Anticorruptionnz's Blog


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.


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.


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



[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

Further related posts are at


Pacific flight catering blog

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

From: Grace Haden []
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 2:33 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’

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

visit the Pacific flight catering blog


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


Questioning fraud gets higher penalty than those who are convicted of fraud

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 5:47 am

Open letter and Official information act request to  Mr Power and Mr Finlayson.

When Courts  give less rights  to, and are harsher on , those who question Fraud than they are on those who commit Fraud… how do we expect to  discourage Fraud?

In 2006  I asked questions of  Waitakere city council with regards to   a private law enforcement  authority of  which  was  operating  on council premises using  council staff , resources  assets and plant  and  collecting  donations which  went into a private bank account.

I had proved that this organisation did not exist as claimed and I asked questions of accountability to the public for what is defined in the united nations convention against  corruption  as a corrupt practice.  I was taken to court for defamation when all I had done was speak the truth and seek answers. This action was taken   to silence me and keep government agencies from investigating.. it has worked very well.

Rodney  Hyde   asked questions in parliament  and for this I was accused of continuing to defame ( when  there has never been proof that  I  defamed any  one – truth is never defamatory !  .

I was denied a defence and  the cost award of over $100,000 resulted in   excessive stress both  physical and financial which resulted in my marriage breaking down and my family being torn apart.

I reflect today on the penalty  I reflect today on the penalty  Roger McClay a convicted Fraudster  received . I have not committed a criminal offence and  asked the questions which the   public watchdogs failed to ask    and for that I have been penalised   more  than if I had been a  criminal.

Ironically  while I

  1. was denied a defence ,
  2. had no  formal proof hearing separate from the quantum hearing
  3. had my statutory admissible  evidence in mitigation used as  evidence of  further defamation
  4. Had judge trawling the internet for evidence
  5. Was   fined  but never found guilty of defamation   and the  statement of claim was never proved ,  never had any  evidence  presented  plaintiffs  who also avoided discovery.
  6. Was Arbitrarily found guilty  on the  uncorroborated evidence of the   plaintiff whose  fiction and spin  was accepted unquestioningly , the judge even making  excused for the plaintiff where there were  holes.

I took   my complaint to the police the serious fraud office but they were focused on writing the  complaint off despite the fact that  the  person involved

  1. Had a business plan to amalgamate  dog and stock control with Animal welfare work
  2. wrote the legislation to facilitate this plan  and wrote the provisions of approved organisations into the animal welfare act .
  3. As independent advisor to the select committee  and as Legal advisor to MAF   Provided guidance on the  bills which were read conjointly.( the bill which was to facilitate his business plan )
  4. Made a number of false statements as to the nature and existence of the organisation
  5. Made n application for approved status in the name of an organisation which did not exist beyond an undefined name being an impressive string of words being  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
  6. Failed to provide verification of the existence of the organisation to the minister of Agriculture when requested.
  7. Worked with a council manager ( his associate )  to mislead MAF as to the consents from  two councils
  8. Used council  staff “voluntarily” whilst they were  being  paid by council
  9. Used the councils  Logo to solicit  donations which were banked into an account only he controlled
  10. Became employed in  a situation described by the  certified fraud examiners associations as  occupational fraud   being “The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.”
  11. Used charitable funds to pursue me through court  in a process where he would personally benefit from the outcome.
  12. Misled the court in his evidence to the point that I believe was perjury   but despite   volumes of documentation ( the originals being on file at MAF )    contradicting the   transcripts of   evidence given by the plaintiff , I am told that I have no corroboration.

What it boils down to is that the  level of proof  for criminal charges  has a very high threshold  but  on the other side court action can be taken without any evidence at all   and by people  who have no standing. There is no requirement of accountability to the truth or requirement of he who asserts to prove.

There appears to be an approach  that while you are before the court on civil  proceedings the  various  agencies will not act for fear of  providing you with an evidential edge. This also serves very well for the  other party   who   then uses this time to  cover up  the offending and in some cases  extend the time frame so that the offence is in a time bracket where it is no longer prosecutable thereby avoiding  conviction  .

As an example of how the court is used to beat up     and financially drain  persons one needs only to look at the  matter  involving  Fresh prepared Limited. Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor  , lawyer Peter Spring  of  Keenan Alexander.  Read judge Harrisons judgement.  They then went on to  repeat this  process with me  to conceal the fact that they had fabricated  a  director and Liquidator.

Lynne Pryor   has now been convicted and fined $18,000 . Hay is a fugitive from our laws ( 22 charges fabricating evidence ) , Peter Spring  appears to be  protected by the Law society which will not act on my complaint  and conveniently   did not send me the letter which  gave me  a time frame to  appeal  so that  this time frame had passed before I became aware of the situation.

I am a Former Police officer, a Private Investigator and a member of the certified fraud examiners association. I am a verification specialist and an anti fraud and corruption campaigner.

I Note  that we have simplified the prosecution of many offences, ironically those under the animal welfare act which this   now retrospectively formed ‘organisation” administers.  The offences are generally strict liability   requiring no Men’s Rae. Similar many of our traffic offences are also in this category  and a momentary slip is enough to  attract a fine.

Fraud on the other hand is undefined in our statutes and we rely upon the 1961 Crimes act to deal with such matters.

Britain has similar problems  and   in   THE LAW COMMISSION report  the Lord Chancellor subsequently is quoted at   ( 1.2.) “We recognise that, in recent years, the public has at times felt that those responsible for major crimes in the commercial sphere have managed to avoid justice. Even when fraud is detected, the present procedures are often cumbersome, and difficult to prosecute effectively.”

New Zealand  has similar issues  and Britain’s Fraud ACT 2006  would go a long way to addressing the issues we have here  details of the act is located  at this  link

If we had a fraud act  similar to that of the UK  this man would have been  charged four years ago  with  three charges at least ,  which  are  created  in  section one of the act being

  • false representation (Section 2);
  • failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
  • abuse of position (Section 4)

My request for information  under the official information act is

Please provide copies of any research reports or investigations which have been conducted into the ever increasing incidence of   Fraud  ,

  1. its ability to be prosecuted ,
  2. the effect on its victims   and
  3. the  recommendations for  fraud prevention  on a national basis.
  4. Consideration for a fraud act
  5. The cost of fraud on society

Also  have any of the following been considered in any official research if so please provide the documentation.

  1. The number of Fraud victims who suffer depression and or commit suicide.
  2. Victim support for fraud victims.
  3. Consideration to  a  recognised definition   for fraud.
  4. Research into the use of the court to conceal corruption or to silence those who speak up .
  5. Research into depression and   suicide of persons  who  have  suffered financial loss due to fraud scams and  civil and or criminal court action against them.
  6. Efficiency of the  so called public watch dogs  .

With regards to  courts particularly the civil   jurisdiction

  1. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the evidence before it is factual
  2. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the plaintiffs  have standing.
  3. What research has been undertaken and what reports exist which show that case law and  process are of more significance that  the  rights to fair  hearing,  truth, facts and honesty.
  4. What  research and recommendation have been considered  to    make perjury  easier to prosecute  to ensure  accountability to the truth in   statutory declarations , affidavits and  sworn evidence

Fraud is a growth industry   is New Zealand wants to keep the perception of being least corrupt alive  it needs  to actively  punish fraud  and not allow its courts to  conceal  corrupt practices.

We are part of an international trend  we need to look overseas and see what is  happening.. copy cat  processes occur here and our laws  are not  able to cope with  these scenarios.


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


Verification of facts and accountability to the truth in our courts needs addressing.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:50 am

On 3rd july I sent the following email   addressed to the  Attorney General  and others

Corruption in New Zealand is alive and well as long as we continue to beat up those who speak  out.

I hope  Vince’s  incarceration  can serve as precedent  ..

Remember the old saying “sticks and stones will break my bones  and words will never hurt me”

Well if  Vince has been ordered to Pay $940,000   because some ones feelings were hurt because he spoke the truth     and  then  is repeatedly sent to jail for defying  the court    can you imagine   the penalties  which we could get from violent offenders, habitual  criminals  and repeated drunk drivers

I actually don’t know why we bother with crimes act offences.. deal with everything  in the civil section,  No proof, no evidence  , no rights    and penalties  which no criminal offending could even get close to .

I know   Vince did not have the ability to defend his truth , neither did  I.

Like him I questioned what  I saw as a  corrupt practice     but apparently if someone   who has lots of buddies in high places  does  something naughty  it’s Ok  and   the person questioning  gets  done in the courts  –  its common practice and  it is  accepted worldwide  .

Even Madoff  used that trick.. see people  who have been successful  at being naughty have  lots of money  to throw at the courts  to silence those who could expose them.  But our system allows that  we condone corruption to the extent that those who speak out are treated harsher than criminals.

Easier to shut up the  whistleblower than deal with the  issue.     And Evidence.. well the civil court doesn’t need any – the uncorroborated evidence of  the plaintiff is as good as gold.  And if you tell the court  you are exposing corruption the court says  there you have it  proof of defamation. …..

I see parallels with  the Madoff  matter and invite you  to  look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

There is a lot wrong   with our defamation laws   and the way the court deals with them. And the manner in which  it prevents  ordinary new Zealanders from questioning what they believe are corrupt practices.

Whistleblowers expose themselves to high personal risks in order to protect the public good. …They often end up in years of legal litigation, fighting for their own rights or for the case they have disclosed to be adequately investigated source Transparency international


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at

I have recieved this reply Attorney General

I have  followed this up with  the following

Thank You  Mr Finlayson

I   do hope that   you have  closer look at what is happening in our courts generally .   This week a woman is being sentenced for  fraudulent business practices.  Lynne Pryor   and her associate  Terry Hay ( who has absconded from our laws   but was still able to use our  courts to pursue me )  caused extreme stress to me by  bringing malicious charges, defending these  malicious charges  cost me some $50,000 .

Because our courts do not   function on verified fact  and  do not hold any one accountable for perjury  they have become a very good tool to  use by the rich to beat up those  who  have limited resources. Why use a base ball bat to beat someone up when you can  cause great stress over  many years and even bankrupt a person so that they cannot fight  back.

I consider this a gross  abuse of  our courts system. It can be easily overcome  by holding people including lawyers accountable to the truth  .

In the case of Fresh prepared Limited  I  could prove that the lawyers  who represented  the company had  used these tactic before.  I can prove this using the judges  decisions  who said that they had used the scorched earth policy   and had used  over the top actions.  This was in a case  which led  to my investigations into a   director and liquidator  who did not   exist.

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Terry Hay has fled the country but his business partner, Lynne Pryor, 45, has pleaded guilty to one charge of carrying on business fraudulently after an

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Lynne Pryor has been charged with 22 counts of attempting to defraud creditors and the Companies Office, by using false documents to create a false director

As a former Police prosecutor and  lay litigant I did not stand a chance in court, judges simply prefer to believe the so called officers of the court .Yet on the other hand  you hear that every lawyer lies  and that  this is a well known fact ( that statement came from a lawyer ) .

I was taken to court for Harassment. I had never seen  spoken to or  been near Terry  Hay , My crime was to try to  find the director and liquidator .

While the court had difficulty  accepting that a liquidator could   fictitious they  did not hesitate to  issue restraining order against me   when no evidence existed.

I am a verification specialist  and see that the issue we have in our legal system as in many government departments is that we do not know how to verify .

Anyone can file anything in our courts   there needs to be a requirement where by   lawyers  need to certify the truth of their clients  claims  and that the claim is  being brought correctly . Litigants in person  need to  do this as well.

Secondly any one swearing any  statutory declaration ,affidavit or giving sworn evidence  needs to be held accountable to the truth.

Currently it is accepted that people tell lies in courts   if the judges  make decisions on lies  then how sound are those decisions  and what does it do for justice.

Good decisions cannot  be made on fiction . And when  there is no accountability to the truth you  will not get the truth .

I can provide you with examples to  illustrate  that fictitious claims are brought to  court,  there are even fictitious litigants  .

The  police do not action perjury complaints, I know that because I have provided them with a very thick file  with a ton of evidence  yet  this is not enough to  counter  an uncorroborated statement in court.

The law society is less than Useless   complaints  against lawyers are simply not investigated.

It is time that we realise that lawyers are not investigators   and the Law society   does a very good job of looking after its own, occasionally it will hang out to  dry a lawyer who  they wish to dispose of  as an example  that they  are doing their  job.

Middle income New Zealand has no access  to justice  the court is being used as a bullying exercise , it is currently cheaper to  submit to unjustified demands than to stand up for your rights.

Those who are honest do not stand a chance in our courts     as the truth  is  inflexible and  a good manufactured story always wins out on the day. Doesn’t matter if the facts  don’t fit  no one will check and  no amount of proof  will be enough to prove  perjury.

Until our courts  ask for  evidence and insist on something more than the uncorroborated evidence of the person who stands to gain there will never be justice.

I am happy to  come to Wellington to meet with you and   guide you or your advisors through  the issues which I have experienced in my personal and professional capacity.


Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at


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.

Blog at