Anticorruptionnz's Blog


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.


Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: