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 “
- November 1999 Wells makes application for approved status using a blank trust deed
- trust deed purportedly signed 1.3.2000 but is never on any official file prior to june 2006 note tom didovic collects the signatures and witnesses them the trust never met.
- MOU signed with Waitakere and Government after the above trust expires according to its own terms ( 1.3.2003 )
- 18 July 2006 statement of claim by three people who do not have a deed Statement of Claim with comments
- 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??????
- Requested info – annual return correspondence
- Requested info – Emails to-from Neil Wells1
- 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.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 