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???

25/06/2011

When there is no accountability for perjury what expectation is there of truth?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 5:28 pm

Today’s headlines are of  Mr Patrick O’Brien  who since  2007 has been trying to address Justice by confessing  to perjury  see   todays  herald article  .  In 2008  Police hired  Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate the allegations independently.

Squire was actually  hired in 2004  according  to the police web  site  to  look into allegations about the Police undercover programme.

Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.

He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago…

Now if  this guy is having so much trouble confessing     what would  it be  like if you   tried to report   Perjury or corruption…   well I  can tell you   that you are pushing it up hill and the  offender has a much better chance of taking you  to  court  than you  reporting the  corrupt practices.. I know because I have tried.

And that is how new Zealand gets to be the least corrupt.. the wheels turn  very very  slowly , I think we are still processing 1948 .

In the intervening time the   ombudsmen sit    in their 10 storey building which incidentally used to be a ground floor office  but   now  site  entirely on top  of the mountain of  complaints,  Mr Obrien’s  ombudsmen’s page  reflects  my view of the efficiency of the  ombudsmen’s office.

And in the mean time the power of the  blue uniform still prevails in court ,  any thin a cop says is truth .

The same effect is had  by having   letters behind your name  apparently a  university degree makes you  honest and trust worthy.

Imaging jack the ripper..  Now look what   a few extra letters do

Jack the  ripper MD .. must be a respectable mortician ,

and jack the ripper LLB   well he must be a reputable  lawyer  who slays his opponents.

So   instead of  sending our   criminals to  prison we should  send them to university or put them in a blue uniform  and they will  become   honest and reputable citizens  overnight.

Its time NZ got real   make cops  , lawyers  and anyone else for that matter  accountable  to the truth.. if we cannot have truth in our courts  then we cannot have justice.

But in the least  ( perceived ) corrupt country in the world   it is important to keep our stats   in line to   preserve the pretence.

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.

22/05/2011

Tony Molloy QC is so on to it!

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 7:14 pm

Tony Molloy QC has hit the nail on the head, I hope Government sits up and takes note. the news item Law system a ‘laughing stock‎  grew out of the  presentation he made to the conference I attended last week . He was  the highlight of the conference   in my view.

Truth , honesty and evidence play no part in our court process and lawyers who are prepared to tell lies  rule the day.

Court is all about strategy   those with the most money and the most lawyers  win no matter how  weak their case is.

5 years ago I questioned the lack of existence of an animal welfare  law enforcement authority , it was to have been the perfect fraud .Court has been used successfully to  prevent this from being exposed. Because the court was misled   no authority will act on it  .

How can the government give law enforcement ability to  something which does not exist , why did they not check  and why was the person  who had a business plan for this venture able to  write the legislation  be  employed as an adviser to the select committee and then  apply  for law enforcement ability in a fictitious name.

Why is still being covered up?   Is it ignorance is it bad law  or is our legal system and government corrupt ? or is it plain incompetence?

23/02/2011

Official Information act request Auckland film studios

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 7:22 pm

Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:17 p.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Michael.Goudie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Hulse@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Webster@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Wayne.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘jross@jami-leeross.com’; ‘Des.Morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘John.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sandra.Coney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Noelene.Raffills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mike.Lee@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘George.Wood@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Arthur.Anae@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘alf.Filipaina@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Ann.Hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Richard.Northey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sharon.Stewart@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’
Subject:Official Information act request Auckland film studios

 

Could you please by way of OIA provide   the following documents.

1.       Documents and discussion papers which were the basis of the cost benefit analysis , and  the cost benefit analysis  on which   Waitakere city  based its decision to purchase  the ENZA cool stores for  film studios

2.       The name of the law firm which  provided a legal opinion as to the purchase and  associated involvement  in Film studios   being  an activity in which council could engage  and that this was not  ultra vires and had a mandate for such an activity.

3.       The  constitution of WAITAKERE PROPERTIES LIMITED  at  point 1A.1 states that its activities are restricted to obligations imposed upon Local Authority Trading Enterprises by the Local Government Act 1974 ,

a.       Please provide documentary evidence that these obligations were  considered  when deciding to Purchase the  cool stores  and   in operating  film studios.

4.       In the 2009 Annual report  Waitakere city Holdings Limited as at 30 June 2009     reports    with regards to Prime West Management Ltd  on page 45    “The company is insolvent and the investment has been written down to nil.”  And page 49 this company is now insolvent.

a.       Please supply all documentation with regards of an advancement of   funds of $49,902 from Waitakere properties Limited to prime west management which was insolvent at the time.

b.      The  documentary evidence  detailing the reasoning and consideration  By Waitakere city in   providing  such a sum to a company in which the shareholding was  $400

c.       Please provide all supporting evidence, agreements etc which provided for this advance and required repayment of this sum during the 2010 financial year.

d.      Documentation which considered the amalgamation of an insolvent  company  with a solvent one  .

e.      What  investigations  the council conducted  into    the insolvent companies cause of insolvency  and any documents which show  why it was insolvent.

5.       At the meeting 25 may 2005  from which the public was  excluded  , Mr  Kenneth Michael Williams was permitted to stay  he was allegedly eligible as a trustee of enterprise Waitakere, Please provide any  disclosure made by  him of  his relationship with   the advisers  B & A Management Limited and therefore the potential   conflict of interest ( Mr Williams was appointed  director of Prime west Ltd  on 9 may 2005, who were the successful   party to  enter into a partnership with council )

6.       Please advise the names of the unsuccessful parties who  were contenders for the partnership  and the considerations which were  given to  excluding them .

a.       Please also provide documentation  as to  why these parties had not  been given the same opportunity as the successful company Prime west to have representatives  present at the  confidential council meetings.

7.       The council ultimately entered into  an agreement with  Prime west Limited  a company which had been set up by the  “ advisors “  and  in which the advisors   had significant control , Please  provide any disclosure  documents made to this effect by  Mr Coldicutt , and Maher of B&A Management Limited .

 

8.       In selling the land and buildings to the  company  what consideration was given to  options such as tender, please provide all documents which discuss this option.

9.       On 28 June 2006  Council accepted Tony Tay group And its associated  entities  as shareholders in Prime west.  The reality is that  Tony Tay Trust   which was not owned by the Tony Tay group ( and therefore not associated )   became the investor  and then  on sold to  Tony Tay  Films  in which  there were   shareholdings by 3rd parties.

a.       Please provide  documentation which discusses entering into an agreement with one legal entity and then  proceeding to act with another entirely separate  entity.

b.      Documents  with regard to any   diligence done as to whether Tony Tay trust was owned by Tony Tay and his wife or if they were acting as trustees for  person and persons unknown.

c.       Discussions and documents which  considered the appropriateness of Kieran Boru FITZSIMMONS, the on site manager  also being a part owner of the property through his shareholding through his company REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ) LIMITED  in Tony Tay film Limited.

10.   On 6 March 2007, 60,000 shares were  transferred from Waitakere properties Limited to Waitakere city council, please provide the minutes of the council meetings, or any correspondence  which facilitated and explained  this  transaction .

 

11.   The documentation which backs up any decision from council   or  notification given to council  on  or about 13 April 2008 that  Kensington swan the councils  solicitors to become the  registered office and solicitors for  Prime west Ltd

a.        and   considering that  Kensington Swann were the solicitors for council   was it seen as a conflict of interest that  Kensington swan was also acting   for a company in which council was a minority share holder.

b.      Please provide any lawyers accounts   for Kensington swan  and itemised   charges  associated  with this joint venture which was paid out of public  funds.

12.   Any documentation in which  Mr Graeme  Wakefield   declared  is interest in WAITAKERE CORPORATE LIMITED and states the purpose of this company.

I look forward to  your response  this is a matter of public interest   On the one hand  our water supplies are being considered for  privatisation yet on the other hand the council runs movie studios.

I am particularly  concerned  with the nature  of the trading in this matter as it appears to  reflect the same  ignorance of what constitutes a company and  a trust as which occurred when the council allowed a council  manager Mr wells to contract to himself  for  animal welfare services through the name of a  fictitious trust , which also happened to be involved in monitoring animal action in the film studios  , this action was carried out by Mr Wells Wife.

It appears to me that   Waitakere city was  very loose about  what constituted a legal entity  and who represented it, I   wish therefore  to highlight the past so that the opportunity for third parties  to profit from the public  will not be  something  which is capable in the future.

Please find here with  a full chronology , those mentioned in the chronology have been shown to be connected   and for your interest I have also attached news item Tax loophole no sin, says charity . The recurrence of biblical names, the associations of the same persons  interlink   this with  a group of people who share the same religious  practices    this could be coincidental   or maybe not.

It appears that this is all about using  public funds, public funding and tax avoidance.  The council has to be careful not to be associated with this or be a vehicle for  this due to  many councillors  not being  up to speed  with regards to  company and legal structures  and the principals  of transparency and corruption.

In the interest of transparency I will be posting this on  My blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

17/02/2011

Axminster system.. we sweep it under the carpet..then we don’t have corruption.

This week   I received back several official information act requests    in one I had asked Mr Key about state capture.. this was sent on to   MAF to answer.. Of course they didn’t know  .

I had also made two further OIAs  which came back  with very interesting results   this document is worth a read OIA dated 14 feb

I have now made a request for the ombudsmen to have the whole thing investigated  considering  it was brought to the attention of MAF in 2004  that AWINZ did not exist  it has been allowed to continue to  trade through its agent   Mr Wells, with seemingly no accountability.

The work I am doing with Gary Osborne  who runs the accountabilitynz Blog is  interesting and  it would appear that   this all ties in neatly with   public   facilities being used for private enterprise .. known overseas as state capture.

But if this is not recognised in New Zealand as a  form of corruption  then  it must be ok

and  if it is Ok then it is not corruption

hence we have  no corruption

Those in control of councils and  in places of control can quietly rip off the tax payers and rate payers  and ask them to pay more  while  enforcing laws on them..  keeps them busy and distracted while those at the  top of the food chain stuff their pockets with proceeds from  the public dollar.

I just love  Gary’s  take on it    In  most parts of the  common wealth  our law  system is based on the  Westminster system   but in New Zealand we have the Axminster system.. that is we sweep it under the carpet.  It  is apparently  condoned  by all except house wives  who know that  the mess will spill out   and its best to deal with dirt in  small manageable portions.

But we have a good back up system  if any one  speaks out  or draws comment on the bulge under the rug  we  sue them . Not a problem    just burden  them with  financial costs and the economics of our  over priced under resourced justice  system which does not rely on facts and evidence will  take care of the rest.

Perjury is not an issue   as it is not enforced by the police    and you can always  say that the person who drew comment on the bulge in the carpet   was vindictive..  .heaven forbid  if they  can speak the truth and be believed  our bulge could be  EXPOSED.

Its time to get accountability. Time for our useless public servants to start earning a wage,  they  are there as our representatives they are there to  protect  our society ,   but somehow think they are  there to  get a wage packet and  get  part of the action of what ever is going.

But how do we stop it   when all those charged with being a public watch dogs don’t?  look at this clip its happened before  its happening here

Its time for   the average New Zealander to get his head out of the sand   and speak up . its our country and were being fleeced.

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.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.