For the information for the ombudsmen’s office and for the information of the ministers Please do something! .. also a further OIA for MAF by way of clarification of the letter attached.
MAF gives Law enforcement powers to a Mythical creature .. then runs and hide and allows a woman to be destroyed because she asked why it wasn’t real?
Why steal and identity when you can make one up and have it treated as real and given more rights than a real person has?
How can MAF condone this ???? Why do our ministers not get involved?
In 2000 The then minister of Agriculture , based on direction from the labour cabinet , gave law enforcement powers to a mythical creature called AWINZ. It had been created by one of their party members, an advertising man well versed in spin, and supported by the labour party president at that time ..Bob Harvey a former associate in advertising of AWINZ creator.
AWINZ, the mythical creature and sounding just like a government department became a private law enforcement authority with ability to keep all the proceeds of prosecutions it under took through the animal welfare act.
It was Given” Life” through the animal welfare act which had been written with the creation of AWINZ in mind by the man who advised on the act, wrote the bill and applied for AWINZ to be an approved Organisation.
AWINZ the fiction which has been personified has been better than any Identity fraud I have ever seen . No one is interested in it because there is no proof of how much money it took from the people , but I can assure you that the potential was massive.
Like a great parasite it leached on to Waitakere city council functions of dog and stock control, the city in which Bob Harvey was mayor.
It operated from the council premises, used council Logos, staff, resources and vehicles. Like a true mythical creature it was there but not there. AWINZ creator became the manager of animal welfare and although he contracted to himself through this hypothetical trust which no one had seen a deed for it was not seen as corruption as defined by the OECD or the united nations .. being public office for private Gain and was apparently condoned by all to who the issue was raised.
When dog registration came up funds were collected and banked in to the creatures bank account which the manger of animal welfare administered.
When the staff under his council supervision noticed some one being naughty with an animal they would tell their boss who would report to the creator of the mythical creature who would then pass it to the barrister who would get money from the prosecution and would then put it in the bank account. This system was highly efficient as the one man wore many hats.. we were to find out in court that this is because NZ is small.
Something got in the way of the creatures growth and that was me… I said one day excuse me but isn’t this a fiction ( I actually used the words sham trust ) and from there on I have been held in court for some 4 ½ Yeas , been denied a defence had costs trumped up against me, , I have paid out nearly $200,000 to lawyers, it brought about the end of my marriage, torn may family apart and destroyed my business . You see the creature fought back by misleading he court and using the public charitable dollar which it had ferreted away.
I am a reasonably astute person , Former Police Sergeant, Private investigator and have found it impossible to get MAF to investigate AWINZ. I have found it impossible to get justice .
Wells the man who created AWINZ is obviously so trusted by MAF ( advised both MAF and the select committee on the legislation ) that he has not had to provide any evidence of the fictional creature he created. And with Mr Wells firmly in control of the creatures bank accounts and the public paying into this he has been able to fund the litigation to silence me .
MAF on the other hand provided me with the brick wall to hit my head against while I have been sued for defamation where no evidence has ever been produced and I have been denied my statutory right to a defence of truth and honest opinion.
This has gone on for too long . MAF they treat me as if I a nuisance yet their neglect in confirming the organisation set me up for the fall when I asked why there was no evidence of its existence and therefore questioned the accountability.
There are now so many people involved in the cover up that I feel it is easier for me to be sacrificed than to admit that there was a law enforcement agency which did not exist in reality and no one did anything when it was brought to their attention.
I had hopes that National would do something about it because it is not involved in this cover up but we are now 2 years into National governance and nothing much has changed. Does National condone this ? or have they simply been too busy I ask the ministers to whom this is addressed please to investigate.
OIA MAF
Thank you for the attached response reply re awinz ceasing to be an approved organisation it does however raise a few more questions which I hope can be addressed by virtue of the official information act.
1. I have ascertained from the new council that there are still a number of warranted officers at the Waitakere city animal welfare facility. Could you please provide all correspondence with regards to the warrants for these inspectors which shows the accountability and lawfulness of their appointments in terms of the act. IE
a. who were they accountable to
b. who did they report to
c. who supervised them and
d. since the existence of Waitakere city council who in Auckland city approved the continuation of this arrangement.
2. Please provide details of any animal welfare prosecutions which have occurred in the past year as a result of work done by the warranted inspectors in Waitakere.
a. How many prosecutions were there
b. Who prosecuted the cases
c. Which approved Organisation received the compensation form these prosecutions as provided for by section 171 of the animal welfare act.
3. Any correspondence to Waitakere animal welfare , Auckland transitional council and Auckland city council regarding the r continued appointment of the animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and termination letters if applicable.
Your letter makes it clear that that the MOU dated 4 December 2003 is the current MOU .
This MOU was signed By Neil Wells as trustee of AWINZ could you please provide
1. all evidence on which you relied that Mr Wells was Trustee of AWINZ and had authority to sign for and on behalf of other trustees.
2. Provide the copy of the trust deed which you relied upon to show that this Trust was a legal entity
3. Please advise when you received copy of this trust deed.
4. Please provide all documents that show the resignations and appointments of all trustees to the trust
5. Copies of all trust deeds which you have on file .
Your letter also states that AWINZ has ceased to be an approved organisation. Please provide all correspondence gazette notes letters from ministers etc which indicate that it now has no further legal powers.
I also have to raise an issue with the use of the word AWINZ . AWINZ the acronym for Animal welfare institute of New Zealand is no more than a trading name of a group of people , various people at various times Please advise which group of people, or which person had accountability , and please provide evidence of their support and agreement to being accountable at the various times
1. When the application was made in the name of the unincorporated trust in the application which was unsupported by a trust deed.
2. Approved status was given to AWINZ, which was done at a time when MAF neither had a trust deed on file or had seen a trust deed.
3. When the MOU was signed .. which was signed on 4 December 2003 which according to the trust deed which you were supplied with By Mr. Wells in 2006 had expired 8 months earlier .. see page 4 term of office and vacancy .
4. When AWINZ requested the revocation of its approved status (some 6 years after the deed had expired and some three years after this obsolete trust deed with no legal standing had been supplied.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 