Anticorruptionnz's Blog


Spca Ontario Today , NZ tomorrow?

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:22 pm

I look back on my posts with respect to animal welfare and the SPCA / RNZSPCA

A  comment  has been left on my about page  with a  must see  video   which  I have linked to   below

It is also of significance that  Michael O’Sullivan of Ark angel org  also   located in  Canada  is a trustee in two trusts with Neil Wells . this just shows how those involved in  SPCA ‘s and  alike mix and mingle  globally.

Please watch this video  it is them today  us tomorrow.


Would AWINZ be able to monitor animal action in the Hobbit ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:10 pm

It would appear that the  Hobbit films  are hitting a spot of trouble   see  stories Union tell actors to avoid Hobbit films Boycott threatens Hobbit films

I wonder who they would have had on board to   supervise the animal   action if it had gone ahead.

By now  New line should be aware that the only  “organisation” in New Zealand to  monitor animal action is  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand    which gave a false end title to the lord of the rings trilogy .  see

On 15 November 2001 The American Humane society wrote to Neil Wells, Barrister Trustee of Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ) and raised their concerns.

I have  reports that Mr Wells is now in hospital  with a mild stroke  which would limit the ability of this  retrospectively set up organisation  (see About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand) to monitor animal action .

We wish Mr Wells all the best and would suggest to him that  strokes are brought on by stress  and   he could try admitting his role in suing  me using  the charitable  dollar   see How to get your litigation funded through the public purse. He is about to  be found out  just like David Garrett was exposed   Mr Wells will be too. It may just be easier to cough up  Neil  you may  get that stress out of your system. I know it may  be hard on you but Honesty is the best policy.

As a lawyer and a spin doctor Wells  has been very successful in manipulating the court  so that  I was denied a  hearing on his allegation of defamation. My crime  was to question  why his  “ trust “ did not appear to exist.

I have never been found guilty of defamation, all the statements  which he alleged I made have been proved to be true   .   He managed to  skip the bit in the proceedings  where a finding of defamation was made against me  and I was instead taken to the next step where  a cost determination was made  on the assumption that  I was guilty of defamation.

The  defamation act allows for evidence of Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages . I  availed myself of this provision  by submitting  an affidavit  which showed that Mr Wells had frequently  contradicted himself  and that  the truth  of his statements was therefore  hard to   ascertain  as two opposing statements  both made by him could not both be true .  The judge took this evidence  as   evidence of  further defamation    and compounded the  penalty .

Therefore  I was not only denied a hearing, I was punished for speaking the truth   and the evidence I put in to show  why the cost award should be  low  was used  against me. It was not my fault that Mr wells made so many    statements which contradicted each other.

Just like David Garret   a  lawyer received  a suppression  order    ‘It’s like stealing from a grave’ – family’s grief the court also apparently  acted to defend Wells .

You need only compare the penalties of barristers to that of  ordinary persons to see that  they get preferential treatments

David Garret.. identity theft and  obtaining a false passport  .. discharge without conviction and a suppression order

And a man who imported fake Rugby World Cup merchandise was $20,000 and was named.

Where are our standards when produce gets greater protection than Identities.


Stop the corporate take over – speak out

Filed under: corruption,super city,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:33 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘Jock Anderson’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject: open letter and official information act request

This is an official information act request   for the prime minister, Minister of local Government  and  for the ATA

I have just sent out the email below, it has links to spreadsheets which have been compiled from public records

The spreadsheets show the  overwhelming  conflicts of interests which the  people who have been  given position on the committees have.

By way of OIA  could you please advise

1.        By what process these persons came to hold  the positions..

a.         was it an advertised position  if so when  and where were the positions advertised

b.        Who did the interviewing

c.       Were they checked for conflicts of interest

2.       What policy has been introduced into the   new super city  for the declaration of conflicts of interest and what interests have been disclosed.

3.       What responsibility will these committees have to the elected members.

4.       What were the  criteria in selecting the members for  these committees  and  who was involved in their  selection.

The  background as sent out in an email which I hope will become viral is  below.

Please read this  and forward it to   anyone else who cares about the future of Auckland.

The super city is all about big business  taking over  our   city  and asset stripping them – I will show real evidence  that supports  this statement

What I  did  was simply  to put all the names of  those who have been selected   to go on the committees which rule  Auckland.

I  began with the article published in the Aucklander regarding the so  called the secret seven

I compiled a  list of all the companies which they  are and have been involved in committee business directorships past and present

I then looked at three of the largest   business groups   the  Business round table the executive of the  chamber of commerce ( which has held tight reigns  on their  leadership  )  see story and  those who lobbied for the super city  being the Committee for Auckland.

I   collated all the business relationships in one spread sheet and    looked for connections.

What stood out more than anything  is that   these four groups of people   are not  representative of our population.  They are  rich  influential, white   and male and they have  common memberships to these  power hubs.

In my calculations  they represent the  minority of population  and the majority of   big  business ( if not all )  .

This is the spread sheet which I have compiled from those results   shows significant over lap between people  companies  and   the “ Secret seven “ selected to control our assets.

Most significant of all is the  associations of Keenan of water care to liquor industry

If anyone was  wishing to privatise water   which industry do you think would be  knocking on the door first..  well    the already have their inside man  the evidence speaks  for itself.

These  two men appear to have the most connections  they are

MOGRIDGE, Bryan William

MASFEN, Peter Hanbury

When you click on their names you can see their company connections  click on those and you will see how they are connected  .

I have only  gone to one level of connections in my spreadsheets  but as you can see through the   connections of  GREYMOUTH GAS TARANAKI LIMITED and many other companies  similarly named , Masfen is a co director  with Robert DUNPHY   who is none other than Philippa Dunphy’s  husband    a connection which these spreadsheets  don’t illustrate.     There will no doubt be more connections   but  the  are irrelevant if no one cares.  Philippa is on the transport  committee.. handy for the uses of  gas and petroleum.

There is only one candidate warning  every one that this is about a corporate takeover That  is Penny Bright she  is  the Claytons vote  the vote you give to say  yes we agree this is a corporate takeover and we are opposed to it ……..     I gave  her my  vote

You have two choices  Vote for her    or  if you have received this email and have ignored it  accept that things will never be the same again

We can only do this   if we stand together.

If you are not male, if you are not white  or  if you do not support corporate coups  then  give Penny your vote and send a very  loud message..   we  want   the city  for the people run  by those elected by the people  not  by committees  of pre selected persons  who have conflicts of interests and hidden agendas

Please Treat this as the  vote   for  or against the super city.. if you are for the super city and can’t be bothered reading my material   vote for whoever you like

If you are against the super city and don’t like the undemocratic manner in which it has been done  or  you  have read my material and say Oh my gosh what is happening is so  wrong. Then please vote  Like I did    just the one tick on the form     Vote for Penny Bright .

I am not  part of her campaign, this has not been authorised by her  this is   my recommendation  based on real evidence  .

Please forward this email  to anyone  who is yet to vote  click on the links   have a look at the evidence  this is a  corporate take over the very people I have  mentioned  own the news papers the  only way we are going to get this out  is through  email.

This  email has been posted on


Grace Haden

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



Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich — anticorruptionnz @ 9:54 am

Some time ago  I made an official information request to MAF see Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week ” these questions were based on  a letter which they sent me whis is  within the post.

MAF have repeatedly stalled    and now wish to charge well over a thousand dollars for the information.

Through my past experience with MAF I have learnt that  they have very slack  checks and balances( if any at all ) .  They  allowed a non existent organisation to become an Approved organisation.. meaning  it has law enforcement abilities  and the ability to  appoint  inspectors and auxiliary inspectors ,  these  come under the under direction of Director-General MAF.

It is therefore  strange that   MAF cannot supply a list of  who these persons are

The inspectors  appointed under  these provisions

1.       Can demand name and address of persons who they believe are offending against the act .

a.       Persons who do not comply can be sentenced to 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both

2.       Have  legislative protection for  their acts

3.       can Apply for search warrants

4.       can Issue infringement notices

5.       can  prosecute people and appear in court themselves and the “ organisation can  keep the  funds .

6.       Sell  animals which have been seized  and apply the proceeds to the cost of prosecution, and   expenses incurred in caring for that animal before the sale;

7.       Have powers with regards to Powers in relation to injured or sick animals

Approved organisations   have obligations set out by statute

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation .

The man  who  calls himself the CEO   Neil Wells also wrote and advise on  the legislation  which  give the above powers. This was  legislation was written by him  subsequent to   his business plan   for integration of   animal welfare officers with  council  duties of dog and stock  control   see the document and  how to write legislation for your own business plan

At the  end of 2009  those who claim to be the current trustees of AWINZ asked to relinquish their  approved status, despite this  the   dog and stock control officers in Waitakere city have continued to  hold warrants.

The whole AWINZ thing has been a non sense

1.       In November 1999 Neil Wells applied to the minister for approved status stating  that the  organisation existed

2.       He made a number of claims that    documents would be forwarded but never did

3.       In 2006  I questioned why the organisation  did not exist  on any register.. for this I have been sued for the past  four years.

4.       A trust deed was supplied  in 2006  no  further evidence of the trusts existence has  ever been produced. We can only speculate as to the   truthfulness of this document, it certainly  was never seen before 2006  by the official bodies which should have held a copy on file.

5.       If you read the deed  point  7 a term of  office   you will note that it states that the term of appointment is 3 years. This means that by  1.3.2003  there were no trustees.

6.       Maf entered into an agreement with AWINZ  giving no further definition of what AWINZ was on 4 December 2003 .  what is the validity of this agreement   when the” trustee “  Neil Wells  without any further evidence is deemed to have stopped being a trustee   8 months earlier   .

a.       There is also no evidence that   any of the other so called trustees continued  and  if there were others who these persons  are.

b.      For all intents and purposes MAF signed and agreement for law enforcement with one person who   was trading with a name  which sounded impressive.

7.       In 2006  three people  (  note the trust deed states there will be no less than four trustees )  purporting to  be the trustees but  not having any evidence that they were  took me to court –  Wyn Hoadley barrister , Neil Wells  Barrister and Graeme Coutts JP.

8.       In December of that year these three people sign a deed with Tom Didovich the previous manager animal welfare who had made representation on behalf of two councils to MAF.

9.       These are the people  who according to MAF have now asked  for the approved status to be relinquished .. but apart from sharing the same trading name    are they the same as the approved organisation?   And what accountability has there been??


Because of  the overlap with the RNZSPCA   and  involvement with Neil Wells   with the Waikato SPCA trust I asked questions  of the RNZSPCA and the SPCA   which  still appear to be  operating under the transitional   part of the act  and   appear to be taking on approved organisations through the back door.

I have also been approached by many of the older inspectors   who are being pushed  out of the job , I have given my time freely and willingly  but it appears that  Maf  sees me as a bit of a villain    mainly because their incompetence has cost me so much.

They now refuse to give me the time of day     so that they can cover up their  incompetence.

I am certain that the docuemtns I have asked for a refused because they simply don’t exist. Maf does not   do its work  and is thereby allowing corruption in the  animal welfare sector to flourish.

Openness and transparency is  supposed to be  part of our democratic system   what is transparent about a system where by  people are charged  huge sums of money  for information  relating to accountability issues in the private law  enforcement sector.


Pacific flight catering blog

Filed under: corruption,Lynne Pryor,Terry Hay,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 2:37 pm

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 2:33 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’

Subject: Pacific flight catering blog

Several years  ago I had to find  a liquidator and director of a company called fresh prepared Limited  this company has  now morphed   into Salad Foods ltd

Neither director nor liquidator  existed   but I was not to know  that.  But Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor knew   and they needed me out of the way

So they sued me  for harassment.. it didn’t matter that I had not investigated ,been near or even enquired after Terry Hay   they sued me any way ( that’s what rich people  do apparently ) Lynne was annoyed because  I  visited the home address  of the   director and the  factory he claimed  to own .

Before we went to court “ Julie”   placed an advertisement in the mandarin  times  , this  saw  my house  besieged  with telephone calls and  callers.( mandarin times original )

A year or so later I tried to  find Julie   and rang David Nathan.  He was so upset that I had phoned him that  he swore an affidavit  and had me taken to court again for contempt of court.

The judge said that it was not contempt of court   but   they were not going to accept that and took it to the high court  where I won the right for discovery.

The matter is still live in the court today   and in the process I have  lost not only $49,000  for my lawyers  but it saw the end of  my marriage  which  would have seen its 25th anniversary this    month.

I  fully believe that everyone needs to be  responsible for their actions  and that  wrongs  can be put right  with compensation .

I   foolishly believed that  now that Lynne  Pryor has been convicted  of fraud   and has  been  banned from managing a company (   yes I know she still is )  that  someone may  see it  fit to  withdraw the charges from the court and  compensate me for my loss .  I ran into Lynne at the supermarket   and she did not  wish to talk about  what is happening to the proceedings  .

So Since I am in the  anti corruption  and  Anti fraud line of  work  I thought that I would use this  to   illustrate  how  companies function and   what  goes  on  behind the scenes  so I have  put a new page on my  blog  Pacific Flight Catering what are its ethical values?

I will add to  this    on a daily basis ( if I can)  showing the intriguing story behind the  persecution of me   and  the links to  the   people at  Pacific flight catering.  The Directors, who they are    and the shareholders .     I have already done my research and I can promise you that    this is  going to be an eye opener.

As I do nothing behind any ones  back   I  am advising you  are connected in one way or another   with this blog . I will endeavour to contact everyone   involved  so that they all know  what is being said about them and their associates on the web.   People have a right to know   who they are dealing with .

If there is anything inaccurate I do hope that  you will let me know and I will correct  . everything is    well researched  and  I  believe it all to be the truth and factual

The news paper stories   which explain it all  are located here

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Sunday, May 30, 2010

And my other  blog  is Using the court to conceal corruption

I hope to turn the blog  into  a book  I need to do this to  recover the costs     Turning  a negative into a positive is a good thing    I want people to  learn from what I have experienced.

This page is posted on

visit the Pacific flight catering blog


Grace Haden

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


Can audit NZ turn a blind eye to fraud ? if so are they condoning private use of council facilities?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 1:11 pm

Mr Key

Four years ago  I  rightfully  questioned a situation in Waitakere city where by a public servant was contracting to himself. As a result I was sued to keep  me  quite .

Just recently I  questioned the  definition of fraud  used by the audit office I was advised that  this definition was Fraud – an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.emails audit NZ

I have a situation which involves  exactly that   yet when I raised questions about  this matter with  the local body concerned I was sued by the  council manager   who used the charitable funds of the  no existent entity  which contracted to the local body  to silence me. This appears to have been  a very effective move  because   the office of the auditor General has  told  me they would not  touch it because I have been sued.

It appears to me  that New Zealand is a breeding ground for fraud   because  no one can safely question it and the audit services which should  protect us from this misuse of public funds and  resources  do nothing to stop it.

The ombudsmen are likewise useless and every  so called   public watch dog we have turns a blind eye.

It appears that  audit NZ and the office of the auditor general can be selective about  what they audit  and can turn  a blind eye to what is clearly fraud by their own definition.  When  those charged with public duty fail  to  perform the propensity for   fraud will only increase  please    look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

I find it ironic  that on the audit  NZ web site it  is stated “It’s our job to help public sector organisations have better financial and non-financial management.” And

Independent audits play an essential role in the stewardship of public resources and corporate governance of public services. I agree so why is there no independent audit of the   contract which Waitakere city  has with AWINZ for the provision of animal welfare services.   This contract  is controlled by the  by the manager animal welfare is to  himself as CEO of an organisation which had no proof of existence beyond a trading name for himself .  mou waitakere.pdf and has never  been sanctioned by full council

On a further page  there is the  claim Our core strengths are in providing assurance over contract management, tendering and procurement processes, project management, and asset management planning. We have a depth of experience and capability in these areas. Why could contracts  with local and central  government   ( MAF)  be granted in  circumstances which lack  transparency and integrity   and why is audit NZ  not  interested in  investigating  even  to ensure that these  tactics are not  used again in   the  future. mou MAF.pdf,

On a further page it states Following good practice will help to ensure that your contracting is successful and that your organisation’s integrity is maintained. I have to question what good practice is  when   there is no verification in a process  to ensure that he contracting party exists and is not a council l officer acting in a different guise.  And   what is good practice when a  manger of a council  division  can write  for an on behalf of two councils  offering the  voluntary use of the staff they supervise  to outside  organisation  during their paid employment. didovich to maf north shore.pdf didovich to maf waitak.pdf 5  jan 2000.pdf

And  an another  web page there is a statement  You want your asset management planning to allow your assets to be managed effectively and efficiently in support of your key services. Audit NZ and the auditor general therefore condone   the  existence and operation  of a third party  organisation on the premises of council   using plant, equipment,  resources and vehicles   to further their  own business goals   .   So where are our standards?     See 8 may 2000  wells.pdf

By turning a blind eye to  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  fiasco   are we condoning   this type of fraud? And condoning  the use of  public resources for private  pecuniary gain?

Is the office  of   the auditor general  and  audit NZ are proving that they  are negligent and do not  do the work which they are supposed to do. Who will audit the  auditors?

And Why don’t we verify   anything    we are so trusting  or is that ignorant?  New Zealand is  on its way to be the most corrupt country in the world  we have a very good strategy  to keep us  up there in the least corrupt stakes  by  denial   and  the placement of many brick walls  which are intent to make   those who question give up.

A copy of this letter is on


Grace Haden

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

Blog at