Anticorruptionnz's Blog

21/10/2012

AWINZ new evidence

Open letter to the minister of Primary Industries and  Minister for Local  Government.

Sir

AWINZ  operated from the premises of Waitakere city council in a manner where it appeared to be a CCO , it used council databases, vehicles , infrastructure, plant and  personnel for private pecuniary gain. It also attained  approved status under the  animal welfare act in a situation which was considered by MAF  at the time to be ultra-virus  and in a manner where council  officers were cut out of the loop.  While council denied that  it existed on its premises MAF were of the belief that the Council premises had been leased for $1 per year.

With the on-going saga of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )  I have been  putting together a chronology of documents which I have obtained under LGOIMA and OIA over the years  and in reading each in detail  I  have found  more documents   which shed  light on the issue.

Both MAF and  Council have not acted responsibly in investigating this matter properly .

Since these documents  came from your own  department MAF and from a local body ( Waitakere council ) it will not be difficult to  verify  everything I claim.

First of all it appears that Mr Wells was able to meet with ministers and high ranking MAF officials on a regular and  “ off the record” basis. I on the other hand can’t even get near my local MP and when I do  he  totally ignores the issues I have raised. He also had undue influence within  council and circumvented the  normal processes.

I have had 6 years of being fobbed off  but have a ton of evidence which supports my allegations but no one is prepared to look  at them.

To that end I respectfully request that I could meet with you or an investigator / lawyer appointed   by you  and  detail the  evidence which I have collated which  shows that the Minister  at the time and therefore the crown  was deceived  in the application for approved status for AWINZ.

To  help you make the decision to appoint an investigator / solicitor   it may be  appropriate for you to  look  at the  attached documents.

The document 13 nov 2008.pdf  was  written by MAF solicitor joseph Montgomery  , it is in response to a question raised by Neil wells as to  whether or not Waitakere animal welfare can be an approved organisation. The reply is that Animal  welfare Waitakere  cannot be   an approved organisation as it is not an “ organisation “  as intended by the act.

Since Mr Wells could put such questions to MAFs solicitors for  a legal opinion I request that   I may have the same privilege extended to me.

I f the following could be put to  either crown law or to   the MAF solicitor it may  help you see this matter   clearly.

My question is  In view of the following evidence   is “ could  AWINZ have been an approved organisation? “

On 22 November 1999 an application for approved status  was made   as attached. You will note  that this is the “ application”  which was relied upon by the minister at the time  which subsequently led to  AWINZ becoming an approved organisation under the act. See paragraph 3 18 december 2000.pdf

  •  This application  contains a blank trust deed.
  • The application is made in the name of an alleged  trust  but  the application itself has not been signed by any person .
  • Evidence obtained at a later time  proves that  no trust deed existed on  22.11.1999 and the statements  contained in the application were false  . trust deed.pdf
  • The  name of the applicant   could not   have been  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  as  this name was not defined and no legal person  using the name other than as a trading name existed.  No person using the name as a trading name was identified.
  • No subsequent applications were received and Mr  Wells gave a number of assurances  that the trust existed but avoided providing a deed.
  • Since the very nature of an  unincorporated trust means that the trust is only represented through its trustees,  there would have had to have been applications made which show that each and every trustee consented to the application for approved status and accepted  responsibility in their personal capacity.
  • Mr Wells was the only person involved in the application, He did not even sign the application but signed the  covering letter  claiming that he was a trustee.  Significantly I have located a  business plan which Mr Wells  drafted in  1996 (Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf) and shows the format which eventually  became AWINZ  and that this was about personal profit. The business plan  applies to AWINZ if the name  territorial  authority animal welfare services is substituted. And shows mr wells propensity to using trading names
  • Individuals could not be an approved organisation , It is therefore a reasonable assumption that  he wished the  minister to  believe that an organisation existed as individuals could not  be an approved organisation.
  • No verification of the existence of AWINZ was ever carried out  by MAF or the minister  and in  the audit in 2008 it was noted that AWINZ  operated seamlessly with Waitakere city council ( page 2 )
  • A lawyer versed  in company or trust law will be able to advise that  an entity which  has no independent legal existence cannot enter into contracts  , only real or legal persons can enter into contracts  and as such the MOU entered into    between MAF and  AWINZ was not worth the paper it was written on
  • Throughout  the application process MAF expressed their concern that the council becoming involved in animal welfare work was  not lawful , I was given documents which were edited BY MAF , I was fortunate enough to   find documents   at Waitakere city  which  had not been edited and from these documents the  edited comments  were  shown to be   as follows.
  • Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors.
  •  A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.
  • Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.
  • I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy.
  •  I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.
  • Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “
  • If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of the crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.
  • etc
  • The crown law office gave a legal opinion  saying that AWINZ could not have law enforcement authority and Mr Wells obtained an opinion through  the council dog control manager ( who is not a trustee f the cover up trust ) Wells told MAF   at the time  that he felt  that he could have gone to the council lawyers  but  chose to  go to Kensington Swann, this stamen makes me suspect that  the council  lawyers were deliberately  circumvented  . It also appears from the  documents I obtained that  that  Mr Wells   probably influenced  the  Kensington Swan legal opinion  as significant changes were made to the draft sent back to  Tom Didovich   manager Waitakere   dog and stock control  who routinely   consulted Mr Wells.
  • Maf  when facing the conflicting  legal opinions stated  “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court”

The conflicting legal opinions were never tested, Mr wells at this time  met  with the president of the  Labour party  Bob Harvey and from  that point on  the   approval for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority went before caucus and was approved by the minister  despite opposition by treasury and  MAF  .

AWINZ  was  not an organisation   and never functioned as an organisation . When I  asked questions as to its lack of existence  in 2006 Mr Wells called a meeting  the    meeting  notes  came to light in 2011 , despite an audit report   by MAF in 2009 recording that all governance documents had been destroyed in a computer crash .1.6  page 7  & (4.1.3 Record keeping)

The meeting minutes AWINZ MEETING MINUTES  10-05-06   show  that in 2006  the  deed which MAF had never received a copy of  was again missing.

It a had been  missing  on   25  march 2000.    When Mr Wells reported that he could not send a  copy of it to the minister as it had been sent off  for registration bottom of page 6 ( also note that  the deed  does not have a section 20(a) in it and  originals are never sent. )

However  when the matter came to court in 2008 there were two trust deeds  this happened after a judge had shown disgust in a copy which had been presented to the court but which looked nothing like the  copy  which I had been sent by  the alleged trusts  lawyers  trust deed.pdf   , and indeed there are now two trust deeds  the copy which MAF has  is different to the copy which I was supplied with. trust deed MAF  version

I have been conveniently made out to be the villain in the piece ,  I did not mean to question corruption but  I  asked simple questions as to why council  dog control officers were volunteering their time to  an organisation which was so indistinguishable from council that it looked like it  was one and the same.   I note that MAF made the same observation in the audit in 2008. Had either MAF or council  done the proper thing  and investigated it , this would have been resolved many years ago.

Instead it is apparent that  when I asked OIA questions that MAF consulted none other  than Mr Wells for responses  , thereby  giving him control over the concealment of  facts.

I believe that times have   changed and hope  that   a proper investigation can be conducted into  this matter  and that  a crown  solicitor  can look over this  email and properly advise you to the    legal issues involved.

In short AWINZ with its structure could not have obtained a $5 loan  from a bank but it could obtain law enforcement ability from the  government.

Advertisements

12/07/2012

Brookfileds Lawyers what are their obligations?

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 1:11 pm

The big question is  what are lawyers obligations to   corruption and fraud.  I   have always believed that is is spelled out in  the rules.

 

But  who will hold  them accountable to the rules. ?

the ongoing  saga of how to  deal with whistle-blowers  is   on http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/

 

22/03/2012

will you support the petition for an independent commission against corruption?

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 pm

Please down load a copy of the petition

and  support the call for an independent commission against corruption

You  can print the petition double sided  , then  fold it , stick a stamp on and send it  back to me

Or  you  can print it single sided  and   pop it in  a stamped  envelope and send it to

Grace Haden   PO Box 17463    Greenlane    Auckland

Click here  for the Petition for an independent commission against corruption

A great equation  for corruption is

Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability

This equation  when applied to any situation  will give indicators as to the risk of corruption.

read more http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/petition-for-an-independent-commission-against-corruption

to see why I am calling  for an independent commission against corruption please see my anti corruption blog

05/08/2011

council gets press release wrong !

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption,Neil Wells — anticorruptionnz @ 5:45 pm

Over the years I have been questioning the legal existence of AWINZ ,  I found it incredible that the so called CEO of  this non existent law enforcement authority  was one and the same person as the   manager of  dog and stock control Waitakere  city council.

Recently I have collated  news items  and found this one  which states “Waitakere Animal Welfare is the only local authority animal welfare unit in Auckland to have special delegated authority to investigate and prosecute animal welfare cases. “

I sent off a LGOIMA  request   and today received the reply   both documentsare here  and I have collated  the  questions  below .

It should be noted that  the  document is called a media release from Waitakere  city

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]

Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011 11:27 a.m.

To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

Subject: Official Information act request.

Good morning

I have  this week established that the Waitakere city   dog and stock control unit run a programme for the adoption of  cats.

Under the official information act please advise

1.            Under which act and section   this “service “ is facilitated.reply

From previous correspondence with Waitakere City Council you will be aware that prior to 30 June 2003 the council’s animal activities were undertaken in accordance with specific legal advice from Matthew Casey, which have previously been provided to you and that since 1 July 2003 the council has had powers of general competence under section 12(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 (2).

12 Status and powers

  • (1) A local authority is a body corporate with perpetual succession.

(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—

  • (a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
  • (b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.

2.            What consideration has been given to this function being Ultra Vires  for council reply See above

3.            How is the cattery funded  reply The cattery is funded by both rates and by revenue from adoption fees.

Approximately 60% from rates and 40% from revenue. Some of the labour contribution is on a voluntary basis

4.            Who pays the staff  looking after the  cats. reply  The council

I have also Linked  a newspaper item  and  raise questions with regards to   the prosecutions undertaken by the council under the animal welfare act

“Waitakere Animal Welfare is the only local authority animal welfare unit in Auckland to have special delegated authority to investigate and prosecute animal welfare cases “. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0912/S00311.htm

Under the official information act  please advise

  1. What funds  did the council  ( Waitakere ) receive for prosecutions under the animal welfare act   reply None
  2. How many prosecutions  were there   reply None
  3. Under which act and section was the  council able to prosecute. – reply Not applicable  
  4. How did the  animal welfare unit obtain  the delegated authority – reply Not applicable
  5. When  did the  animal welfare unit  apply to council to  act outside the scope of their local government  duty   and when was it passed though council. – reply Not applicable 

 additional comment from council  From your correspondence with Waitakere City Council, and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, over the years you will be aware that Waitakere City Council was never authorised by MAF to undertake prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act The statement to the contrary in the press release referred to in your email was wrong.

The  question  just has to be  how  can a press release from the council be so wrong???

05/02/2011

RNZSPCA Waikato asks ratepayers to fund their bad bookkeeping.

Filed under: AWINZ,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 3:58 pm

The headlines read Support swells for stray cats funding

Now there is a call for the residents of Hamilton to all contribute   a few cents a year to   the RNZSPCA, all this because the SPCA cannot   deal with the stray cats.

First of all  Only dog and stock control re the responsibilities of  Council   and unless  there is some  legislation which I am unaware of  it  has actually been ultra vires  ( outside the scope ) for councils to become involved in animal welfare .  Cats   unless  they are a health issue are not  the responsibility of council .

Now I have heard that the SPCA has adopted a no kill policy.. very good humane  wise  but not so good given that some cats  are  not the type of animal you could re home    who would  want a wild cat   ?

So the no kill policy effectively  does  two things..

1.       It fills up the cattery, requires more staff requires more funds, keeps more  friends family and associates employed    ( this used to be done by  volunteers) they spent an extra $100,000   in the past few years

2.       It is a reason to  plead  poverty and ask for more funds

.. Isn’t keeping a cat in a  cage at infinitum would be  cruel  and the animal  is better off being  put down humanely.  Neil Wells    who claims to be AWINZ  has told the charities commission that he has funded studies  on   the stress  suffered by animals  kept in captivity..  Yes he is the same Neil wells  who signed the deed   where the $400,000  was slipped sideways..  do you feel like you are going in circles???

The Waikato SPCA  trust and the Waikato RNZSPCA are two different entities..  One is a trust the other a society.  The trust has the societies fund and appears to act with it as it likes  it was going to be part and parcel of yet another  recently formed trust the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation   which   was going to build on the  land at wintec  .

The development officer at WINTEC is none other  than the husband of  mayor and chair woman of the RNZSPCA  Julie Hardaker .  Now as a lawyer  you would think that  she would be wanting to look a bit closer at  the $400,000  which has left a visible trail through the  charities commission and   Societies web site.

She wears both the hats which  should be  concerned  about the drain of these resources.   I have covered this story  earlier  in Secrecy breeds corruption

You need only look at the article Update on Waikato shows  who is  who on the   Waikato SPCA  to see who  was on the trust at the time.. How convenient that this proposed  vet school   was going to benefit the vet on the board of the SPCA

It should also be noted by any one looking at the accounts of the Waikato RNZSPCA  that the accounts   several years ago  represented a number of bank accounts, now only the working account is listed.  But it does not hide the fact that there have been significant donations to the  RNZSPCA in the form of bequests over the years.

The ral issue with  bequests is that   those who leave money to the SPCA or RNZSPCA are not specific  as to who should  receive the money  and  there is apparently constant battles   with regards to the terminology  used in the  individual wills as to  where the money should go .. It has the ability to go  anywhere  and  much does not go for the protection of  animals but into investment plans   and side trusts.

There is also no mention in the Waitakere RNZSPCA  accounts of the   money which the government gives to the RNZSPCA  for the  control of animals   . I believe that stays with the   main branch in  Auckland  and    does not   get  distributed to the  smaller societies.. This is so that they  can individually plead poverty  and   tug at the heart strings of the public.

Then there is  section 171  of the  animal welfare act where by the approved organisation , which the  Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA is , is able to  keep  the funds for  prosecutions.. it would appear that  the Waikato  RNZSPCA  dos not prosecute  although it is an approved organisation by virtue of  being a branch under the   RNZSPCA section 190 animal welfare act.

Last but not least  there are the  smaller trusts which  the money is  siphoned off into   in the case of the Waikato RNZSPCA  I have identified the one  above    about which there is more information in  Submission to the select committee where  I  wrote this

Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available from public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.

And in More submissions

“Transfers between charities could easily occur and   could be a way for third parties   to circumvent legislation by setting up as a  charity . The definition of  third party needs to be clearly defined.

1. On 15 May  2000 the  Waikato  SPCA trust was established .  This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA  Waikato. The other  trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .

2. Land  belonging to the RNZSPCA  was  sold  and  as a result $400,000 was transferred  from the  RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )

3. 12 may  2003 the  trust  amends the trust deed  and drops off the corporate trustee .

4. IN 2005   it  applies for  incorporation to  become  an entity in its own right  retaining the $400,000  and then becomes a charity .”

Other   blog postings worth visiting they are

Whats happening in the Waikato RNZSPCA – Parallels with AWINZ? this  article deals with $400,000  that was transferred from RNZSPCA Waikato to a trust which later  becomes a legal entity in it is own right  effectively having taken  $400,000 assets from the Waikato RNZSPCA

Waikato SPCA

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

See also The role of Tom Didiovich … Trustee of AWINZ and RNZSPCA officer

 

 

02/02/2011

Hot air and bullshit.

It  is official  New Zealand  functions on hot air and bull shit  protected by a very solid  brick wall of denial.

There are some  who belive that this is a veil of  corruption  but I am now firmly  of the belief that it is because it is because  apathy, arrogance, ignorance and incompetence rule.

The Charities commission has  accepted that the trust  which registered  with them  in  may 2007 called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  has more right to the name  than the company which holds the trade mark.

The fact that the  company took over from a legally registered trust by the same name appears to be  beside the point   and just because four people sign a document claiming that their trust had existed since 2000 then that too must be true.

Have the charity people not heard of verification????  And why shouldnt we all just use trading names  just think of the confusion.. we could all call ourselves John Smith .. we have name registers for a reason.  the reason I questioned  the  name animal welfare institute of New Zealand in the first place was because it was a law enforcement agency and Neil wells on the  application to the minister had stated that the  deed had been singed and that the  registration was in process.

Judge Joyce   decided that Mr Wells got a head of himself.. Try that  one  in court if you ever appear  before his honour..  Well your honour I was doing   100 in a 50 area because there was a 100 kph area up the road  I got ahead of myself.

Or  I wasnt shop lifting  I   simply got ahead of myself I left the shop without paying.

If it works for barristers  then it has to work f or the rest of.

It also worked for Neil wells when  he applied for  funding    from the community board he said there was a trust  but   there wasnt one.. Any one  else would have been  done  like a dog’s dinner    but some how Neil Wells  has immunity.  He can

How to write legislation for his own business plan

Use the court to conceal corruption

Got his  litigation funded through the public purse

Give  false end titles to the lord of the  rings movies

use any name he likes   and   cover up to such an extent  that   he undermines  the entire company  society and trust structures.

It would appear that Barristers  who are  members of the  laingholm Baptist church    can   do anything and be immune to the law  because  they can  spin their  story  and be believed on their word.

Who needs  evidence  when they have Neiil wells.. he will make it up   he is a master of spin.

Proof of this is  his statement to the court where he contradicted the Statement of Claim how can a person have two versions of the same story and have them both believed.

Even though I  told the truth     and had evidence of  the truth I  was accused.. but never  found guilty of  defamation.

The legal process was alos re written By wells and his acomplice  lawyer Nick Wright  who saw to it that I was denied  a formal proof hearing and then convinced the court that I had had one.

Poor Nick was so confused that in one submission  he   got himself all tied up   and  contradicted himself  But that Was Ok   that was acceptable.  para 56 and 62 of these submissions

I am the villian in the peace   I should have known better than to question corruption.

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.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.