Anticorruptionnz's Blog

31/07/2010

Did the RSPCA drive a man to suicide?

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:01 pm

An item in the Telegraph today entitled Did the RSPCA drive a man to suicide? Is worthy of taking note of…..

Several times in recent years I have reported on the change which has come over one of Britain’s richest charities, the RSPCA. Its officials too often seem bent on harrying genuine animal lovers, luridly misrepresenting alleged cases of cruelty in order to win the publicity which will keep funds rolling in, to the tune of some £115 million a year. MORE..

This comes on top of the call this week in  Australia to have their  powers limited

This is why we need to be concerned with the lack of transparency  of the SPCA/RNZSPCA / Royal New Zealand SPCA.

I remember returning home to NZ many years ago and being thankful that unlike  the UK and many other countries , we had no  beggars, our central cities  had parking  without  fear of  being fined if you were a few minutes  late. But  eventually all that changed and I have learnt over the years that what happens overseas will happen here.. monkey see monkey do.

I can assure you the same  is occurring in New Zealand I have become aware of  people who have lost  their animals  ..which have a good resale value  and  these have been on sold  all to line the coffers of  the organisation which seized the animals all with the pretence  and without proof that the animals were neglected or ill treated.  These raid  come with  publicity which   draw attention to the need for  donations, often the SPCA has been aware of  the situation but has delayed action  so that  the animals are seen in a worse condition, when early intervention could have  mitigated suffering.

Others are raided and given trial by press before they can even go to court , under threat of  massive  bills for  keeping the animals  , owners are asked to sign them over the the SPCA   after whcih they  are sold.

And while the RNZSPCA claims to be one organisation  they   are never one organisation when it comes  to financial  resources and  plead poverty .

I have it on good authority that when money is left to the SPCA or RNZSPCA in a  bequest  the various organisations  fight over it.

There are in reality Many SPCA and RNZSPCA trusts and societies   and  I caution any one leaving or donating money to them   that  by giving it to the SPCA may not   ensure  that it goes where you want it to go.

On the poverty  front  visit the  Charities  register have a look at the various SPCA  RNZSPCA societies   and just see how much   they are worth.. those with   the most, and those with ceo’s and administrative staff  plead poverty more than those with just a handful of volunteers and a un paid inspector who struggle on struggle on in the true spirit of what we perceive the SPCA / RNZSPCA to be.

When those who pretend to care about animals deal with people in such a way that they   bully and intimidate then we have to step back and question   just what the motives are.

Internationally the Animal Welfare $$$$$$ enterprise is riddled with corruption ; this greed puts people’s lives at stake …as much as I love animals I believe that people should be treated fairly and with integrity because if you cannot  deal with your  fellow-man  in this manner then  your dealings with animals  must also be questioned.

WARNING .. IF your animals are seized by  The RNZSPCA  never  sign  an agreement to sign them over to them.  They have no legal right to get you to do this.  They have a court process which they need to go through.

Unfortunately the sympathy of the courts is so much   on the side of the RNZSPCA that they can tell the court almost anything and be believed.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me I can put you in touch with others who can help you prove similar fact evidence.

Whatever happens remember  you are not alone.

Advertisements

30/07/2010

Update on Waikato

Filed under: Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:48 am

The WAIKATO ANIMAL WELFARE FOUNDATION is now listed on  the  societies web site  having been  registered on the 28th April   its trust deed is  available through this link New Incorporation Other Entities

The trustees are  as shown with other  connections

Julian Mc Donald Elder

WEL POWER LIMITED (507170) – Director

WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (507164) – Director

(previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED 12 Apr 2001 )

WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (462173) – Director

previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)
)

WEL GENERATION LIMITED (462176) – Director

previously known as RUNYMEDE EIGHT LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)

SEAVIEW PROJECTS LIMITED (1001315) – Ceased Director

previously known as HUTT VALLEY CONSTRUCTORS LIMITED (22 Dec 1999)

THE ELDER GROUP LIMITED (1390219) – Director

CH2M HILL AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED (658878) – Ceased Director

NATIONAL BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED (304967) (Struck off) – Ceased Director

previously known as MANSELL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED (17 Mar 1994)

PEDERSEN READ LIMITED (141713) – Ceased Director

previously known as PEDERSEN & PARTNERS LIMITED (02 Feb 1999)

PEDERSEN READ (DUNEDIN) LIMITED (504220) – Ceased Director

previously known as THE POWER EXCHANGE LIMITED (05 Nov 1999)

WEL RESOURCE LIMITED (475551) – Director

previously known as RUNYMEDE TWELVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990

WEL ELECTRICITY LIMITED (462175) – Director

previously known as RUNYMEDE SEVEN LIMITED (15 Nov 1990

WEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (500473) – Director

previously known as WEL CADE LIMITED (25 Aug 1997)

At the end of this article I will show you some interesting   things with the names of these companies.. no wonder people get confused.

David Matthew Waine

New Zealand Institute of chartered accountants

David Waine(Trust SIG Convenor)

Lions Club, contact Hamilton CBD Lions President David Waine 07 829 7084.

Group Manager Project Management Office ministry of Health

Shelly Marie Slade Gully http://www.nwm.co.nz/shelleysladegully.aspx

Barrister & Solicitor since 17/02/2006 she is a trustee and also took  the statutory  declaration .. Is this not a conflict of interest?

She works for Norris Ward McKinnon

University of Waikato Legal Advisor,

Jan Thomson

Director and share holder  NRA LIMITED  with  husband Neil Andrew RICHARDSON

Trustee Waikato Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated

The Richardson Foundation a charitable trust  co trustee with Neil Andrew Richardson & Claire Thomson Richardson is that Husband  and daughter?

Alistair William Hart

Investment Manager at Hart Capital Partners

Director and shareholder HART CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED

A Masters graduate of Waikato Management School, Alistair Hart is a Hamilton-based portfolio manager. For more information, contact ahart@hartcapitalpartners.co.nz.

The trust was kicked off with $10  so you have to wonder how they can offer to buy property and as claimed in the new paper items  have bought property ,  before  the trust was even formed  .

the news items to date   are as follows.

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1003/S00362.htmCached

30 Mar 2010 The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has purchased a block of buildings and land on Wintec’s Avalon Dr Campus in Hamilton.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/…/New-home-will-be-animal-haven

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand HAMILTON — The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the
http://www.infonews.co.nz/default.cfm?t=174&l=4Cached

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand HAMILTON — The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the
http://www.infonews.co.nz/default.cfm?l=1&t=174Cached

Show more results from www.infonews.co.nz

23 May 2010 The two organisations have partnered with the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, a charitable trust, which has secured 10 acres of property
http://www.scopemagazine.co.nz/the-business-of-philanthropy/Cached

Animal Welfare Education Initiative A First for New Zealand. The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation announced today its intention to develop the country’s
labs.daylife.com/journalist/hmc_communicationsCached

The Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation has announced its intention to develop the country’s first major animal welfare education initiative.
http://www.eduvac.co.nz/news/news-category/todays…/general-news?…4Cached

in the mean time the  SPCA  has announced who their  committee  now is that the RNZSPCA or the SPCA trust ?

Your Executive Committee is:

Director of

MCCAW LEWIS CHAPMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED

MCCAW LEWIS CHAPMAN TRUSTEES (NO.1) LIMITED (1465410)

MCCAW LEWIS CHAPMAN TRUSTEES (NO. 2) LIMITED (1608397)

MCCAW LEWIS CHAPMAN TRUSTEES (NO.3) LIMITED (2059589)

MCCAW LEWIS CHAPMAN TRUSTEES (NO. 4) LIMITED (2288355)

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (CENTRAL NORTH ISLAND) LIMITED (659509) – Ceased Director

Trustee  of

St Peter’s School Trust Board

Habitat For Humanity (Central North Island) Limited

Director of

M G ROSS TRUSTEE LIMITED (1960348)

DBCA TRUSTEE LIMITED (1980180)

DB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LIMITED (1871785)

Director of

ARGYLE CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED (345301)

BLUE SHIELD LABORATORIES LIMITED (691018)

CHARTWELL VETERINARY HOSPITAL LIMITED (1612111)

LUCY DOG HOLDINGS LIMITED (1568836)

WELTEN WIGS LIMITED (201024)

TRITON TRACTORS LIMITED (1561709)

GREEN STAR HOLDINGS LIMITED (15 72865)

FRENCH HOLDINGS LIMITED (259654)

CARE VETS TRUST (NZ) LIMITED (985405)

HOUSTON GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED (1756350)

FARMACY NZ LIMITED (1947082)

ANIVEGE ENTERPRISES LIMITED (178166)

ANTRONE HOLDINGS LIMITED (453073)

ASTRAD HOLDINGS LIMITED (330787)

H.D.R.C. LIMITED (1967168)

CAREVETS JOHNSONVILLE LIMITED (2110552)

CAREVETS PORIRUA LIMITED (2108984)

HORSHAM DOWNS RETAIL CENTRE LIMITED (1570735)

KILMAUR TOWERS LIMITED (1874669)

POOMIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED (2272030)

CARE VETS (NZ) LIMITED (925222)

HACKETT LIMITED (893001)

KRH SCIENTIFIC LIMITED (1090476)

BLUE MOON HOLDINGS LIMITED (950343)

HAMILTON SOUTH VETERINARY CLINIC LIMITED (1187442)

STRATEGIA SOUTH LIMITED (1968724)

those listed on th charites web site are linked by their name  others do not appear on the charities register John Gilmour appears on the charities commission but  not on the  minutes.

the news item indicates that   the new chair .. who is standing for Mayor  is the wife of Steven Perdia who is
Director, Planning and Enterprise at WINTEC, member of the Waikato Aviation Cluster Advisory Board and the Regional Governance Group.

any one else getting dizzy?isnt that the place where the new building is going to go  and   doesn the article int he paper mention that there will be a vet school there .. what a coincidence that  one of the   committee has   such a great connection with the vet industry.

As a by the way

back to   Mr Elder   trustee of the  waikato animal welfare foundation   he   directs the Wel group of companies  with John Lewis SPENCER

as I have already  shown many have previous names but look at this  does this not make for confusion?  the company number is what actually  dictates the   entity  the names  can change  and they have .

WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED

  • now company number 507164 previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED (12 Apr 2001)   has been the name of two other companies
  • 403863 now WEL NETWORKS LIMITED previously  WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991)
  • company number 462173 now WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)  previously RUNYMEDE FIVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)

WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED

  • Now company number 462173 previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (15 Jul 1991)  previously RUNYMEDE FIVE LIMITED (15 Nov 1990)
  • company number 403863 now WEL NETWORKS LIMITED previously  WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991)

WEL NETWORKS LIMITED

  • Now company number 403863 previously known as WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED (12 Apr 2001) previously known as WAIKATO ELECTRICITY LIMITED (06 Jun 1991 )
  • company number 507164 WEL ENERGY GROUP LIMITED previously known as WEL NETWORKS LIMITED (12 Apr 2001)

28/07/2010

Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 9:24 pm

Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:18 a.m.
To: ‘Murray.Sherwin@maf.govt.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘enquiry@oag.govt.nz’
Subject: Lack of transparency RNZSPCA official information act request.

To the Minister of Agriculture the Auditor General   and MAF

The first part is  a request for investigation   by  the minister and the OAG  the latter part a OIA for MAF  they are here in conjunction as both   parts are relevant to all parties. I have hyperlinked   documentation  which I have received from MAF for your reference

I am seriously concerned  with the lack of accountability in the  process of  delegation of law enforcement    and believe this entire process needs to be reviewed for legal accountability  both by the minister and   the office of the auditor general .

I do not believe that any private company in New Zealand would contract out its services   in this manner as  there is  apparently little accountability and  transparency.

A search of international New will reveal issues elsewhere with the administration of the laws  by the SPCA  and in Australia there has been a call to have their powers limited

We are not  talking about contracting just anything we are contracting out  animal welfare services which enables law enforcement   under the act  which in turn will provide   revenue for the  enforcers through prosecution of the public .(  See section 171 of the act )

Therefore the more they prosecute the more revue they will derive from the legislation and so the  SPCA will not be about animal welfare at all but  will become an enforcement unit like the police and councils  except that this body is  private and is not subject to  matter such as the official information act.

What makes it of more concern is that most of the offences require  no intention  ( mens rae)   so the opinion of the  enforcer  is what drives the  prosecution of an animal owner whose only sin has been to have been remiss in the opinion of the enforcer.

With costs  for lawyers on an hourly basis  being  round the $300-500 mark   few will be able to defend  themselves  and  paying the fine and possibly  surrendering their   loved animal  becomes the most economic  measure.   An example of this is a pensioner in the UK who was prosecuted when   they probably needed help .

The RNZSPCA and the SPCA  hold on to their  bequests and  investment funds   and have been known to fight over who has the right to claim the money.  This makes it clear  it is NOT one organisation .  They have been given Money and Donations  to Help animals  .

It is a misconception that  The RNZSPCA is One organisation  each is a society or trust  and exists as an individual legal person.

I  have set out my concerns below  and the matters relating to the official information act request  is for  Mr Sherwin. The reason  I take so much interest in this  is because I once asked a totally innocent question  with regards to the existence of  an approved organisation (AWINZ)   and because it did not exist  and needed to cover up   the writer and advisor for the animal welfare act sued me.  This has cost me not only $100,000  it has potential of costing  me  a further $100,000 and has destroyed my family .This has now gone on  for over 4 years .  I do not believe that anyone else should  suffer what I have   and therefore  request that  MAF and the government ensure that this process of delegating law enforcement to a private organisation  is  fully transparent and  legally   defendable.

Further to my OIA request   dated 26 May and  MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information  again pursuant to the official information act

Point 1 you have supplied me with overview of mafs animal welfare activities Please advise why the select committee was not  given the total number of animal welfare officers   who  have powers under the animal welfare act.

Point 2

  1. Please provide details of whether or not the select committee was advised of the contact   for provision of  animal welfare services to any third parties.
  2. With regards to the  document Agreement for  sale and purchase of  animal welfare services Please provide  copies all  such contracts  which  have been issued for these services to any  party

Point 3-

Point 4.  I had requested the names of all   Inspectors appointed   by the RNZSPCA   its member societies and branches  . I had requested that    each appointee be shown   with the  branch  or  member society  who had  requested that appointment.  That information was refused.

I subsequently asked for   papers which require the withholding of this information and  was advised that it is decided on a case by case  basis.

  1. please provide all documentation which led to the decision to withhold this information  I this case.
  2. In the event that the above cannot be supplied I request that In the interest of transparency and  as a right of the public to be fairly informed as to which  private  individuals  being non government  employees can enforce the law under this act , I  request that you  please provide a list of all inspectors  recommended for appointment by  any RNZSPCA society or SPCA trust or society and any other  inspector not employed by Government. . I request that this documents   Identifies who the inspector is and which  entity recommended their appointment  and the date of appointment and  the  district to which they are affiliated.

Point 5

  1. Please provide a copy of the certificate of appointment which   the inspectors carry   so that   we know what it looks like  and that  a certificate produced is genuine.
  2. You state that MAF anticipates  that in the vast majority  of cases a description of the background to the complaint would be sufficient  to identify  the  individual  involved, without difficulty.. please provide the research and discussion papers  which led to this statement being made.

Point 6

You say that the information requested  does not exist  yet I have made you aware that AWINZ   did not exist as a legal person  and  is in my opinion based on the evidence I have ,  a sham trust .  If you look at the trust deed  which was supplied to  you in draft form  in 1999  and  an unverified  copy of which was supplied in 2006    you will note that   the deed states that  the trustees are appointed for 3 years only.

This means that the deed signed on 1.3.2000 expired  on 1 March 2003.  I have  evidence  from Mr Coutts trustee and the other two trustees  that they only met in 1998 or 1999 . Therefore   by the time the MOU with MAF was signed in  December 2003 no valid trust existed and Mr Wells, the writer and advisor of the act which he was now using to promote his own business venture ,  could not have signed as trustee  of a nonexistent trust.

Despite this MAF have defended their actions and the  auditor general  simply stated they wouldn’t do anything because I was being sued for defamation . I wish to point out  that  through an over sight  in law   no one has ever proved that what I have said was defamatory, in fact all my statements  have been proved to have been  true. Truth is never defamatory.

You also  state in an audit report that the current trustees of AWINZ (  who  do not have a MOU with  you )   have offered to relinquish their  approved status. One has to ask how they can relinquish something they never had?

It therefore means that  inspectors appointed   on the recommendation of  a nonexistent AWINZ   did not have  any one to  be accountable to  and there is no one  to make a complaint to with regards  these  inspectors.

Please advise if   MAF has at any time  considered  this aspect or given any consideration to

  1. The lack of trust deed
  2. The lack of proof of existence of a trust
  3. The need to  receive and accept only verified information
  4. Seeking verification of existence of a trust  .. even after I brought it to your attention
  5. The validity of any  action of inspectors   recommended for appointment and responsible to AWINZ

Please provide all  documents which relate to    this  aspect

Point 7

There is much confusion in referring to  the RNZSPCA  .

the act refers only to the   ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED section 189

Section 190 of the act refers to “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) “

I have not yet found any legal document which defines   the branches  or members  or process by which   branches and members  are approved. Nor have I seen any  evidence other than inference that  an organisation is a  member or a branch other than by being referred to a web site.

Through this statement in the act  it is apparent that   the “ royal society “   is ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  which is one society    with the registration number 218546 other SPCA’s  have gone through  name changes  some  having  gone to  a branch then back to  being a SPCA. There are  branches and    members  which  pre  exist the “ royal society “

The memorandum  of understanding Defines the RNZSPCA   as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and  member societies

The national  council   is defined as “ the body of elected  members from the branches or member societies who are constitutionally  responsible  for he workings of the RNZSPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body of the  of the RNZSPCA  national council

The performance  and Technical standards defines SPCA as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED an approved organisation  for the purposes of the act.

The national  council   is defined as a body of elected persons who are constitutionally responsible for  the working of the SPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body appointed by  the national executive

The  Agreement sale and purchase of  animal welfare services is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED trading as the royal new Zealand SPCA  and its permitted successors and assigns.

However  nothing in the contract indicates  what its “its permitted successors and assigns”  are and these are not defined.

This indicates that there is much confusion as to  who is what and in the absence of further proof the only  organisation empowered to  carry out    work under the contract is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED identified  with  unique number 218546

  1. Please supply all correspondence and documentation which show who the  member societies are and who  its branches are and  all documentation  identifying the “its permitted successors and assigns”
  1. Please provide  details as to what  formal structure the” national  council” is ..  is it a trust  is it a group of people    is it a society? Is it identifiable as a legal person or is the national  council   the name of an informal committee?  What is it a committee of   ie which    legal person/ persons ?                       Please provide all documents which you hold which identifies who or what the national council is.
  1. Please provide  documentation  which MAF relied on  in treating the  national council as   a legal or  natural person  capable of   entering into an agreement  such as an MOU.
  1. Please provide  all documents discussion papers which  considered the legal enforceability of  an MOU
    1. When it is signed with a natural person or legal person
    2. When it is signed on behalf of  a trading name or undefined group of persons.

Point 8

It would appear that  your MOU  is inconsistent with the act

I am referring to the  fact that the act specifies that  only  the  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED (with  unique number 218546 )   can  recommend   persons for appointment  and that  member societies  and branches can   recommend through it. Yet the MOU  defines RNZSPCA as being The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and   member societies .

There appears   to be  no legal ability for your MOU to be   with   branches and  member societies  as the obligations under the act are with the RNZSPCA  Inc   and   the  individual  societies and members  come below it.

This structure has opened the back door  for   previously declined applicants   for approved status  such as the international  league of horses to simply change  its name and become  “ approved “  by affiliating with the SPCA  , since the role  involves law enforcement this has to be of serious concern .

Please provide all documentation

  1. which  considered the application  of the international league of horses in it application for approved status.
  2. Which identifies the inspectors  which  now makes this organisation an approve organisation in the name of SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED previously known as INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED previously known as HORSE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED unique number 212301
  3. Al correspondence from  the RNZSPCA   Inc  showing that this  organisation is now a member society or  branch

Point 9

You have supplied  a copy of  an agreement for sale and purchase of  animal welfare services between  the crown and  The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED.

  1. Please provide any contracts and agreements  which  that society has  with other  societies ,  trusts  ,companies or legal persons for the provision of these services.
  1. Please provide copies of all legal opinions and reports which  MAF has sought  to clarify the  dealings with a number of   incorporated societies who  have  provided no real proof of  belonging to  one umbrella organisation other  than by inference.

You state in your letter (reply from Maf 16 July)  that the RNZSPCA as a whole  is an approved Organisation under section 189 of the act .

I believe that Maf    since day one has never grasped the concept of   legal persons    and the importance of correctly identifying who you deal with   Your statement conflicts with  the act which you administer      at section 189 (1) states

(1)    The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

That organisation is  Number      218546 Name     THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED   Incorporated   11-SEP-1933

There  are  many other societies   named as branches  and others  names SPCA  which  exist . Please look up the societies web page   and search in the key word search using the words cruelty and animals  you will find that  some 80   societies  come up both  current and historic  .

You will notice also that many of these societies are only run by Robyn Kippenberger  ,  What are the implications of branches being run and administered only by one person.  Each of these “ branches’ is a legal person a society in  their own right. They have assets and should have 15  people .

  1. What  records  does Maf hold on these societies which are  currently only being run by one person , what enquiries has MAF made with the register of societies  to ensure  that this is  a legally   viable option  please provide all documents which have considered the validity of such organisations  which could effectively be employing   inspectors  yet  exist only as a paper society.
  1. For the record I wish you to consider that   these   societies  frequently own land which has been bequeathed to them  , I have had  members of  such defunct  organisations contact me advising me that they have been removed from office  as Mr. Wells   so accurately states in his poster there is money in animals Please  advise  what anti corruption measures the   Ministry has considered by giving such wide scope of power to a group of private  individuals  who  through their contract to   the crown  have unlimited ability to raise funds .
    1. Please further advise what controls  and audit systems MAF has considered for the  income generated though prosecutions  and the ability for such money to be moved sideways into trusts  and be whittled away  through various payment  streams to the  high paid executives.

There are now trusts called SPCA  which have sprung into existence   and it is no longer clear as to which is a member society   or a branch or not affiliated  other than by inference  that  the name  provides membership.

There is also nothing in the public arena  which   shows any affiliation of the various organisations .

We are talking about the  delegation of   law enforcement here and we appear to have no chain  of authority and we  have apparently left it wide open for any organisation  to  call itself SPCA and come under the umbrella   of what is New Zealand’s only private law enforcement   authority.

MAF was similarly   negligent when it approved AWINZ as an approved organisation  when  you were not even in possession of a trust deed. I questioned the existence of that organisation and was sued  because MAF had been incapable of verifying the  organisations existence before sending it to the minister for the  pproval.

Transitional provisions

There appears to be nothing in the act  which  stipulates the duration of the transitional provisions   , as MAF appear to be continuing to use these transitional provisions for  the delegation of animal welfare enforcement they must be aware of the working so f the act.   It would appear from your answer  and action that the transitional    measures are  permanent unless  MAF has an application from  the RNZSPCA INC  to become an approved organisation.

  1. What consideration has Maf given to   treating  each individual  society as an approved organisation   rather  than allowing the RNZSPCA inc   to   continue to appoint which ever  organisation they wish  as a branch or  member . please provide all discussion papers .
  1. Please provide  any documents you have which shows  how the  RNZSPCA can appoint members or take on new branches.
  1. If there have been any other applications for  organisations including  member  societies or branches of the  SPCA  to become approved organisations  please provide these.

Point 10

There is general confusion and blurring of organisations because of the conflict of using   RNZSPCA  and SPCA  and now royal SPCA  , I respectfully request that MAF seeks legal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer on this issue  as   the real names and trading names    appear to become mixed and this does not allow  for proper identification  of the parties.  This would be  akin to identity fraud if it is done  intentionally  .( I am not saying that this is the case ) But  the public have  the right to know which entity they are dealing with and at present that is not  possible.

There is much missing in the   transparency of the RNZSPCA inc and its  branches and  member societies  this is an issue which is of public significance  for accountability reasons and  MAF should ensure that we know at all times  who in the private sector is entitled to enforce the law.  Lack of  transparency breeds corruption

Point 11.

The issue which  I  am trying to clarify is that the delegated authority to   individuals     is done as follows

  1. RNZSPCA inc is  an approved organisation
  2. There are member society and branches  by  inference but there is no documented proof- perhaps a  flow chart may exist which you can supply  to clarify this
  3. These  member societies branches  .. called local SPCAs   are all separate legal persons and have separate  society and  trust registration numbers  -each   can  select candidates for training  and then make recommendations to the  national office  which presumably again by inference  is the approved organisation
  4. The approved organisation   recommends the person to Maf
  5. Maf approves /declines
  6. If approved the inspector is warranted and works  for the member society  or branch
  7. By virtue of section 190 (2)  that organisation then becomes an approved organisation  and can retain any  fines from its prosecutions by virtue of section 171

It is  therefore  very lucrative for a society to have  an inspector as the inspector through prosecutions can generate revenue especially now that the penalties have been increased.

It is therefore  essential that the   all steps in the delegation process and all legal names are transparent and accurate.

It is my concern that MAF  have  not  properly considered the implications of the contracts  between parties  and the ability to expand  the branches and  member societies without  consultation with  Government.

The  MOU  dated 16 march 2006  claiming to be  between the minister and  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED      and branches and member societies  is  signed only  by Barry O’Neill through delegated authority   and Peter Mason  national President.

  1. I  therefore request information pursuant to the official information act so  as to complete the chain of evidence  of  delegation and accountability  with respect to this process  As  mentioned above
  2. I also request any  documents  which may  discuss a limit to the growth of the   number of member societies and  branches and  the limit on numbers of inspectors who may be appointed.

Further with respect to the Memorandum  of Understanding supplied

  1. Point 11 please provide All  discussion documents, reports and correspondence  which considered the implications of delegating law enforcement authority through an unenforceable  document.
  1. Pont 20 & 22  Please advise how many RNZSPCA  inspector applicants have been interviewed by MAF
  1. Point 53  Please advise   whether MAF considered the fact that the RNZSPCA is a private  society and therefore not subject to the official information act   when it directed that an  inspector should advise  a district if they are working outside their jurisdiction.  What consideration  did MAF give to the  availability of information to the public who  may wish to question the jurisdiction of an inspector.  .. Please provide all documents  which discussed this aspect before having it included in the  MOU
  1. Point 66  please provide copies of all newsletters

Further

  1. Please provide all correspondence  to MAF with regards to the new facility being  built at WINTEC  in Hamilton being  built by a  group of persons calling themselves the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation ( but otherwise unidentifiable as this organisation  does not exist  beyond perhaps a well concealed  private trust deed )  the trustee named Jan Thomson   is on the executive  of the Waikato RNZSPCA  and she is talking about leasing he building back to the Waikato SPCA  which is  exactly the  same organisation which  Jan Thomson  is an executive of.  Some of the money being used is  $4000,000  which  came from  the Waikato RNZSPCA and has been used   to set up the Waikato SPCA trust. .. It is such creativity and lack of transparency which  opens the door to corruption and fraud.   This is preventable  and therefore MAF should take all steps to ensure that  those who they allow to enforce the law  are transparent.
  1. I believe that Unitec secured the training  for  inspectors fate  it had been included as a requirement  in the act. The training was provided  by Mr Wells the author of the bill  who  obtained  employment at Unitec to   facilitate the new legislation. Unitec  won the contract   please provide the names of  all those who tendered for the  supply of this service .
  1. who is the current  training provider   contracted to MAF  and  please advise who the providers were since the act   commenced. Pease supply copies of all these contracts.
  1. I  request all documents  which  relate to any consideration given to changing the  current service provider or to any consideration to implement a new provider  at Wintec to train the new influx  of  animal welfare inspectors.

Lastly

There have been a number of long term  RNZSPCA  & SPCA officers  inspectors and  committees  from various legal entities which are branches or  member societies  that have been laid off . It would appear that there are changes afoot in the running of the SPCA which has brought about the  need to remove the old to make room for the new.    Has Maf  investigated  these changes  and have they been notified   regarding any of these changes. Please provide any   or  all correspondence which  relates to  the   takeover of  administration of branches,  dismissals of inspectors  and  officer in the past 2 years.

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

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

http://transparency.net.nz/

Documents referred  to   reply from Maf 16 July

This letter refers to attachments as follows

A   overview of mafs animal welfare activities

B   maf letter 19 may

memorandum  of understanding  RNZSPCA inc  and  Maf

performance  and Technical standards for  inspectors of the RNZSPCA

sale and purchase of  animal welfare services

F email from peter Mason regarding the   name of the SPCA ‘s

26/07/2010

Verification of facts and accountability to the truth in our courts needs addressing.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:50 am

On 3rd july I sent the following email   addressed to the  Attorney General  and others

Corruption in New Zealand is alive and well as long as we continue to beat up those who speak  out.

I hope  Vince’s  incarceration  can serve as precedent  ..

Remember the old saying “sticks and stones will break my bones  and words will never hurt me”

Well if  Vince has been ordered to Pay $940,000   because some ones feelings were hurt because he spoke the truth     and  then  is repeatedly sent to jail for defying  the court    can you imagine   the penalties  which we could get from violent offenders, habitual  criminals  and repeated drunk drivers

I actually don’t know why we bother with crimes act offences.. deal with everything  in the civil section,  No proof, no evidence  , no rights    and penalties  which no criminal offending could even get close to .

I know   Vince did not have the ability to defend his truth , neither did  I.

Like him I questioned what  I saw as a  corrupt practice     but apparently if someone   who has lots of buddies in high places  does  something naughty  it’s Ok  and   the person questioning  gets  done in the courts  –  its common practice and  it is  accepted worldwide  .

Even Madoff  used that trick.. see people  who have been successful  at being naughty have  lots of money  to throw at the courts  to silence those who could expose them.  But our system allows that  we condone corruption to the extent that those who speak out are treated harsher than criminals.

Easier to shut up the  whistleblower than deal with the  issue.     And Evidence.. well the civil court doesn’t need any – the uncorroborated evidence of  the plaintiff is as good as gold.  And if you tell the court  you are exposing corruption the court says  there you have it  proof of defamation. …..

I see parallels with  the Madoff  matter and invite you  to  look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

There is a lot wrong   with our defamation laws   and the way the court deals with them. And the manner in which  it prevents  ordinary new Zealanders from questioning what they believe are corrupt practices.

Whistleblowers expose themselves to high personal risks in order to protect the public good. …They often end up in years of legal litigation, fighting for their own rights or for the case they have disclosed to be adequately investigated source Transparency international

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.anticorruption.co.nz

I have recieved this reply Attorney General

I have  followed this up with  the following

Thank You  Mr Finlayson

I   do hope that   you have  closer look at what is happening in our courts generally .   This week a woman is being sentenced for  fraudulent business practices.  Lynne Pryor   and her associate  Terry Hay ( who has absconded from our laws   but was still able to use our  courts to pursue me )  caused extreme stress to me by  bringing malicious charges, defending these  malicious charges  cost me some $50,000 .

Because our courts do not   function on verified fact  and  do not hold any one accountable for perjury  they have become a very good tool to  use by the rich to beat up those  who  have limited resources. Why use a base ball bat to beat someone up when you can  cause great stress over  many years and even bankrupt a person so that they cannot fight  back.

I consider this a gross  abuse of  our courts system. It can be easily overcome  by holding people including lawyers accountable to the truth  .

In the case of Fresh prepared Limited  I  could prove that the lawyers  who represented  the company had  used these tactic before.  I can prove this using the judges  decisions  who said that they had used the scorched earth policy   and had used  over the top actions.  This was in a case  which led  to my investigations into a   director and liquidator  who did not   exist.

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Terry Hay has fled the country but his business partner, Lynne Pryor, 45, has pleaded guilty to one charge of carrying on business fraudulently after an

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Lynne Pryor has been charged with 22 counts of attempting to defraud creditors and the Companies Office, by using false documents to create a false director

As a former Police prosecutor and  lay litigant I did not stand a chance in court, judges simply prefer to believe the so called officers of the court .Yet on the other hand  you hear that every lawyer lies  and that  this is a well known fact ( that statement came from a lawyer ) .

I was taken to court for Harassment. I had never seen  spoken to or  been near Terry  Hay , My crime was to try to  find the director and liquidator .

While the court had difficulty  accepting that a liquidator could   fictitious they  did not hesitate to  issue restraining order against me   when no evidence existed.

I am a verification specialist  and see that the issue we have in our legal system as in many government departments is that we do not know how to verify .

Anyone can file anything in our courts   there needs to be a requirement where by   lawyers  need to certify the truth of their clients  claims  and that the claim is  being brought correctly . Litigants in person  need to  do this as well.

Secondly any one swearing any  statutory declaration ,affidavit or giving sworn evidence  needs to be held accountable to the truth.

Currently it is accepted that people tell lies in courts   if the judges  make decisions on lies  then how sound are those decisions  and what does it do for justice.

Good decisions cannot  be made on fiction . And when  there is no accountability to the truth you  will not get the truth .

I can provide you with examples to  illustrate  that fictitious claims are brought to  court,  there are even fictitious litigants  .

The  police do not action perjury complaints, I know that because I have provided them with a very thick file  with a ton of evidence  yet  this is not enough to  counter  an uncorroborated statement in court.

The law society is less than Useless   complaints  against lawyers are simply not investigated.

It is time that we realise that lawyers are not investigators   and the Law society   does a very good job of looking after its own, occasionally it will hang out to  dry a lawyer who  they wish to dispose of  as an example  that they  are doing their  job.

Middle income New Zealand has no access  to justice  the court is being used as a bullying exercise , it is currently cheaper to  submit to unjustified demands than to stand up for your rights.

Those who are honest do not stand a chance in our courts     as the truth  is  inflexible and  a good manufactured story always wins out on the day. Doesn’t matter if the facts  don’t fit  no one will check and  no amount of proof  will be enough to prove  perjury.

Until our courts  ask for  evidence and insist on something more than the uncorroborated evidence of the person who stands to gain there will never be justice.

I am happy to  come to Wellington to meet with you and   guide you or your advisors through  the issues which I have experienced in my personal and professional capacity.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

12/07/2010

email to the editor NBR- lets have the truth

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 4:41 am

I would  like to   take this opportunity to   advise you of  the inaccuracy of the reporting of Jock Anderson on the defamation issue relating to  myself and Mr wells

I have posted replies on your site only to see them taken down again. What has happened to me has to be of concern to the average new Zealander .. the right to speak the truth.

Jock Anderson is apparently being  sued By Eugine Orlov  My lawyer.. that has nothing to do  with me  and I do  not wish to be involved.

Jock in his second article starts off “Flames of a bitter defamation which accused Waitakere city councillor and animal loving lawyer Neil Wells of conspiracy, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement were fanned again in the High Court at Auckland.”

  1. Mr Wells is not a city councillor
  2. I  have not been  taken to  court for  accusing Mr wells of conspiracy, fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement.
  3. The contents of the statement of claim in so far as the    statements I made have in fact all been proved to be true.

Also the three people who claimed to be trustees of AWINZ had no proof  at all that  they were .  Much  of the background information  in the Statement of claim is fictional and is not reflected  in the documents I have  since obtained from MAF.

The miscarriage of justice is that   I have never been found guilty of defaming Mr Wells  , My defence was struck out  by careful legal manipulation  and Mr Wells never proved that what I said was  untrue or   that I knew   that my statements were untrue.

I questioned corruption  being  that a  person in public office    contracts to himself  using the staff under his control to  obtain funds for his unseen trust  to which only he   controlled the bank account.

While   my truth was  called lies    Mr  wells uncorroborated statements   have been accepted  simply on his say so . It appears that  being a barrister is enough to be believed  but  as an Investigator & former police sergeant armed with  mountains of evidence  I    am considered a liar.

I have  further proved that this man  had a business plan   and  wrote legislation  for it  even advising  the select committee and MAf  during the transition of the bill  into law .   I have a lot of FACTUAL information   on my blog  including how to  write legislation for your own business plan How to get your litigation funded through the public purse and

I would imagine that many new Zealanders would be shocked to find that you can have your life devastated because you  question the   activities of something which  appears not to exist. And when that nonexistent trust  enforces the law   we have  a duty to ask.  If we all turn a blind eye then corruption will surely flourish.

But apparently if  you  re create a trust and take legal action to discredit the person  who raises the questions  you are home and hosed.  The proof  in civil cases is  far less than in criminal cases  and in my case the proof that I defamed  Mr Wells is non existent.   Truth is never defamatory  If you don’t like people  speaking the truth  try acting  differently .

Your articles are far more defamatory of me  than what I ever said about Mr Wells    all I invite you to do is to   have a reporter contact me and I  will take them through the shocking evidence which I have.. all obtained from official sources.

The truth will  come out    and I invite your paper to   ensure that it is reported   truthfully and accurately .

I will be posting    this  email to you on  my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

I hope the NBR is as interested in facts as they  should be .

Regards

Grace Haden

10/07/2010

NBR took down my post

Filed under: corruption,Nuala Grove — anticorruptionnz @ 1:40 am

Yesterday I posted onthe NBR   today it was removed  I have therefore   placed a further   reply on thier  site  as follows

Corruption will flourish when good men stand by and do nothing

The citizens of NZ have to wake up  as to how dangerous our defamation law is.

It appears that it is enough for the  party alleging defamation to say    hey what she said  is defamatory without  proving that  what was said was untrue and should have been known by the person making the statement to be untrue.

It appears that tactics rather than evidence wins defamation cases. It is hard to believe   that my truth was not accepted even though I had documentary evidence and Mr Wells was believed without corroboration.

Both transparency International   and united nations encourage people to speak out against corruption.   One definition of corruption is the use of public office for private gain. I identified such a situation and asked questions of council and government and for that was accused of defamation.

Apparently it is Ok   for someone to have a business plan and write the legislation  to facilitate it  and it  is OK   for someone to run a  private SPCA   from council premises using council staff and facilities and collect donations using a logo which is identical to that on the building and bank it into  an account only they control.

Fortunately the donations  went to good use they paid for the court proceedings   which saw $57,000 awarded  to Mr Wells .

John Davies and Marianne Thompson made false claims in their CV . Mr Wells said a trust existed when it has been proved that didn’t but the judge excused it saying Mr. wells got ahead of himself.    It  is very hard to determine  who will   be condoned   and who will be prosecuted  .

I recommend that  if any one sees anything  questionable   just close your eyes and keep walking  you cannot afford to question  anything .

Corruption will flourish when good men stand by and do nothing.  But if you do do something  .. even as simple as raise questions – your life will surely  change dramatically.

A copy of this will be published on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

09/07/2010

reply to NBR article

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:11 am

Both  transparency International   and united nations  encourage people  to speak out against corruption.   One definition of  corruption is  the use of public office for private gain.

Mr Wells manager of   dog and stock control Waitakere contracts to AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand ) for animal welfare services . AWINZ is akin to the RNZSPCA and has law enforcement powers. But unlike the RNZSPCA, AWINZ  does not employ inspectors  it  uses the  council staff  under Mr Wells supervision  who “ volunteer “ their  council paid time while  enforcing dog and stock control  and while using the  council resources while Mr. Wells administered the bank account into which the fines and donations were banked..

Wells applied for AWINZ to become an “approved organisation”   under the animal welfare act 1999  a statute which he had written the bill for ,He was further an advisor to MAF an independent advisor to the select committee which  discussed the legislation

In 2006  I innocently questioned the existence of AWINZ  which   did not  appear on  any register despite  Mr Wells having assured the minister in 1999 that  the trust had a deed and was in the process of being  registered under the charitable trust act. In further communication in 2000 he told the minister he couldn’t send him a copy of the deed because  it was  being sent off for registration .

I proved categorically that these claims were false. There were no trust deeds on file and no record of an “organisation “ called Animal welfare institute of New Zealand .

My  investigations   in 2006 showed that AWINZ was no more than a trading name for Mr Wells . Since that finding never before seen documents came to light   and a trust has been created with new members to  give legitimacy  however they  refuse to give proof of  any  legal basis for their  claim as to being a trust  prior to  December 2006 .

Defamation is very hard to defend when your defence is struck out   and your truth is considered defamatory  you   simply stand no chance.

Defamation notoriously precede the discovery of many of our great frauds world wide   it is a well known  tactic to silence those who  hold the truth.

The cost for speaking the truth is far more than any criminal would   suffer. And when  you are attacked  using charitable funds    it becomes  very expensive to  defend   the truth.

Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and our right to question?  Corruption will surely flourish.

Corruption will flourish when good men stand by and do nothing.  A copy of this  will be published on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

08/07/2010

SPCA in Australia

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 11:41 pm

It is Worth seeing this video clip about  what is happening in Australia  the vets comments are worth noting    this corroborates   the issues I raise on this site.

Is it about animals is it about animals or money or is it about milking a cash cow

Blog at WordPress.com.