Anticorruptionnz's Blog

29/11/2010

Do New Zealanders have a right to Justice?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 5:02 p.m.
To: ‘Human Rights Commission Infoline’
Subject: Right to justice

Good afternoon

This morning I phoned the Human rights commission to see  some assistance to the  lack of observance of my rights to   Justice.

The web site states
Right to justice

If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to

  • a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker
  • apply for judicial review of that decision.

You have the right to bring civil proceedings against, and defend civil proceedings brought by the Crown in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals

I am now somewhat confused  as in  speaking  with Neil I was told that the right  to justice means that   I have  access to a lawyer.  This  somehow falls short of the standard set in the bill of rights.

A brief summary  is that   4 ½  years ago I raised questions  of public concern  to activities which the United Nations  describes as a corrupt practice.

To conceal the  practice and to silence  me  legal action was taken .

Part of that legal action was a defamation claim   all other claims were  withdrawn

The court burdened me with  some $19,000  cost  before any evidence was   heard    and as I had no independent access to funds ( I was a married woman with no independent cash reserves )  my defence was struck out

In the same directive the judge ordered the  Plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim which never occurred. ( as attached Unless order )

After some time of inactivity the plaintiffs  asked for the  mater to be determined on Quantum   on the original statement of claim.. there by ignoring the courts order.

Both parties were asked to  submit an affidavit   and I  submitted an affidavit  in accordance with section  30 of the defamation act

30 Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages

  • In any proceedings for defamation, the defendant may prove, in mitigation of damages, specific instances of misconduct by the plaintiff in order to establish that the plaintiff is a person whose reputation is generally bad in the aspect to which the proceedings relate.

At the  hearing  for quantum  before judge  Joyce,  a hearing for which the scope had not  been determined and  which  all parties believed to  be a hearing for quantum only  my affidavit  in mitigation of damages was used against me as evidence of continued defamation.

During the  hearing , the judge  briefly touched on formal proof    which was covered off my the plaintiff swearing to the best  of his knowledge that the Statement of claim was true  .No further comment was made to the substantive  issue and no determination was ever made that the statements in the statement of claim were defamatory  that is not the truth.

While the statement of claim was  determined , without comment,  to be true , my affidavit  ( a statement of truth )  was used  to prove continued  defamation .How can you  submit an affidavit showing the plaintiff  is of bad character by saying nice things?  Everything I said was backed up by evidence,

Every affidavit I have submitted to the court has been backed up with documentary evidence which the court has repeatedly dismissed and because of the bulk of this evidence ,now criticises me for.

While  I was  arbitrarily  found guilty of  defamation  I had the right  to submit  an affidavit   in mitigation of damages.

The court also has an interest  in not allowing itself to be used   for a corrupt purpose  and not once did the court consider the consequences is what I was saying was the truth, it was more important to find me guilty than to  question this corrupt use of public facilities and funds.

In  essence the court  is  being complicit in the   exercise of concealing corruption  which is against its fundamental role of acting in the public interest .

Truth is never defamatory.      IF  my  affidavit ,  a sworn statement , was defamatory then the statements mad in it  must be    lies  and  I should have been charged with  perjury .

The fact that this evidence was accepted as truth   and used against me  brings up the question of entrapment  brought  about through  legislation.

I have   appealed and asked for a judicial review, which was opposed  but no reasons given and  I found myself in a position where we had to give a reason for the  judicial review .

My lawyer  filed papers which  I had not seen and  also  which did not comply with my instructions to him.

I have now spent 4 ½ years   $200,000   and have lost my marriage and have seen my family broken up.  All in the quest  for justice. Justice should  not be this difficult to  obtain and   had I had the right to a fair trial    it would have been over a long  time ago. The plaintiff has been fighting me with  appears tobe a bottomess pit of charitable funds  which he has misappropriated to  secure silence and a  pay out for himself..  again this is true and I can show this through publicly available documents    but we don’t care about  corruption we condone it.

Had I been a  fraudster I would have served my time and  my costs would have been less, the chances are I would still have some   in the pocket profit from my criminal behaviour.  But I am  in essences a whistleblower who has no right to protection  and everyone including the court seems to stand by and condone the corrupt practices which I questioned.

All I ever wanted  was for  a hearing on the issues.. being that of the statement of claim  and  to be treated equally to the opposing party  who  were able to get away with  ignoring the direction of  Judge sharp  while it  was enforced against me.

I am disappointed that I was fobbed off  by the human rights commission this morning, there are many who will be  amazed by my story as it is the expectation that in New Zealand you can have  a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker .

My application to the  court for judicial review has been  turned down as the judge  relied  upon  case law to assume that  facts pleaded in the statement of claim are true.

The  case law  which is relied upon   was Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267 which is inconsistent with the  New Zealand bill of rights  27 (1) and cannot be appropriately used in a case of defamation  where the onus of proof to prove truth . Guilty until proven innocent  so how can you  be found innocent when you have no defence..  Yet the court  not once  determined that   what I said was true  and  when it accidently  brought out the fact that  what I had said was true the court resorted to making excused  for mr Wells  by saying that he got a head of himself.

It is therefore essential that a judicial review should be considered to see if this case law is applicable to   defamation. And consider the following

1.       That plaintiffs can succeed  without production of any evidence

2.        The strategic manoeuvrings which saw my defence struck out is equivalent to justice.

3.       That  one party can be held accountable to an order from the court   while the other parties failure to comply is   ignored.( filing a new statement of claim  and proceeding on the old one.)

4.       Allowing a party   to claim defamation without  showing  why the statement was untrue

5.       The maliciousness finding  was made without any prior notice to the court as required by legislation .

6.       That an affidavit in mitigation of damages  can  be used as evidence against the  party producing it.

7.       The obligations the court has to  the public in  ensuring that the court is not used to conceal corruption .. Ok   I know  no one cares about this. We are the least corrupt and  long may the pretence last.

The   human rights  which we  believe  we have , ie the right to justice   needs to be upheld and enforced .  I therefore request that you  assist in bringing the right to justice for me and  all others like me  to the attention of  the judiciary  and to the public bodies  who continually slam the doors in the face of all those who have been the victims of corrupt practices.

Advertisements

24/11/2010

Reply from Chief Executive MSI Global Alliance

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:58 am

From: James Mendelssohn [mailto:JMendelssohn@msiglobal.org]
Sent: Monday, 22 November 2010 11:18 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: What are the expected ethical standards of you member companies.

Dear Ms Haden

Thank you for your recent e-mail.  I was obviously concerned to read about the matters that you raised.  As a global organisation of professional firms, we take any allegation made against any of our member firms extremely seriously.   Indeed, the whole rationale of our organisation would be undermined if we could not rely on our members.

I have now had the opportunity to consider your e-mail carefully and to read the links provided.  I would like to make two specific comments.

First, I think that it is extremely unfortunate that your blog contains speculative and inaccurate comments, particularly when you say that MSI Global Alliance does not appear to have a Code of Conduct.  We have a document that has that exact title which is available on our website and is in the public domain.  Your comments are therefore incorrect and, by implication, defamatory.  I must ask you to remove or correct those comments on your blog immediately.

Secondly, I understand that you are pursuing a legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander, and that you have also raised the matter with the appropriate professional bodies.  I believe that this is the correct course of action if you have a grievance, and I would be pleased to learn the final outcome of any such matters.  I strongly believe that where our members are operating in a country with a developed and transparent legal system, it is better to allow due process to be followed in the local jurisdiction, rather than us trying to impose our own ‘judgement’ from afar. Therefore, until these matters are finally resolved, I believe that it is inappropriate for us to second guess the final decision.

I hope you understand our position.

Kind regards

James Mendelssohn

Chief Executive

MSI Global Alliance

 

my reply

Thank You Mr Mendelssohn

First of all I am not pursuing a  legal case against Peter Spring and Keegan Alexander  and I do not know  where you got that notion from,  I will be reporting the   incident to the law society , which   typically results in no action at all  as New Zealand prefers to  keep its  least corrupt status by condoning  such practices there by not acknowledging them as being corrupt.

As to your code of Conduct:  the only document I found   was one which prescribed the conduct amongst members   as I stated in my blog  I did not find a code of  conduct  “ which embraces ethical values outside their organisation”

Your   Code-Conduct.pdf does not  extend  to  or  include the expected   ethical  values  which are accepted and tolerated  by your associated partners  .

As an Anti corruption campaigner  I look for   the ethical  values to be enshrined in the code of  conduct  and expect these to be upheld and enforced.

I do hope that you can bring this to the attention  to the   directorship of your organisation , You will find  that many of  your members will be in countries where the united nations convention against corruption has been ratified, however New Zealand is not one of those countries  and our tolerance for corruption is somewhat higher than  most of your members would accept , it is therefore important that your own rules  set the standard as you do not wish to have your reputation tarnished by  low ethical standards of others.

Ethics are  like a chain   it is as only as strong as the weakest link .  You have control over that link  you  could cut it loose ,tidy it up  or live  knowing that it will be the link that sees the whole chain collapse.

The choice is  yours  I  have brought it to your attention  and I hope that you will take time to read the comments of Harrison J   those are  the comments of a justice  about Mr  Spring and Keegan Alexander  –    not mine.

If you would be so kind as to point me to a document in which   you set out the expected ethical standards   I will post the link on my blog to accurately reflect your expected standards .

In interest of transparency I will post  both your reply and my response on  my blog .

Regards

Grace Haden

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

 

21/11/2010

What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:03 pm

I have just returned from a certified fraud examiners conference in Melbourne, one of the topics was that of ethics another very interesting one was on the foreign corrupt practices Act.

Both of these are issues which relate to the dealings I have had with an American national Terry Hay who has been charged with offences and  sought refuge in  Honolulu.

The FPCA does not only implicate him it also   implicates the director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED William Donald DRAKE 43-006 Nana Place, Honolulu. We will be making a complaint under the provisions of that act and will keep you posted as to the outcome.

Basically it all comes down to ethics.. The ethics or lack of, of one person, when condoned by management of a company ,reflects the ethical values of the  whole company and  when a company’s  standards are condoned by organisations they are members of  it also reflects on the entire organisation .

It is therefore a very good ethical bench mark to look at companies and organisations  in terms   of what conduct is condoned.

This is a picture of Peter Spring LL.B his associated partners at Keegan Alexander are

Keegan Alexander is a member of the world wide MSI global alliance . MSI does not appear to have a code of conduct which embraces ethical values outside their organisation  but will be sure to raise that with them  when we bring this matter to their attention.

Background

For the past four years peter spring has pursued me through he courts on behalf of his client Terry Hay on a number of claims. The purpose of these claims were initially to remove me from   attempting to prove that a liquidator a director were fictitious.

The circumstances were that Hay was the  owner of a company fresh prepared Limited which  he had placed Lynne Pryor  in control of  as director and shareholder

The company took legal action against a former director Steven DE JONG

The court action  is reported in the following judgements

[1]  FRESH PREPARED LIMITED V STEVEN DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-1264 20 February 2006

[2]  FRESH PREPARED LIMITED V STEVEN DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-001264 13 April 2006

[3]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG & ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 15 May 2006

[4]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 9 June 2006

[5]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 16 August 2006

[6]  DE JONG V FRESH PREPARED LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-5306 3 November 2006

Perhaps the most  significant of these is  [5]  where on page 2 the judge states “in my provisional view this is one of those unusual cases where the successful party should not be awarded costs, and that they should lie where they fall.”

His  honour also refers to   The unnecessary use of interlocutory procedures, and the  failure to properly assess the true value of its claim well before trial. Stating that a realistic appraisal would have shown that this litigation was an uneconomic exercise for all parties; at the very least it should have been pursued on a restricted basis in the District Court.
He states at point 3
[4] This proceeding was issued in March 2004 and has seen an extraordinary amount of interlocutory activity, predominantly of FPL’s making, which would have been avoided if the company had undertaken an early evaluation of the arguable legal issues and its prospects of success.FPL has apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction. It was not until the company instructed Messrs Clayton Luke and Richard Harrison less than one month before trial that its case was properly formulated. I shall return to this subject when discussing costs.

Fresh prepared Limited  ( FPL) then   failed to pay the  lawyers  who had represented them  in the final proceedings ( they took over from SPRING)

Liquidation proceedings were commenced and the   company was sold  by Lynne Pryor to Sanjay Patel  who  on the eve of the   liquidation proceedings  placed the company in  voluntary liquidation with Bahubhai Patel

I was asked to locate the locate a director and  liquidator Pacific flight catering blog for  full details

Neither the liquidator nor director existed   both having been fabricated .see Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

During this time  Terry Hay  saw it fit to  harass  me by placing advertisements in a Chinese newspaper mandarin times and  joined himself in  harassment proceedings   which had been initiated by Lynne Pryor against me.

The claim of harassment came  when I tried to contact Sanjay Patel  and  did the  usual  of phoning the company and calling on   his residential address and continually finding Lynne Pryor there and discovering that She had the same Po box number as  the liquidator.

The interesting thing was that I had never met, spoken to or investigated Hay  yet  Peter Spring LL.B laid a charge of harassment against  me on behalf  of Hay and Pryor and secured a restraining order  on fiction.

When   the ministry of economic developments investigated , Hay and Pryor were charged . Hay skipped the country and took up residence in his native USA.

Pryor pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business but not before taking further action against me for alleged contempt of court.

Not only  did they take  me through district court but also  through  to the high court  despite the  court stating that  it did not believe that there was a contempt.  This is reflected in the  judgement PRIOR AND ANOR V HADEN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008134 20 May 2009

“The Judge went on to express cautionary views as to whether the undertaking the contempt proceedings relied on was still in force at the time of the alleged breach and raised whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a finding of civil contempt. He invited counsel to consider the matter further.

Despite the  opinions of  judges  Spring continued to pursue me through the court  causing  great stress to me and my family contributing to the end  of my 24 year marriage.

Spring had obligations under the lawyers and conveyancers act but  never ensured that the facts were there to substantiate the claims made .

I made a complaint to the law society   based on the conduct of Spring in my case and   the observations made by judges in the previous reported matters  which reflected the same  excessive use of interlocutory measures and scorched earth approach .

My complaint to the law society they have never investigated.    They simply wrote to me and told me that I had other redress available to me.  Strangely enough that letter was not received by me until after the appeal period.

I have since then asked Spring as to what was happening with the current proceedings, where I won the interlocutory at the high court and they now have to  provide discovery to progress the  case.

So far the proceedings have cost me  $49,000  in  court action and I sought to have this sum recovered and I wrote to him. Spring carefully twisted my letter   to be an allegation against his company  but  most importantly stated  on 2 November 2010

As to the court proceedings itself, we are not in receipt of instructions in relation to the same from our clients at present

I replied and  asked him  to  contact  his clients with regards to the proceedings  and on the 4th November I received this reply

“We cannot put the same before them as we are no longer acting for them in this matter and have not for some time.”

I can only assume that two days is a long time in law . But to me  it  shows a certain lack of integrity  ethics  and  accountability to the truth , had the clients  ceased being clients  would he not have said so   two days earlier  and ist it a proper procedure to withdraw  from the case in court?

I don’t  know   what others think but in my opinion  it  is dirty pool  and  any one  being a partner  of Keegan Alexander who support this  are all  tarred with the same brush.

I just hope that the multinational organisation  which Keegan Alexander are associated with  do have a policy for ethics .

I  will forward this post to MSI global alliance and see what their  view is on lawyers supporting corrupt practices and taking court action  to  help conceal corruption   and then   coming up with mind challenging statements  as to  their involvement with clients.

Will keep you posted.

In the mean time I am contacting all those who have  had the misfortune to have had Peter Spring on the opposition team in court, I have already met with a few of you  please  do  let me know who you are and we can work together to ensure that Lawyers are accountable to the code of conduct.

Grace Haden   grace@verisure.co.nz

Further related posts are at

02/11/2010

Minister of Police is kept in the dark -cops fabricating offences is condoned

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 12:05 pm

In early October I sent a letter to  the minister of Police   after I  had received a ticket for a fabricated offence offence which I defended in court and  for which the police later acknowledged they had no evidence for .

I sent an open letter to  Judith Collins in  which I boldly stated “I expect that you will just cast this aside and I will never hear again”  How true

I  did however receive this  email on Mon 11/10/2010 3:38 p.m.  claiming that it had been sent on to the commissioner of police

Well    three weeks later and not a word   obviously  cops fabricated offences is condoned.

Dear Ms Haden

Please find attached a response letter from the Office of the Minister of Police.

Yours sincerely

**** this was left blank ****

Sent of behalf of:

Inspector Scott Spackman

Police Private Secretary I Office of the Hon Judith Collins MP

scott.spackman@parliament.govt.nz I www.judithcollins.co.nz

Parliament Buildings I Private Bag 18041 I Wellington 6160

attached a response letter as  below

11 October 2010 Ref: Min 10 / P / 1418

Ms Grace Haden

grace@verisure.co.nz

Dear Ms Haden

The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your correspondence of 5 October 2010 concerning an infringement notice issued by police.

Your correspondence relates to matters that are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. I must point out that politicians cannot instruct Police in operational or employment matters.  This is a long standing convention that was enshrined in law with the passing of the Policing Act 2008.  It ensures that law enforcement and investigation by the Police remain free of any political influence or interference.

I have therefore referred your correspondence to the office of the Commissioner of Police for consideration.

Yours sincerely

******This was not even signed *****

Inspector Scott Spackman

Police Private Secretary

 

my reply  2/11/2010

Dear  minister.

Several month ago I wrote to you about a ticket which I had received in the Waikato, I had asked  the police a number of time to review the  claim as  I  knew there was no evidence .

I defended it in court  and won because surprisingly there was no evidence.

I made a complaint to the IPCA  who decided that counselling the cop was sufficient.

I  wrote to you because I have this strange notion that cops should be honest.

I received an unsigned  letter  purportedly from Inspector Spackman  stating  that   this was no concern for you and that  it  has been  forwarded to the commissioner.

I  do find this unusual  because I would   have thought that  the performance and  the manner in which the police conduct themselves would  be a matter for the minister.

I therefore ask that this letter be brought to your personal attention  .  I  am posting  this with the other back ground information on  my blog site https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

Wilson home for crippled children .. which trust is what?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:43 am

Several years ago I  became involved on a pro bono basis  for the parents  of the children at the  Wilson home for crippled children

a group of people who had taken over the management of the  place were looking at  splitting off and on selling part of the land

what I did  was to unspin the  documents which had been  placed before the  parents  so that the  reality shone through

this is the documentation  they supplied wilson home flyer

I located the following

  1. Wilson home trust deed
  2. Local Legislation Act 1949 No 31
  3. Local Legislation Act 1949 No 35
  4. JUDGMENT OF LAURENSON J Wilson home trust

The following is what I unspun It is provided as a PDF  with  the comments in red THE ORIGINAL LEGACY with my notes in red

There is now a Wilson Home Trust set up on the charities register   and  it shows this as the deed amended deed

What is significant is the  confusion which is created with regards to a trust, the  trustees for the  Wilson home trust certainly are not  those set down by the original deed   and  those who took  it to court for  amendment  were not  the trustees named int he deed either.

It is interesting that  the person who asked questions  about  the process promptly lost his job…  it is what we do to whistleblowers in New Zealand.

Blog at WordPress.com.