention Against Corruption, which requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.”

The link provided  opens on the united nations page which contains a copy of the Text, I downloaded the English version .

I note that the  issues raised in the convention are right on track to  give me the support that I  would have expected   when I  boldly stuck my neck out in 2006 and  asked  questions about   the existence of a law enforcement  agency  which  had no apparent  visibility ,accountability  and operated in circumstances of  what I saw was  conflict of interest in a public private relationship. I have since proved that that    “organisation”   did not exist  and since then  a lot of covering up has occurred to   retrospectively cover up.

In brief the “organisation ‘is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) , it is an ‘approved ‘ organisation   by virtue of section 121 of the anima welfare Ac 1999 .

AWINZ grew out of a concept which Neil Wells  an animal welfare Barrister and  former RNZSPCA  director saw   animal welfare as something  which could be privatised and drew up a  concept in   1996  for  the   territorial animal welfare authority .

This concept intended that for remuneration he would train, supervise control and audit the   council dog and stock control officers to become   animal welfare inspectors nation wide.

To facilitate his venture he wrote the first bill for what was to become  the  animal welfare act 1999 but through the select committee stages   where he was employed as  an “ independent “  advisor , the involvement of territorial authorities   was ruled out .

“ to over come  the legal and policy issues that precluded  local authorities  having an animal welfare  enforcement role Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ. The trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare  ”Paragraph 9 letter from MAF. obtained by official information act

This letter also descries the legal implication and public role of the   “ trust”  and   MAF object to it being  given the approved status.

A year later   AWINZ was given approved status under the act , despite the fact that no trust deed or proof of  existence  had been provided.

MAF and Treasury  had both objected to the application  , but Mr Wells  who had a longstanding political  association the labour party  consulted his  colleague  Mayor bob Harvey( page 8) who at the time was the president of the labour party. Following that the application which the minister had the  ability to approve or decline was placed before the   labour Government cabinet   and approved.

I have proved  that

Mr Wells  manager of Waitakere  city council animal welfare  division  ( where Bob Harvey is Mayor )  contracts to the CEO of AWINZ  – Mr Wells.

AWINZ uses the councils paid staff voluntarily for animal welfare work   and although  the council lawyer claims  that AWINZ does not operate from its facilities Mr Wells claims that it leased for $1 per year.

Awinz also  solicits public donations using a new logo which is  very similar to that of the Waitakere City Animal welfare  division (  refer back to the lawyers letter   AWINZ does not operate from those facilities)

In a recent case a Council   dog control officers ,  picks up  a  dog at  what  I believe to have been at the request of the owner, the dog as sick and had sought refuge under a nearby house  and would not come out.

The  dog control officer  reported the  illness to the  council dog control manager Mr Wells who referred the  animal welfare issues on to  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells

The CEO of AWINZ approves the matter for prosecution and passes    the matter on to the AWINZ barrister again   Mr Wells .

The matter is then dealt with by diversion  with a donation to  AWINZ or by prosecution and seeking reparation payable to AWINZ. In this  case reparation was awarded .

I have details of another prosecution and it appears from the Waitakere city web site that there are other prosecutions .

In 2006  Mr Wells   was found to be  the only person  in control of a bank account  in the name of a legal person  by the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  , into which the  donations and prosecutions  funds were deposited. ( yes I do have proof )

Neil Wells and his non existent trust took me too court ,  three people  pretending to   be AWINZ but not having any documentation to prove that  they were , sued me .

For seeking transparency and accountability of this non existent law enforcement  authority  ,  I have been hauled through the courts and   sued , It has  cost me  $100,000  and   another $150,000  is being demanded by  Mr Wells and his lawyers  for costs and an award which was made  for  defamation  where I was  prohibited by the court from defending the matter.

Every time  I told the court that this action was to conceal corruption the court would come down harder on me . No evidence was ever called for and I  was found    guilty arbitrarily and  costs were awarded  against me on the uncorroborated evidence of the man who stood to gain.

The judge even  admitted   doing a Google search  during his deliberations.

The stress has killed my marriage and torn my family apart .I am a former police sergeant and currently a Private Investigator   .

I have  done nothing but speak the truth and  the truth of  the  alleged defamatory  statements  have been proved   .  Truth is  never defamatory .

I have covered various aspects of my case including the use of charitable funds to pursue me through court on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com where this open letter will also be posted

In reading the  document   UN Convention Against Corruption  I note that  in the scenario above   Mr Wells  is a public official   and that these events  would   be exactly what  the convention  intended   to prevent and provide  assistance to people like my self  for  questioning corruption .

Being

Article 33. Protection of reporting persons

Each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.

Article 34. Consequences of acts of corruption With due regard to the rights of third parties acquired in good faith, each State Party shall take measures, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to address consequences of corruption. In this context, States Parties may consider corruption a relevant factor in legal proceedings to annul or rescind a contract, withdraw a concession or other similar instrument or take any other remedial action.

Article 35. Compensation for damage

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to obtain compensation.

Official information act request

  1. Why  is New Zealand  one of  17  of the  163 signatories  who have not ratified the  convention .
  2. What is the government doing to ratify the agreement it signed in 2003 .
  3. If the  Government  was  serious about signing the  convention  would  assisting persons such as myself not take the  country one step  closer to ratification?
  4. Why do people such as my self not   get any protection  , assistance or support from the government or courts  fro  questioning corruption ?
  5. What measures have been incorporated into our legal system, or do you intend to incorporate which will provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.
  6. Why  is new Zealand the only country ,in the  top 10 least corrupt  countries  to have signed  the  convention , which has not ratified the   convention.
  7. How many more cases like me are out there, does this government    seek to silence us or will people be encouraged to speak out  on matters of public concerns.  If we speak out what protection can you offer us?
  8. I can understand that the last  government    had cause to  conceal corruption  being as that they were in my opinion  the most corrupt government we have ever had   and I can see that they  ran secret trusts and  societies and therefore would   have wanted me to   be silenced , is this also the view of the national  government  and what is being done to ensure that  those  who question corruption are not  going to have their lives destroyed.
  9. Why do fraudsters have more rights to  a fair trial than some one who rightfully questions corruption.
  10. I note  that fraudster Warren Pickett was sentenced to 5 years for  20 million  fraud , he will probably get half remission  which means  he will  do 2 ½  years   which means  he   will be inside for  8 million per year .. I wish I was as lucky  I questioned corruption and it has cost  me 4 years  my family and probably in excess of $250,000 , why don’t I get the protection that the  NZ bill of right  should afford me ? Why  can criminals have their matters proved and I am deal t to arbitrarily? Doesn’t that mean that   criminals   get more protection  from the law than those who question corruption ?   What are you  going to do about it?

I hope that  the government can use my particular case as evidence of  how corruption  occurred in New Zealand  and that even though  the  judiciary  were made aware of   the fact that it was corruption I was exposing  that  they were apparently  powerless with our current legislation to  assist in turning this about.

I am now  appealing to the court of appeal , I believe that all it will do is   make more lawyers  rich  but I am going to  fight this to the  bitter end  even if I have to go to the UN myself and tell  them just how New Zealand attains its least corrupt status  because  we firmly stomp on those who  say “ excuse me  sir  but isn’t that  corrupt!”

I like others who are sick of the fraud and corruption which is  so prevalent  despite  the  least corrupt perception, are looking forward to a better   less corrupt New Zealand .. Being top of the least corrupt perception index is great but we must do it with honest means and the perception must not be a total fiction.

I know that many New Zealanders share my view I hope that you do too.

I look forward to your reply and some assistance from the government if  it really is serious about  curbing corruption .

I have copied this to the executive of  Transparency International.  I am some what  disillusioned with the New Zealand branch  who   cover up corruption and  turn those ( like myself )   who can point out   the holes in the system , away – transparency New Zealand is  keeping the illusion  – the perception  alive..  we need to get real

Regards

Grace Haden

06/03/2010

The problem with secret trusts. The irony: Daniel Grove seeks answers of one while concealing another for his mother .

Filed under: corruption,Lord of the rings,Nuala Grove,Sarah Gilltrap,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 12:12 am

AWINZ was a secret trust in 2006   no one could see who the trustees were and  who operated the trust despite the fact that it played a public role and had public accountability .

In the past week this same issue has been highlighted with   Blue  chip    see herald item in that item  they quote  this conversation  between Bryers and Daniel Grove

Excerpt from Bryers’ interview, May 2008

Grove: “There is a reference in the accounts to a sum being owed by somebody called the Sebastian Trust. Do you know who that is?”

Bryers: “Yes I do.”

Grove: “What is the Sebastian Trust?”

Bryers: “Sebastian Trust is a trust relating to our family interests.”

Grove: “To your family interests?”

Bryers: “Yes.”

Grove: “Who are the trustees of the Sebastian Trust?”

Bryers: “Can’t recall offhand.”

Grove: “Are you a beneficiary of the trust?”

Bryers: “I can’t recall that either.”

Grove: “If we want to write to the Sebastian Trust, who do we write to?”

Bryers: “Well, I am happy to act as an authorised agent to receive information and receive any questions.

What is ironical  is that  Daniel Groves mother  Nuala Grove   was a “trustee” of  a trust which  equally could not be found    and this  Trust   using the trading name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand   was involved

  • in law enforcement,
  • Prosecuted people and    deposited the funds into   a bank account    which was in the name  of the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, when no such  entity existed ,
  • This same trust obtained and solicited donations  from other  trusts  and obtained in excess of $100,000 that we know of .
  • gave a false end title to the lord of the  rings,

Mrs Grove could   have  spoke up    with her concerns  if the activities of this trust were not comfortable to her, But she remained silent  while I was taken to  court  and   sued.

Mrs Grove told me that  she would only say that the signature on the trust deed was hers , she would  not say if it was put there in 2000  or  at some other time.

In the absence of any other proof  we can therefore only assume that  she signed it on the date stated   and we than  have to wonder why  she did not  attend meetings   and was not  actively  involved with the trust  which she supported by  lending her name and signature to  , a trust which  had significant  public responsibilities as described in this letter from MAF.

“The provision is  significant as, apart from MAF inspectors and police officers  only inspectors  appointed on the recommendation of approved organisations can exercise enforcement   powers under the Act. Some of those powers are significant as they include the ability to inspect premises without a search warrant and to execute search warrants without  the police being present. At  this. stage only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation (through a transitional provision In the Act).”

This  same document  also describes   the functions  of AWINZ and how it came to be , it is even more significant  that   this trust was set up to  “ over come  the legal and policy issues that precluded  local authorities  having an animal welfare  enforcement role “( paragraph 9)

At the time  this letter was written   concerns were raise with regards  to accountability ( paragraph 10) .

Paragraph 12 makes the public implications clear   …  “A decisions to approve an organisation under the Act has significant public policy implications and. for this reason. It must be very clear whether the organisation has met the criteria. ”   How can something secret and invisible possibly have complied with accountability provisions?

Questions which need answers

  1. Why did Waitakere city pay to have the trust set up and why do they deny that operates seamlessly from their own facility?
  2. why did the labour party Cabinet  approve the application of a trust which    was invisible and  not incorporated  as it claimed to be
  3. Why were the trustees not actively  involved in the running of the trust
  4. Why are the trustees named on the  deed remaining  silent?  And assisting in what I believe to be a cover up
  5. Why  did Mrs Grove   sign the trust deed and say it is her signature  if she is not  a trustee
  6. Why as  trustee was  she not  carrying out her public duty as   to  the responsibility she took on as  being a trustee.
  7. Why did the minister of Agriculture  ( Anderton ) not see the   invisibility and lack of accountability a of this trust  as an issue of public concern when I raised it with him.
  8. How can Daniel Grove ask questions of Mr Bryers  invisible trust when  he appears to me  to be  assisting  in the  cover up of his mothers Invisible trust  ?

When a trust cannot be found   and the trustees cannot be identified  where is the accountability???

Why has it cost me so much  for asking the  questions   hey Isn’t this corrupt ????

In the end Bryers and Grove have something in common they  both   are keepers of secrets  behind  secret trusts .

The following is the correspondence  which  Daniel and I have exchanged

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 8:55 a.m.
To: Daniel Grove; ‘Denis Sheard’; ‘Mayor Bob Harvey’; ‘Councillor Hulse’; david.bayvel@maf.govt.nz; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; bellis@ellislaw.co.nz; admin@gct.co.nz; mtwellington@gct.co.nz; graemecoutts@xtra.co.nz; graemecoutts@ix.net.nz
Subject: a blog which exposes corruption

Good morning all   please read this    It is  important to  you  and your client

For the past three years I have been held in court with litigation   taken against me by AWINZ in an attempt to  silence me.

The price I have paid for the injustice I have suffered  and for the crime of speaking the truth and   questioning corruption has been simply too high.

I am now left with  only one option but to take  this to the court of public opinion   in the form of a blog  which   each day exposes the players and their part

This afternoon  I will be adding another chapter.  Since this chapter  mentions you  or  in the case of lawyers    your clients I am advising you  of this fact before I post – the draft is attached

The link to the site is

http://aniticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

From: Daniel Grove [mailto:DanielGrove@45chancery.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 2:02 p.m.
To: Grace Haden
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

I refer to the email below.  I write on behalf of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.

Your article is defamatory and breaches the Privacy Act.  Your reference to Mrs Grove’s and Mrs Giltrap’s contact details and addresses is both surprising and concerning.  I assume that the reason you have included these private details is to assist third parties to locate my clients.  Your publication or their contact details appears, on its face, to be sinister.

Mr clients have no idea about your dispute with Mr Wells and do not want to be part of it.

I write to ask you to delete forthwith all references to my clients on the website.  If you are not prepared to do so voluntarily my clients will have to consider their positions.

Yours faithfully

Daniel Grove

========================================

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 3:31 p.m.
To: Daniel Grove
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

Thank you very much for your response

I believe that it is  important to  identify those  involved  with AWINZ . The  details I provided on the blog were obtained  from public sources and  there fore are not in breach of privacy .

People need to be accountable to the truth .  If they do not wish to be found  they should stay out of the phone book  and  off other public records.

Your clients are aware of the circumstances      and   chose to stand by while  I was under attack from those  who  sued me in the name of AWINZ, the trust  which  they are shown to be trustees of(  and  there is  no record of them having resigned from .)

If you could please supply me   with evidence that they were not members of AWINZ at that time and had resigned   and

If you  could please point out   that which you consider to be defamatory   I will happily amend  the blog

For the record  I   had spoken to your mother about her signature on the trust deed , I asked your mother a simple question as to when she had signed the trust deed   she told me  that all she could say was that it was her signature.

I was wanting to find out if the deed  was signed in 2000 or some  later time and retrospectively dated.

Her truth  will make a lot of difference to many people , what has she  got to hide?

I will be posting these  emails on the blog .

Regards

Grace Haden

From: Daniel Grove [mailto:DanielGrove@45chancery.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 3:38 p.m.
To: Grace Haden
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

Neither my mother nor Sarah Giltrap have anything to do with your dispute with Mr Wells. They do not know what it is about and do not want anything to do with it.

I fail to see why you are involving them in this matter.  They have no interest in getting involved in litigation, however, if defamatory comments are published by you, an appropriate application will be made to the Court.

========================================

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

Daniel Grove   Misses the point, when people sign a trust deed and become trustees  they take on responsibilities  in this case extensive legislative ones.

If they were aware of their responsibilities then they should have acted  responsibly, If they were unaware of the  wide public  implications and were duped then they should speak up .

Both Women Knew  what was  going on, I made certain that they   knew , they   chose  to use  the option of  distancing themselves  from anything smelly, this was never about Neil wells  this was about accountability of AWINZ    soemthing  which they had put their names to  and the only visible person being  Neil Wells

Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap  are both mothers  , presumably they   are humanitarian people  becuase they  joined a ” trust ” which   cared for  animals , but   do they care about other peoples families.   Is it  just part of the elite stiff upper lip   and pretences syndrome?

Well ladies  you got yourselves into something smelly when  you become trustees and allowed people to use your name  to become a public law enforcement  authority, if you did not consent to it  you shoudl have used the  influence of your laweyrs to  have distanced yourselves from it.

There is of course the   possibility that they did not sign the document  in which case  it should  be  fornesically examined.. But Mrs Grove  has already told me  the signature is hers.

If they did sign them then  they could explain

  1. why there are now two deeds.
  2. why they sign a trust deed  for  an organisation and   then are not actively  involved.
  3. If they did sign in 2000  when  did they resign
  4. what  did they think   trustees of an approved Organisation did?
  5. why they pretend to  be ignorant  of the fact that I was sued in the name of AWINZ and that Brookfield  lawyers  were  invoicing AWINZ for suing me  before   any other trust deed was signed.
  6. Are Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap were real  humanitarians
  7. would a real humanitarian  the   walk away  and leave some one to be beaten  up  when they  know they can help? ..

Blessed are those who hide  behind lawyers   for they are the ones with something to hide.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.