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
- Why did Waitakere city pay to have the trust set up and why do they deny that operates seamlessly from their own facility?
- why did the labour party Cabinet approve the application of a trust which was invisible and not incorporated as it claimed to be
- Why were the trustees not actively involved in the running of the trust
- Why are the trustees named on the deed remaining silent? And assisting in what I believe to be a cover up
- Why did Mrs Grove sign the trust deed and say it is her signature if she is not a trustee
- Why as trustee was she not carrying out her public duty as to the responsibility she took on as being a trustee.
- 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.
- 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
- why there are now two deeds.
- why they sign a trust deed for an organisation and then are not actively involved.
- If they did sign in 2000 when did they resign
- what did they think trustees of an approved Organisation did?
- 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.
- Are Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap were real humanitarians
- 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.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 