Anticorruptionnz's Blog

09/06/2011

How the rich get richer

Filed under: corruption,Fresh prepared Ltd,Lynne Pryor,Terry Hay — anticorruptionnz @ 8:30 pm

When we look at the  commercial landscape of new Zealand  it soon becomes evident that the  very few peaks are  occupied  by  a handful of  men  who  all appear to be inter connected  one way or another.

The other observation is that many of these   persons did not  get to the top using their own   resources but did so while trampling    a hard working Kiwi in to the ground.

Morals , values ,ethics  and truth have nothing to do with  it appears that  it’s all fair in commerce  and that includes matters which are considered illegal in other countries.

However in New Zealand the luxury of using the  court to obtain what you want  exists  and   in using the court  you have the added benefit of financially stripping your opponent  to ensure the takeover is  swift and  painless..  that is painless for  those occupying the peak  not so  for the  poor sod who   is driven into the ground.

Truth is  also easily avoided because there  consequences of telling lies in court is minimal as no  one will take you  to  court for perjury as it simply is not economical especially if you are the one  who can afford   big  gun lawyers  and write it off as a business expense .

It is time  that we  sought accountability to the truth in our courts and ensured this by making  it uneconomic for those  straying from the truth  to do so.  Currently our legal system   appears to  favour those  who  can afford the   courts    and those who can afford the courts   use it   to financially strip their victims.

Perjury prosecutions are  rare because basically they are uneconomic against those who can afford to defend them.

Culprits of this tactic are those who hide behind company names   , only when you delve further do the real   culprits come to light.

Take this judgement for example FRESH PREPARED LTD   in  paragraph 6 of this judgement it states “It is important to record that the shareholders in Beach Road Nominees were Messrs Terry Hay and David Nathan.  And that “Hay owned Pacific Flight Catering

In the judgement   the judge goes on to say  that fresh prepared Limited , (that is Terry Hay and David Nathan  ) “apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction.”

In the end   Mr de Jong the   target of their litigation was bankrupted .

He was not the first  ,   I have  personal experience with   David Nathan and Terry Hay  and while David Nathan, a  director of the  chamber of commerce  appears to   be on the outside in my matter,   he cannot deny his involvement   in the   destruction of THE GREAT DESSERT company  Limited.

The  story  is set out quite  clearly in the court report  The Great Dessert company limited v Vague

What stands out is that Terry Hay  was acting  in a capacity  which was more than a shareholder, he was preparing GST returns which  conflicted with the  figures which the owner of the  company had obtained.  He also communicated with the bank and  then he and David Nathan   used  a company for which they were directors  ( salad foods Limited)to purchase the debenture   from the  ANZ  just prior to it rolling over for another  year   and immediately place the  company in  receivership to recover these funds.

Had the debenture remained with the bank  the  loan would have been    advanced to the company for a further   12 months and there would have been no financial pressure on the   owner of the company.

The receivers were appointed and   a legal battle  began, Terry Hay  is good at these he uses them to bankrupt people  and then he retreats to Honolulu   so that he can  escape his accountability to our  justice system  when he is faced with a  multitude of fraud charges( hay charges )

The decision was favourable  for the original owner of the great Dessert company limited   but  they ran out of finance for the appeal and the liquidators  stepped in as planned.

The financial reports from the liquidators how the extra financial pressure the litigation placed on the company. Receiver’s 1st Report   .  Receiver’s Final Report

This is probably the cheapest way to take over a company  there is no goodwill to pay  and  you can then continue to trade with the company as if never ceased to exist even take over the trade mark as though  you are still the same company

Although I have no evidence that this is the case in this instance , I suspect that he  operators  of the Great dessert company are   puppets  just like  Lynne Pryor was in fresh prepared Limited and Salad foods Limited .

Terry Hay has other people fronting his businesses for him. This was and still is the case for fresh prepared limited  which has now morphed into  Salad foods run and operated  by convicted fraudster Lynne Pryor under supervision of her brother Graham Pryor  who has moved from media  to the food industry

The reason for using other people is that  his reputation precedes him and  there are those int eh airline industry who simply will not deal with  him.

Hay is still operating  Pacific flight catering through his appointed eyes and ears John Matsuoka whose address Hay uses  here in New Zealand for his shareholding.

Pacific flight catering  supply food for Air Pacific ,Cathay Pacific , Air Tahiti Nui , China Airlines , China southern , Thai air lines  and   have just lost the contract to  Malaysia Airlines

I should  add that  the  original  owner of the Great dessert company  a very accomplished  pastry Chef is no longer with  us, the stress brought on cancer  which eventually claimed her life..  Well done  Mr Nathan  and Mr Hay looks in my opinion it looks like  legalised  theft and   murder.

Advertisements

21/11/2010

What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:03 pm

I have just returned from a certified fraud examiners conference in Melbourne, one of the topics was that of ethics another very interesting one was on the foreign corrupt practices Act.

Both of these are issues which relate to the dealings I have had with an American national Terry Hay who has been charged with offences and  sought refuge in  Honolulu.

The FPCA does not only implicate him it also   implicates the director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED William Donald DRAKE 43-006 Nana Place, Honolulu. We will be making a complaint under the provisions of that act and will keep you posted as to the outcome.

Basically it all comes down to ethics.. The ethics or lack of, of one person, when condoned by management of a company ,reflects the ethical values of the  whole company and  when a company’s  standards are condoned by organisations they are members of  it also reflects on the entire organisation .

It is therefore a very good ethical bench mark to look at companies and organisations  in terms   of what conduct is condoned.

This is a picture of Peter Spring LL.B his associated partners at Keegan Alexander are

Keegan Alexander is a member of the world wide MSI global alliance . MSI does not appear to have a code of conduct which embraces ethical values outside their organisation  but will be sure to raise that with them  when we bring this matter to their attention.

Background

For the past four years peter spring has pursued me through he courts on behalf of his client Terry Hay on a number of claims. The purpose of these claims were initially to remove me from   attempting to prove that a liquidator a director were fictitious.

The circumstances were that Hay was the  owner of a company fresh prepared Limited which  he had placed Lynne Pryor  in control of  as director and shareholder

The company took legal action against a former director Steven DE JONG

The court action  is reported in the following judgements

[1]  FRESH PREPARED LIMITED V STEVEN DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-1264 20 February 2006

[2]  FRESH PREPARED LIMITED V STEVEN DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-001264 13 April 2006

[3]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG & ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 15 May 2006

[4]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 9 June 2006

[5]  FRESH PREPARED LTD V DE JONG AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2004-404-1264 16 August 2006

[6]  DE JONG V FRESH PREPARED LTD HC AK CIV 2006-404-5306 3 November 2006

Perhaps the most  significant of these is  [5]  where on page 2 the judge states “in my provisional view this is one of those unusual cases where the successful party should not be awarded costs, and that they should lie where they fall.”

His  honour also refers to   The unnecessary use of interlocutory procedures, and the  failure to properly assess the true value of its claim well before trial. Stating that a realistic appraisal would have shown that this litigation was an uneconomic exercise for all parties; at the very least it should have been pursued on a restricted basis in the District Court.
He states at point 3
[4] This proceeding was issued in March 2004 and has seen an extraordinary amount of interlocutory activity, predominantly of FPL’s making, which would have been avoided if the company had undertaken an early evaluation of the arguable legal issues and its prospects of success.FPL has apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction. It was not until the company instructed Messrs Clayton Luke and Richard Harrison less than one month before trial that its case was properly formulated. I shall return to this subject when discussing costs.

Fresh prepared Limited  ( FPL) then   failed to pay the  lawyers  who had represented them  in the final proceedings ( they took over from SPRING)

Liquidation proceedings were commenced and the   company was sold  by Lynne Pryor to Sanjay Patel  who  on the eve of the   liquidation proceedings  placed the company in  voluntary liquidation with Bahubhai Patel

I was asked to locate the locate a director and  liquidator Pacific flight catering blog for  full details

Neither the liquidator nor director existed   both having been fabricated .see Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

During this time  Terry Hay  saw it fit to  harass  me by placing advertisements in a Chinese newspaper mandarin times and  joined himself in  harassment proceedings   which had been initiated by Lynne Pryor against me.

The claim of harassment came  when I tried to contact Sanjay Patel  and  did the  usual  of phoning the company and calling on   his residential address and continually finding Lynne Pryor there and discovering that She had the same Po box number as  the liquidator.

The interesting thing was that I had never met, spoken to or investigated Hay  yet  Peter Spring LL.B laid a charge of harassment against  me on behalf  of Hay and Pryor and secured a restraining order  on fiction.

When   the ministry of economic developments investigated , Hay and Pryor were charged . Hay skipped the country and took up residence in his native USA.

Pryor pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business but not before taking further action against me for alleged contempt of court.

Not only  did they take  me through district court but also  through  to the high court  despite the  court stating that  it did not believe that there was a contempt.  This is reflected in the  judgement PRIOR AND ANOR V HADEN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008134 20 May 2009

“The Judge went on to express cautionary views as to whether the undertaking the contempt proceedings relied on was still in force at the time of the alleged breach and raised whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a finding of civil contempt. He invited counsel to consider the matter further.

Despite the  opinions of  judges  Spring continued to pursue me through the court  causing  great stress to me and my family contributing to the end  of my 24 year marriage.

Spring had obligations under the lawyers and conveyancers act but  never ensured that the facts were there to substantiate the claims made .

I made a complaint to the law society   based on the conduct of Spring in my case and   the observations made by judges in the previous reported matters  which reflected the same  excessive use of interlocutory measures and scorched earth approach .

My complaint to the law society they have never investigated.    They simply wrote to me and told me that I had other redress available to me.  Strangely enough that letter was not received by me until after the appeal period.

I have since then asked Spring as to what was happening with the current proceedings, where I won the interlocutory at the high court and they now have to  provide discovery to progress the  case.

So far the proceedings have cost me  $49,000  in  court action and I sought to have this sum recovered and I wrote to him. Spring carefully twisted my letter   to be an allegation against his company  but  most importantly stated  on 2 November 2010

As to the court proceedings itself, we are not in receipt of instructions in relation to the same from our clients at present

I replied and  asked him  to  contact  his clients with regards to the proceedings  and on the 4th November I received this reply

“We cannot put the same before them as we are no longer acting for them in this matter and have not for some time.”

I can only assume that two days is a long time in law . But to me  it  shows a certain lack of integrity  ethics  and  accountability to the truth , had the clients  ceased being clients  would he not have said so   two days earlier  and ist it a proper procedure to withdraw  from the case in court?

I don’t  know   what others think but in my opinion  it  is dirty pool  and  any one  being a partner  of Keegan Alexander who support this  are all  tarred with the same brush.

I just hope that the multinational organisation  which Keegan Alexander are associated with  do have a policy for ethics .

I  will forward this post to MSI global alliance and see what their  view is on lawyers supporting corrupt practices and taking court action  to  help conceal corruption   and then   coming up with mind challenging statements  as to  their involvement with clients.

Will keep you posted.

In the mean time I am contacting all those who have  had the misfortune to have had Peter Spring on the opposition team in court, I have already met with a few of you  please  do  let me know who you are and we can work together to ensure that Lawyers are accountable to the code of conduct.

Grace Haden   grace@verisure.co.nz

Further related posts are at

08/09/2010

Pacific flight catering blog

Filed under: corruption,Lynne Pryor,Terry Hay,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 2:37 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 2:33 p.m.
To: ‘Julie.luo@pri-pacific.com’; ‘davidn@pri-pacific.com’; ‘rita.smith@pri-pacific.com’
Cc: ‘administrator@pri-pacific.com’; ‘Georgenitta@hotmail.com’; ‘graeme.clark@pkfrm.co.nz’; ‘jugdis.parbhu@pkfrm.co.nz’; ‘gina.cook@pkfrm.co.nz’

Subject: Pacific flight catering blog

Several years  ago I had to find  a liquidator and director of a company called fresh prepared Limited  this company has  now morphed   into Salad Foods ltd

Neither director nor liquidator  existed   but I was not to know  that.  But Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor knew   and they needed me out of the way

So they sued me  for harassment.. it didn’t matter that I had not investigated ,been near or even enquired after Terry Hay   they sued me any way ( that’s what rich people  do apparently ) Lynne was annoyed because  I  visited the home address  of the   director and the  factory he claimed  to own .

Before we went to court “ Julie”   placed an advertisement in the mandarin  times  , this  saw  my house  besieged  with telephone calls and  callers.( mandarin times original )

A year or so later I tried to  find Julie   and rang David Nathan.  He was so upset that I had phoned him that  he swore an affidavit  and had me taken to court again for contempt of court.

The judge said that it was not contempt of court   but   they were not going to accept that and took it to the high court  where I won the right for discovery.

The matter is still live in the court today   and in the process I have  lost not only $49,000  for my lawyers  but it saw the end of  my marriage  which  would have seen its 25th anniversary this    month.

I  fully believe that everyone needs to be  responsible for their actions  and that  wrongs  can be put right  with compensation .

I   foolishly believed that  now that Lynne  Pryor has been convicted  of fraud   and has  been  banned from managing a company (   yes I know she still is )  that  someone may  see it  fit to  withdraw the charges from the court and  compensate me for my loss .  I ran into Lynne at the supermarket   and she did not  wish to talk about  what is happening to the proceedings  .

So Since I am in the  anti corruption  and  Anti fraud line of  work  I thought that I would use this  to   illustrate  how  companies function and   what  goes  on  behind the scenes  so I have  put a new page on my  blog  Pacific Flight Catering what are its ethical values?

I will add to  this    on a daily basis ( if I can)  showing the intriguing story behind the  persecution of me   and  the links to  the   people at  Pacific flight catering.  The Directors, who they are    and the shareholders .     I have already done my research and I can promise you that    this is  going to be an eye opener.

As I do nothing behind any ones  back   I  am advising you  are connected in one way or another   with this blog . I will endeavour to contact everyone   involved  so that they all know  what is being said about them and their associates on the web.   People have a right to know   who they are dealing with .

If there is anything inaccurate I do hope that  you will let me know and I will correct  . everything is    well researched  and  I  believe it all to be the truth and factual

The news paper stories   which explain it all  are located here

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Sunday, May 30, 2010

And my other  blog  is Using the court to conceal corruption

I hope to turn the blog  into  a book  I need to do this to  recover the costs     Turning  a negative into a positive is a good thing    I want people to  learn from what I have experienced.

This page is posted on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

visit the Pacific flight catering blog

Regards

Grace Haden

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

23/08/2010

INDEX

Filed under: — anticorruptionnz @ 1:25 am

Latest post is at the top

other blogs

07/05/2010

Using the court to conceal corruption

Filed under: corruption,Fresh prepared Ltd,Lynne Pryor,Neil Wells,Terry Hay — anticorruptionnz @ 9:08 am

It has been an interesting week in court   Monday started with a 10 day trial  for Lynne Pryor   the former manager of Fresh prepared Ltd, the trial did not go ahead  – a guilty plea on some of the charges   was entered.  Terry Hay the co accused and Major share holder of Pri flight catering Ltd  however   is  still in Honolulu  seeking refuge  from our law. See Charges over alleged fake liquidator.

I was involved in this case n the  beginning , when a client asked me to locate  the new director of Fresh Prepared Ltd   Sanjay Patel   and the  Liquidator Bahubhai  Patel.

Lynne had purportedly sold the business to  Sanjay  and when I rang to  speak to him she asked if she  could take a message. Believing through her actions that he  existed   and as he did not return my calls,  I kept trying to get hold of him .When I called at  his residential address , which  was also the business premises of  fresh prepared Ltd  at 133 Captain springs Road Te  Papapa  , Lynne and her boss  Terry Hay  became nervous.. for good reason.. Sanjay  was   fictitious and so was the liquidator.

Easily solved..  First they  sued me  for  harassment , even though I had never seen  , been near, spoken to  or enquired after Terry Hay  and had only  spoken to   Pryor  while attempting to locate  Sanjay Patel . They also laid a complaint against  my PI licence  and  also made a complaint to  MAF alleging that I had passed myself off as a Maf inspector. As if that was not enough  Hay  through his chinese girlfriend   placed three advertisements in the Mandarin times  which saw my phone lines  swamped and  my house  flooded with  would be renters.

MAF proved their incompetence in pursuing the claim. When I had called at the premises of Fresh prepared Ltd  to look for Sanjay I was told  that the company was now Salad foods Ltd.  I mentioned that the documentation on the wall was   in the  name of fresh prepared Ltd  and   commented on a  MAF transitional facility document  stating that MAF would be interested . ( I even  passed this information on to MAF .)

After a  lengthy investigation  and  A two inch thick file , Maf concluded ,  that I was  guilty  this was on the basis of one  person saying, “I can’t remember who she said she was but I remember that she was from MAF “    and so I was warned   for impersonating a MAF officer.

This suited    not only those who had something to hide but  it  also   worked in well  for  Neil Wells ,  legal  adviser  to MAF – who    could now point at my  tarnished reputation  to vindicate himself. (I have evidence which  connects Neil Wells  with  these   other litigants between the two of  them  they played me like a ping  pong ball between courts  of law ,   hoping that I would  break.) It was strange too that both these cases came up before the same judges.

Lynne comes up for sentence in JULY   , she still has active proceeding out against me, Proceedings  which she has not progressed  since the High court determined that   she and Terry Hay had to  provide discovery.  Now that she is officially guilty of  a crime , it  has become obvious that  she  sued me  to  keep me  away and silent   , unfortunately for her  the ministry of Economic developments  have  a very competent team.

It should be noted that David  Nathan   is the director Pri flight Catering and long time  co director with Terry Hay  .Nathan is  also  a  Director of the Auckland chamber of commerce, he has been aware and  has  been involved in the litigation against me , I  can only presume that he condones this type of behaviour. I  have also questioned this  action with the chamber of commerce   but I have been ignored  by Michael Barnett.

Wells was in court on Wednesday    when I appealed to the court of appeal. In time I will also be shown to be the   innocent party , it’s a hard battle when  you have to take on the old boys network  .  But in the end  I  have the evidence  and I will keep on  making as much noise as I can  until   this corruption is exposed.

20/03/2010

Will the politicians continue to turn a blind eye ? lets see who cares!

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,religion and truth — anticorruptionnz @ 3:31 am

Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 4:26 p.m.
To: ‘ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘colin.kingmp@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘sandra.goudie@national.org.nz’; ‘carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘cam.calder@national.org.nz’; ‘nathan.guy@national.org.nz’
Cc: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘Ian Wishart’; ‘lockwood.smith@national.org.nz’; ‘R Hide (MIN)’

Subject: animal welfare act

I am approaching  each of you because of the concerns  which I have with the  animal welfare act and the increase in penalties proposed with the new bill

I have also copied this to others  who should  be interested and this will also be posted on my anti corruption  blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

I made my submissions  to the select  committee which I believe are  very valid  , only to see them  rejected out right.

My submissions are viewable  at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/, I have  not posted the prosecution documents  on the  site and should you wish them  I can make them available to you

Issues I raised were

  1. The enforcement of the act by   approved organisations  –  In  once case this was  a non existent “ organisation” run by one person   piggy backing off a city councils  facilities , staff and  resources  which left nothing to be done but  collect ( into an account  on he managed )  the   donations and the court  fines which he himself prosecuted  as barrister  for animal welfare offences arising out of  the city  employees  duties which he as a city manager supervised .
  1. This man is also the person who wrote the No 1 bill   which  introduced the concept of approved  organisations into the act ,
  1. he was also employed as an independent advisor to the select committee for  legislation which was  later to be proved to be self serving and the intent of which I can prove was established  long before the bill was drafted.
  1. This activity is   considered  by  the untied nations to be a corrupt practice and  is cover dint eh  united nations convention against corruption  which NZ has signed but not ratified ( I guess I can see why..  apparently we condone  this type of action  only those who question corruption get  dealt to . )
  1. There is no requirement of a register for  people who enforce  the legislation  with wide sweeping powers  who can penalise people  and prosecute  in exchanged for  funds  being put into their “ charities” accounts. Unlike a register and strict conditions for  Private Investigators  who have no powers at all.
  2. the lack of accountability to the public  for the  funds which are  received through   these prosecutions ,  there is no other  agency  which  can prosecute people and keep the money for themselves.    It is a licence to print money  and while the cost of  lawyers are so high the economics of law enforcement encourages people to  take the economic route and enter a plea of  guilty  to something which they cannot afford to defend.

It is  also of concern that he select committee  apparently  feels that they  can dispose of submissions which   they do not  wish to consider , therefore they  can select the submissions before them , removing those  which should rightfully  be considered .

If New Zealand wants to move closer to ratifying the  united nations commission against corruption  then  people such as myself  should not   have to go through what  I have had to endure  in order to question  corrupt practices, neither  should my submission be struck out  when there is no lawful reason for doing   so.

The  select committee has options available to it  and   removing my submissions point blank is not one of them.

In the interest of a better New Zealand  and in  the interest of transparency and the fight against corruption I ask for your support.

23/01/2010

Transparency International New Zealand

Filed under: corruption,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:57 am

To the executive

I am now in possession of  my privacy act request   and wish to raise   some further issues.

From your web site I note that     you define transparency  as  follows   “Transparency” can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably.

This I believe  sums up exactly  what I wish to know . It is  obvious those  who made decision in the email poll must have  known more about me  than   what was on my application . I would  have hoped that if  nothing had been supplied to  the members  of the board that they would have responded that they did not know enough to make a decision and asked for more information and not provided a declinature.

When I was declined I   asked   if I could present my self at the AGM  so that the members could meet me and make an informed decision  I was advised    “The Board has also considered your request to attend the 2009 AGM of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc and your request has been declined”  that request  was made after the declinature  for membership  yet you have not included    those emails   in the   privacy request reply.

I also note  by the times and dates on the emails that  that  I was declined   before all responses were  received  , is that  ethical?

  1. The  email    dated 24 November The author has  written “ Ok I vote  yes for every one except   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and the third person  who is associated with them. My reason  for this is that they all have very questionable tactics for achieving their political purposes which includes making slanderous statements. “ please advise
  1. How this person  obtained the information to make this  statement, was it based on anything he has been told or  heard in the society , or was it information  obtained else where, if so which  agency did it come from
  1. i.      I would  like that member to  provide me with the information which  he  had available to him   on which he made that statements. I believe that this is information which   needs correcting as I have been unfairly judged.
  1. In view of that statement I  also wish to know if  that  sentiment  has been  expressed   verbally at  any  time to   influence the other   board members , and why is there a reference to three people   when  only Vince Siemer  and I were declined   (  yes we do compare notes )
  1. I was also with Penny Bright  yesterday and saw her   information  request , I wonder why  she did not  get a copy of that email  which  obviously bore her name . ( you may also want to tell her   why  hr application was considered and  declined   by a  member when it  had not been tabled. )

Further  In the interest of transparency  , I would  like to know

  1. Why you are withholding information ? and not being transparent
  1. What information the members had in front of them  when they made the decisions about  membership , did they  just have names   or  did the email sent to the board members  have  the application forms attached and a synopsis on each person? If  so what did they have  about me?
  1. I have been on a number of societies  and have always been aware that   the only rules  which are current  are those which are filed with the registrar and sealed by him.  I note that unlike other societies , your rules are not   visible   on the  Societies web site  . I note that you do  have   rules filed with the charities commission   there is nothing in these  guide lines which  state what the criteria  for membership is  and I therefore request  a copy of the criteria  which  I was judged against.  Why can some people  join and why can’t others .

My  work, my background and my  aims and  objectives are in line  with those stated in your objectives.  I do much to   expose corruption and   was heartened  by your  flyer which  states  corruption ruins  lives  Fight  back.

My  family has been devastated   because I questioned corruption.  I fought back   and the  very organisation  which encourages fighting back    will not let me  join  therefore   I cannot  I can pass on   what I have  learnt and observed in the practical sense of  fighting corruption.. its  like   sending the troops  into battle and then abandoning them.

I  did not wish to join  to push my own  barrow-  but for the good of the public , so that the work  that I am  doing has wider implications. I don’t have a political agenda  other than  having  stood for the Kiwi party in Epsom, I did not  join as a  Kiwi party member  and I am entitled to my own political affiliations as much as I  am assured  freedom of association ( bill of  rights )

I work at the coal face I work with the people to whom your principals  apply.

I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which  Transparency International  has not lived up to its own objectives, what is ethical about the manner in which I have been judged? Where is the transparency   ?

I can only speculate that you do not wish a person such as myself  to be  a member because I expose corruption and this  is not  in  line with the perspective  which you have  cast  on New Zealand internationally. The reality is that we are as corrupt as the next place   only we pretend  that we are not  corrupt   we    beat up any one  who pokes their head up and says “excuse me  but isn’t that wrong?”

I see peoples lives destroyed by corruption and firmly believe  that  if people stopped seeing  New Zealand as a  corruption free zone, they may actually start asking questions , questions which would reveal the truth  and   then they  would not be ripped off and their lives would not be destroyed.

Aside from my professional  life, I am a mother and a housewife  , I used to be a wife  but corruption  saw the end of my marriage when a lawyer  decided to re write my marriage  vows  because I was sued  for  speaking the truth  .( connection 2 )

I believe that if you sweep dirt under a rug  sooner or later  you  will trip over it  and it will come out. To get  stains out   there is  nothing like  sun  light . Perhaps those who criticise my methods  do not realise that the mechanisms  that we pretend  exist to deal with those issues  don’t  work  and when people are  being beaten up through the court and financially  crippled  because they questioned , have no alternative  but to use alternative methods  because no one else cares, the only ones that do  have   suffered the same and then we  get criticised  for associating with them –  no  doubt in an attempt to isolate the victims  so that no  one know  how many of  us there truly are.

For  Four Years I have been questioning

  • why   we allow people in New Zealand to write legislation  which will further their own business interests( and provide potentially  vast pecuniary income ) ,
  • why people in council can contract to themselves in a trading name
  • why it is Ok to make a  false statement to the minister to set up a law enforcement agency .
  • Why  they can  solicit  public donations  claiming to be a charity and deposit money in a bank account   only they can access
  • Why they can prosecute people   and offer diversion  for a donation to   their trading name  and their bank account .
  • Why they can use   council staff , facilities and resources  and claim to  be  charity  and compete with a charity
  • Why  the court can be used   to  buy silence .. I was also sued  for  attempting to locate a director and liquidator – the business partner  of David Nathan  ( chamber of commerce )  had a finger in the pie and funded the lawyers , he is now  a fugitive from our laws    but still used the court  to  beat me up  . see news item

I have  all the proof in the world  obtained  from the  government  departments and councils   involved, yet I am the one    who  was taken to court for defamation for  speaking the truth  and denied a  defence . When the judge could not   find enough evidence  he had to resort to Google .

Yes I can see why   you don’t want me   because   I believe that   what I have touched on is but the tip of a very big ice berg.see https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/the-unitec-connection/

It is good for business that people  believe New Zealand is not corrupt.. it bankrupts many  and  writes off debts.  I just wonder how many lives have been lost because of our corruption  and the  justice system  which  appears to support it.

I  guess your reply  will  show   prove if your  organisation is farcical or not .

In the interest of transparency   I have put this on my blog  to keep the readers informed. https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Blog at WordPress.com.