Anticorruptionnz's Blog

13/12/2010

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 4:01 pm

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition refer  source

Mr Key

I wrote to you this morning   regarding  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   a law enforcement authority which is  fictional in structure and  although it has legal powers  is no more than  a trading name for one man  who wrote the legislation to facilitate it.

 

Because of the lack of substance of AWINZ  there are  no binding contracts  but  despite this  those  using the name in the pretence that it exists  have  the legal ability ( and has done so ) to prosecute  citizens and keep the proceeds   section 171 animal welfare act.

 

AWINZ   came into being  when  a citizen who had drafted a business plan for  his own  business venture  , wrote  the major part of the  animal welfare act, he then  became an employee of the  select committee and  was their independent advisor, he was also advisor to MAF .

 

When the  act he had contributed to and advised on  became law he told  the minister that  an organisation existed   and applied in the name of that organisation for approved status under the act to  give himself the same rights as   the RNZSPCA   of which he had been a former director.

 

The statements in the application was false  and in 2006 there was no evidence of any organisation and an alleged trustee stated that the proposed  trustees had  not met since late 1998 .  The deed  which was supplied  had expired in 2003   and he contracts with local and central government was  signed without  the deed or any evidence of  trustees being provided.

 

Despite claims that AWINZ  no longer exists  it is still a registered charity and   has never been removed from the list of approved organisation.

 

I   have been  informed that this is  a good example of state capture  which is a form of corrupt practice.   The article    whose title  has been used  was published in 2000.

 

I again emphasise that I questioned this corrupt practice some 4 ½   years ago and have been held in the court  without right of trial   having been arbitrarily found  guilty  of defamation on the basis of my own  affidavit which was submitted   in mitigation of damages as the  act allows for.

 

I have been unsuccessful in finding any  government department  which  deals with this  aspect of corruption and therefore seek your assistance.

 

Could you please advise  to whom one makes a complaint with regards to state capture and By way of OIA please supply all documents which consider this form of corruption and methods we  have employed to combat this .

 

More information  with regards to AWINZ  can be found  on my blog site https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

 

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

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

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:42 p.m.
To: ‘j.key@ministers.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘s.power@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’
Subject: whistleblower protection United nations convention agaisnt corruption

 

Good afternoon  Mr Key

 

 

Some 4 ½  years ago  I asked questions   of a  private law enforcement authority   which contracted to both local and  central government .

 

The so called organisation was  run by the man who wrote  and advised on the legislation to facilitate it  he

 

1.       Applied for approved status under the act which he had written ( animal welfare ) for  an organisation which did not exist to become  an approved organisation  making it similar to the RNZSPCA

2.       Avoided sending a trust deed when Maf requested it

3.       Failed to register the  so called trust under the charitable trust act  as assured in the application and  in correspondence to the then  minster  of agriculture

4.       In 2006  when I questioned the existence of  the trust and the lack of  trust deeds on public  record   I was sued  for defamation  for calling it s sham trust.

a.       In a game of legal manoeuvring  I was prevented  from having a defence  and no  decision has ever been made that I  defamed Mr wells  and that  what I said was not the truth .  the court  has continually been misled  and I have been denied  the right to a fair hearing. ( the only hearing was for Quantum  in which  my affidavit of mitigation of damages  was used against me

5.       The trust documents which first saw light in 2006  claim that the deed was signed 1.3.2000

a.       This is some 4 months after  the  trust was claimed to be in existence ( application  22/1/99 )

b.      The deed  states that the trustees are appointed for  3 years   this means that without further proof the trust ceased to exist after 1/3/2003

i.      The  trustees claim that the trust did not meet  and there is therefore no evidence of re appointment of trustees .No evidence has been provided  or is available to show that the trust   continued to exist

6.        The author of the legislation  acting  as trustee  of the trust whose deed had now expired  signed  agreements  with   MAF and to Waitakere city through his  colleague Tom Didovich  the manager of  dog and stock control ,  who’s job he was to acquire  a year  or so later.

a.       This manager had also collected the signatures for  the deed, witnessed them and  then became  a trustee of a similarly named trust which attempted to show continuity.

I have been to every government department  which I can think of   , I have been stone walled all the way .

Had New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  I would have protection through the court , instead   all these  years of litigation  have  taken their toll on my  family , my financial resources , my health, my business , my friends .

Not only  am I not provided  with any  protection  I have been left entirely in the cold  by all government agencies which have a responsibility to ensure that corrupt practices  do not occur.

This is far worse than  John Davies, Marianne Thompson  and Stephen Wilce,  yet no  one will investigate , I have been left entirely on my own

Could you please advise  why a matter of  government  and local bodies  contracting to  fictional   bodies  through the staff members     is not seen as  fraud and corruption and why  no one investigates.

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

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

 

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. […] “Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition […]

    Pingback by State capture—a form of grand corruption..alive and well in NZ « Transparency New Zealand — 15/02/2011 @ 10:52 pm

  2. […] If Key had Listened to me   we could  have done something about corrupt practices in New Zealand  see “Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, Instead we  are not   ratifying the  UN convention against corruption  I guess that would […]

    Pingback by Why does Key support multinational shareholders and not a home grown charity? « Transparency New Zealand — 09/04/2011 @ 7:29 pm

  3. […] Key Listened to me   we could  have done something about corrupt practices in New Zealand  see “Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, Instead we  are not   ratifying the  UN convention against corruption  I guess that would […]

    Pingback by Why does Key support multinational shareholders and not a home grown charity? | Transparency New Zealand — 30/06/2011 @ 10:20 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: