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

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 https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/lord-of-the-rings/

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.

Advertisement