Anticorruptionnz's Blog

28/01/2011

All you need is a trading name and a lot of spin and confusion.

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 1:08 pm

It would appear that Neil Wells has continued to   confuse all those who have dealing with AWINZ.

First of all I have to make it clear that AWINZ is a trade mark belonging to the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand Limited. It has been offered to Neil Wells   and his associates  but they chose not to   take it but have continued to use it ..  it appears that Mr Wells is totally protected from the law to such an extent that he can make things up and  every one believes him.,, he is a barrister  and how could a barrister possibly be pulling the wool over any ones eyes..

In fact  his court action has proved  that  company names,   incorporation   and legal status means nothing.  It has also proved that truth means nothing  and that  you can win in court without evidence and    or proof.

He has also  with the help of his lawyer Nick Wright ensured that  the   inconvenient step of having  some one found guilty can be skipped    and go straight to sentencing.

They continued to mislead the court and    I have been unable to appeal any  of this or seek a review   of the process which was used.

In short  the   last 4 ½ Years of litigation with  Wells has proved  that  every thing in our   so-called legal system is a mockery   going right back to where I  first came in.. it is possible   apparently to have a law  enforcement agency which does not exist.

All you need is a trading name  and   a lot of spin and confusion.

Now  we are  dealing with the charities commission  and it appears that you can take litigation   then set up a trust afterwards to pay for the litigation out of he  charitable funds.    Cool  idea   wait till it   cottons on  we could be on to a winner.

It appears that in New Zealand law  confusion  tactics  and spin win out over truth and  facts.

Below is the correspondence with the charities commission    with Wells   I have taken the liberty of commenting on  some of the documents in Blue  I have also given  the   links to   the relevant  deeds  and  statements of claim.

  • 1998 Wells advises on legislation  that will allow for ” approved Organisations “
  • December  5 2006  the three   litigants  and Tom Didovich   who has been   using  public funds to fund this  “venture”  form a trust note  how  this deed  has a  different objective  and  also a new section 5  which allows for its funds to be used for litigation… only issue is that   these are not the litigants  it is a subsequently formed  trust.
  • 2007 this  latest trust becomes a charity  and the funds  which  they have are used to pay litigation  going back to 2006 Brookfields  have never checked out  to see who their clients were and  obviously are happy to be paid and don’t care about the   cover up.
  • I raise questions with  charities commission   the following is the  over up by wells and     it is not questioned by charities commission ..Why do people not look at dates??????
  1. Requested info – annual return correspondence
  2. Requested info – Emails to-from Neil Wells1
  3. Requested info – Email to Neil Wells2

I have taken the liberty of adding comments to the documents as  follows

Requested info – Emails to-from Neil Wells1 with comments

Requested info – Email to Neil Wells2 with comments

If any one cares about the mockery this is making of  our entire  company structure and judical system  please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Advertisements

22/01/2011

We could all hide behind trusts and Trading names looks like its legal

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:28 pm

Official information act request  MAF and minister and office of the auditor general .

Open letter

Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) has at all times been a trading name .

This trading name without  proof of  who it represented ( that is the parties  who were alleged trustees) was given approved status under the animal welfare act  1999.

The approved “ organisation “  has never been  an Organisation under any  enactment which  provides it  with the ability to act   in its own name, ie independent existence from those using that trading name.

The trading name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  has been  used by  various groups

1.       Neil Wells personally .. in 1999  when  he  made an application for approved status, and for  funds  falsely claiming that a trust existed.

2.       An unincorporated trust consisting  of Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap  and Graeme Coutts   this trust was formed   allegedly 1-3-2000

a.        these trustees never  applied for or consented  to  the application for approved status ,

b.       or appointed or approved any person to   sign on the individual trustees behalf in  such an application . the deed specifically states that  powers of the trustees can be delegated in writing.  If such a document had existed then this would have had to have been produced, and  kept  on record , before one could sign  for  and on behalf of the others.

c.       This trust has a common seal , this common seal has not been appended to any   formal document  to  show that  it is this trusts trading name that is being used. According to the deed , and without  further evidence this trust ceased to exist 1.3.2003

3.       Neil Wells personally    Dec 2003  when he signed the Mou with Maf and   Mou  with Waitakere city council

a.       Opened a bank account that only had access to

b.      Applied  for IRD status

4.       The name of a subsequently formed  trust 5.12.2006   who without  evidence claim that they are the same trust as the trust which ceased to exist in 2003. These persons became a Charity   and subsequently asked for  the revocation f the approved status.  These persons were Wyn Hoadley, Neil wells , Tom Didovich and Graeme Coutts.   There is no record with Maf of these people having entered into a contract with maf for  animal welfare services , They could therefore not request the  relinquishment of the approved status

In December 2009  the minister accepted the application to revoke the approved status from   the  last group listed above     , Could the minister please advise  what   checks were  carried out and what evidence was presented to him to satisfy him that these people wer the one and the same  “ organisation using the trading name  Animal welfare institute of new Zealand.

And  what evidence the minister  has   that would indicate to the public  who at any time   during the existence of the approved organisation  , were the persons or person  who  used that trading name.

Could you also please provide a copy of  the criteria  the  government  used for   contracting to a trading  name

and by which means  was   accountability to the public addressed  given that no one knew   who   was using this trading name at any given time.

Could you please also  provide any discussion papers and   documentation which  considered the implication of  providing a trading name with law enforcement powers .

09/01/2011

Revocation of approved status AWINZ

Filed under: AWINZ — anticorruptionnz @ 10:52 am

The  animal welfare institute of New Zealand   a fictitious organisation  which had vast  law enforcement  ability  finally has had its  status as an approved organisation revoked .

Notice Number: 9586
Year: 2010
Publication Date: 16 December 2010
Page Number:
4250
Title:
Revocation of the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 

Notice No. 1703

 

Notice Text:
Revocation of the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand as an Approved Organisation Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Notice No. 1703) 

I hereby give notice that, pursuant to section 123(1)(a)(i)

of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the notice for the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute

of New Zealand (Inc) as an Approved Organisation, as published in the New Zealand Gazette, 18 January 2001, No. 6, page 116, is revoked.

This notice takes effect 28 days after it is published in the New Zealand Gazette.

Dated at Wellington this 8th day of December 2010.

HON DAVID CARTER, Minister of Agriculture.

 

08/01/2011

The price of animal adoption

Filed under: SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 9:13 am

In the past week I   spoke to various  people who have expressed their concerns  at the cost of adopting animals from the SPCA. Then today  this article turns up in my in box.

In view of the work that I  have been doing with   animal welfare  I now see  what is occurring. This is a  course of events  which  it appears the spca are on

1.        ensure all animals are neutered

2.       close down puppy farms

3.       adopt a no kill policy

4.       claim poverty due to over loading of animals

5.        Sell animals at a high price  which includes de sexing and microchiping.

6.       By  on selling the animals   there is the ability to maintain an ownership  register.

7.       By being able to identify the animal   and  the owner prosecutions will be more prevalent and successful.. they don’t have to prove  much   forgetting to feed the animal  for breakfast will be enough.

8.       The funds from the prosecution are payable to the   spca ( section 171 animal welfare act ) The animal can also be surrendered to the SPCA.. giving more ” stock”

9.       Therefore more funds higher wages  for the  CEOs. And those at the top.

Never lose sight of the fact that the SPCA is a business.

07/01/2011

whistleblowers in the news

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 11:37 am

Susan Watson and Rebecca Hirsch: Whistleblower protection could have helped investors The law has overlooked the needs of companies, write Susan Watson and Rebecca Hirsch.

Wow great that there are others who are echoing what I have been saying..  2011 is going to be a great one watch this space.

Blog at WordPress.com.